The "Great Emancipator" also suspended habeas corpus in 1861, at which time he had many dissenting politicians arrested to shut them up, and declared that anyone discouraging enlistment in the army or who spoke out against the war in general would come under martial law. Some great emancipator, hmm? Jail anyone who says something you don't like? Execute anyone who won't fight for your cause? Some great president. Luckily, all of that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan.
Our most honored leaders have often broken our most cherished laws. What does this say about us as a society and as a species?
And the social security number was NEVER to be used for identification purposes. For the first several years the cards were issued, it said right on the card, "not to be used for identification". Why? Those who created social security saw the inherant danger in boiling each citizen down to a series of numbers.
I am a human being with dignity and grace; not data to be stored, filed, and retrieved.
Not sure if you picked it up from somewhere, or if you came up with it yourself, but it's an excellent quote; one of the best I've seen yet in this whole liberty vs. security debate.
""...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety." "
Why don't you just intercept their constituents' phone calls, email, web traffic, faxes, pages, and all other forms of electronic communications, and then you'll know exactly what they want.
"In the extreme, this would be companies finding out what things are important to you, and using those things as ways of manipulating you. Advertising becomes _very_ effective when the advertiser knows what your weaknesses are."
That being why many marketing gurus have psychology degrees. People don't have anywehre near as much free will as they'd like to believe. We're creatures of habit and instinct, and we're very easily manipulated.
"Consider trying to backup an 80 gig HDD onto 250meg zip disks...... that would really suck, or even onto 650-700 MB CD-Roms, that would still take 115 disks... at a cost of 50c each that's still 50 bucks, and when you consider the weeks time needed to make the back up... you see my point, the hard drives are cheaper backup storage than most other solutions"
I have approx 630GB of disk storage and less than 100GB free. Backups are not an option, however thanks to File Scavenger, I'm at least able to run JBOD arrays without worrying about losing data. I just went through a clean install as my system partition became completely corrupted. Bought this product to try it out, and voila, everything recovered nicely. (Sorry kiddies, I'm pretty sure it only works on NTFS) Suddenly, I'm not nearly so worried about backups. (yes, I'll plug software that TRULY impresses me) I was considering tape backups, but I can see something going wrong on tape 15 or something. I could buy more hard drives, but I end up needing the space anyway. Video editing and database work tends to eat up HUGE amounts of space.:/
If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for backups, be my guest. I've considered DVD-r's, DVD-RW's, CD-R/W's, Tapes, and more hard drives, but nothing seems to really offer a solution.
P.S. Before the trolls/kids start with their "that's a lot of pr0n d00dz!", I have a small amount of porn, only a few gigs, so chill.
Assuming we granted you all these things as being valid/correct (and most have been refuted by a previous reply), you've said nothing about the other 90 features that Mozilla either does better than IE, or that IE completely lacks. Let's assume that 50 of these are rarely used or are trivial. We're left with about 40 nice features that IE either lacks or impliments poorly.
I'd love to see you either respond to the other 90 listed items you never mentioned, or boil the list down to the 40 strongest points and take a shot refuting them. Mozilla is far superior in my opinion, if not for the features, then for the stability and security.
How sad. You don't 'talk' to a support technician with Mozilla, but you can usually get in contact with the person who actually wrote the code that's giving you trouble. Personally, I find this preferable to sitting on hold, paying through the nose for phone support, and talking to someone who hardly has the technical knowledge to use a computer, let alone code a browser. Mozilla's problems and bugs are well-documented; IE's are well-hidden. Mozilla has an excellent secuity track record; IE's security track record can be seen by the seemingly endless stream of advirories and patchs.
It's a shame that these Fortune 500 companies choose inferior products with inferior support on the basis that they're able to hear a human voice when there's some sort of problem; regardless of whether or not that human voice has the slightest understanding of the problem, the solution, or even the product.
"To the extent that people read it and gain some insight into what Microsoft is actually thinking about Linux and Open Source Software, it's useful. To the extent that anyone draws a conclusion from this document like "we've got Microsoft on the run", that's just idiotic."
Thanks for clearing that up for us. I suppose we can now just do away with the comments section of/.; doesn't seem to be needed anymore.
(From m-w.com) Editor: 1 : someone who edits especially as an occupation
Edit: 1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation
I suppose it just bothers me when those we expect to be acting at least semi-impartially while in a professional capacity (an editor for instance) decide to arbitrarily prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion. Editors often add extra information or links (when publishing online) before publishing in addition to the usual typo/spelling-corrections and such, but I suppose I'm just not too thrilled seeing opinions cut down as "idiotic" within the posting of news. To the best of my knowledge, editors are allowed to post in the comments section, and I certainly wouldn't complain about seeing the above statement there, where I believe it belongs.
What you need to understand is that this strategy works for us. Every time a ridiculous or outrageous law is passed in favor of the entertainment industry, it brings us one step closer to the massive US consumer backlash that ends up sending the largest and most powerful companies running for cover. The politicians in Washington are just fine with taking money from these people when almost no one hears about what the entertainment industry is asking for, but when citizens get up in arms and the media picks up the story about how consumers are getting screwed, they start worrying about the next election. What you'll see then is a law or series of laws that either partially or entirely bankrupt much of the entertainment industry, seeing as they're throwing so much of their capital into controlling consumers.
I used to get mad about things like this, but now I sit back, laugh, and wait for the backlash.
"Sounds like they want stem piracy and to increase cash flow by resales because of "SCRATCHED" CDs."
That's ok with me, just so long as they remain consistant with their policies on CDs. According to the music industry, I don't own that CD, only a license to listen to the music it contains. Therefore, if my disc becomes unusable, I demand an immediate replacement so I may continue to exercise my rightfully purchased license. To demand further payments so I may exercise rights already granted to me sounds like extortion to me.
Re:Could Philips sue for Trademark infringment?
on
BMG Stops Producing CDs
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"BMG may be pretty soon recquired to put a special label on CDs, indicating that the CD is crippled."
Might I suggest a 3" x 3" bright red skull and crossbones?
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!!
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Recent Polling Data:
89% of voters polled said they supported legalizing Marijuana.
34% of supporters forgot to vote
13% supported legalization, but picked the wrong option
22% of supporters were unable to make it from the couch to the voting booth, collapsing at differing points between.
18% of supporters were too unmotivated to leave the house
7% were unable to complete the ballot due to incredibly poor depth perception
6% entered the voting booth, but forgot why they were there and thought they were in the shower
13% of those who thought they were in the shower began masturbating
" Is it not reasonable that the FBI, if it gets a court order, can bug a computer or a telephone? Is./ really against bugging in any situation?"
Of course we're not against law enforcement monitoring communications between individuals who are under investigation so long as they show just cause to a judge and receive the appropriate warrents. The main problem I have with this is that what you read is very close to what you think. I don't believe that our government has the right to tell us which books are ok, nor do I believe they have the right to judge what we read or think. It's absolutely impossible that reading something can lead to imminent danger for yourself or others. You might use knowledge gained from a book to do harm to yourself or others, but that's a decision not affected by what you've read. If you believe it's ok for the government to look into what you read, what do you think about the government surveilling your thoughts as well? Think that's silly? NASA doesn't seem to think so.
"If such power is misused then it is cause of great convern, but the article provides no evidence that this is the case."
Quite alright, I'll provide the much-anticipated evidence. The FBI began its campaign of illegal monitoring and other abuses back in the 1960's during the civil rights movements. Organizations such as SNCC were routinely infiltrated by FBI agents while many of the leaders were being bugged and had their phones tapped; most of it without even so much as a warrant. The abuses continued until the 1970's when major restrictions were put in place on the FBI's domestic spying capabilities. The culmination of these efforts was the 1974 Privacy Act. (back then, the names of laws weren't usually misleading like they are now). What's been going on lately? Well, just recently, the FISA court (secretive court created to deal with foreign intelligence gathering on US soil), in an unprecidented move, blasted the FBI publicly for abuse of the FISA act, lying to the FISA court about evidence and such, and a whole host of other things. They even barred one agent from ever again appearing before the court due to his consistantly inaccurate depositions and testimony before the court.
What's my point? The FBI has, for the last 40 some-odd years shown a constant disregard for laws and civil liberties, as well as the Constitutionally-protected rights of citizens; especially with regard to matters of free speech. The evidence against the FBI is very damning, and the FISA court's anger with the FBI clearly shows they have no intention of staying within the limits of the law, even now. Now, we're giving the FBI more powers of surveillance? The USA PATRIOT act basically removed all the restrictions placed upon the FBI in the 1970's, and gave them a whole host of new powers. Did you know they can now look through your financial and banking information without so much as a visit to a courthouse? The book-bugging escapade appears as though it'll require judges to get rubber stamps made up just for the occasion. The fact that the entire process is secretive is even more frightening. As was said in a recent court ruling, "democracies die behind closed doors." But like I said, I don't think they should be able to monitor what you or I read anyway, so this is all moot.
"Well, it is pretty obvious that if you are going to bug something you can't tell the world what you are doing."
While this is correct, we also assume that when law enforcement takes an action, especially one which has the potential for massive abuse, there's going to be some kind of oversight. The USA PATRIOT act removes virtually all oversight, granting the FBI unprecidented free reign to spy on Americans.
I don't know about you, but I really don't want my government spying on me.
If anyone's interested in a little honesty-in-politics, we should rename the "war on terrorism" to "The War on Freedom and the Average Citizen", and then we should rename the USA PATRIOT act to the "Dividing and Frightening America by Providing Inappropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Freedom Act". Hmm, DFAPITRIOFA - perhaps not the best acronym, but certainly more accurate. USA PATRIOT act... What's patriotic about shredding the US Constitution?
Ahh, but why does one learn martial arts? So he doesn't have to fight. YrWrstNtmr-san, you must learn value of showing your enemy amazing and overwhelmingly superior firepower before the battle. Will you fight against a man who just liquified 50 other guys while you were loading your gun? Or will you raise the white flag and wait to be sent to one of those lovely American prisons with the hot meals and warm beds?
How does he carry the rounds? I don't know, ask an engineer; I'm just the Four-Star General with the great strategy ideas!;)
They're not 'granted', we took them in several massive and very costly wars starting in the late 1700's. This is one of the problems with how people view our current government, and any government for that matter. The US government derives its power solely from the will of the goverened. Every so often, we put certain people in positions of power with the understanding that they will carry our out will. We are granted nothing by our government, our government is granted privileges and powers by us.
"this also means that they get granted to people who would attack the US from within."
Each person is granted certain unalienable rights by their creator. The extra rights we enjoy in the US are granted to all law-abiding citizens. Those who abuse those rights and use them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others lose some of them (ie. persons in jail). You cannot bar rights from those "who would do harm" until they've done harm or show imminent intent and ability to do so. To try to do otherwise is both futile and undermines the very principles upon which our judicial system founded. Those who do it in the name of "protecting Americans" are cowards who lack the courage and conviction to stand up for what is just.
"how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking?"
They're not, and that's why I have a problem with them monitoring what you and I are reading; it gets very close to what you're thinking. Policing thoughts is something so detestible to the senses of human freedom that it has no place beyond the depths of the Orwellian hell which we find ourselves so perilously close to experiencing first-hand.
"2 wars and innumerable conflicts have been fought by the US to "preserve and maintain our way of life", you can't get rid of that and still call yourself an American."
Our way of life? Are you joking? Our way of life shouldn't be even close to what we're worried about. How about our principles? How about beliefs (secular)? How about our childrens' future? How about our ideals? Our way of life can always be improved, but our ideals are just that; ideals. As for our way of life, if we stand firmly grounded in our ideals and beliefs, our way of life is intrinsically preserved. Our freedom is our strength; our courage is our protection; our ideals are the life through which we live eternally.
I agree we need to protect ourselves from our enemy, but restricting the rights and liberties of Americans is NOT the way to do it. Nor is ubiquitous surveillence. Not only that, but none of these things will help us in the end. Most of the people who are involved in terrorist (and I use that word sparingly) plots and such against America grew up in countries that have more restrictions on freedom and more surveillance than you or I can possibly imagine. They've lived their lives bypassing security, surveillance, and other measures. Israel has security tighter that most Americans dream of, yet they must endure regular suicide bombings. Ask someone from Israel who's lost a loved one to a suicide bomber what super-tight security is good for; you'll have no shortage of people to talk to. You really think checking reading habits is going to help? Certainly checking mine doesn't help you; merely gives you more irrelevant data to sort through. Aside from that, just what the hell gives you the right to monitor what I read and judge whether the books I'm reading are ok?
Most of the changes being made will do nothing to deter those who are determined to do us harm, and many of the new policies do nothing more than overwhelm authorities with data completely irrelevant to terrorism; only relevant to societal control. If you want to control what I think or control what I say, you're in for a big surprise. Myself and many like me will MUCH sooner die resisting you than let you destroy the freedoms and ideals preserved by the blood of the thousands who've defended that in which they believed and held dear. If you'd like to kill those willing and ready to defend their rights, you can start with me. To destroy the freedoms of Americans in the name of America is to disgrace our forefathers, our flag, our Constitution, and everything those things represent. To those like Ashcroft who commit these heinous acts, you are dishonoring the American government, your position, and yourself as an American. And you should know that the American people will not tolerate but so much of your totalitarianistic edicts before they rise up against you.
Protect us from those who would do harm to America; do not "protect us" from ourselves, and do not believe for a moment that we will happily trade our freedom like candy for your bitter and distastful tyranical "protection".
The Sum of All Fears had a lovely scene showing a little bit of how the system works. Radar tracked, took a second for the computer to react, gatling guns layed down fire knocking incoming missles out long before they reached the ship. Problem was, in that movie there were 9 incoming at once, and two or three actually hit the ship. Looked quite cool though, and I kept thinking that we need to get those guns in the hands of ground troops. How would you feel about shooting at an enemy who has a gun capable of firing 4500 rounds per minute?:)
"That's what the main problem with NJ is... too damn many laws and regulations. The state govt there has run amok with overbearing, overzealous, overregulation of anything and everything they can think of, "
Not so much the state, as the townships. The townships seem to think they've got the power to do whatever they wish, and the state doesn't step in until either someone complains loudly enough, or the township does something against a state law. The NJ DMV is about the worst I've ever seen for organization and such, but in all honesty, I had my license transfered in about two or three hours when I got here, so I can only complain but so much. What's really funny to see is when a large company comes in and completely disregards all the local townships laws and such. Lowes recently decided to place a new location in Lumberton with a hiring office in Mt Holly. They got the usual building permits and such, but never even bothered to ask either township if it's ok, let alone went to a township meeting to discuss the location, parking, etc with the board. The result? Nothing; they're far too large a company for either township to mess with. In many of the townships, if you want to start a business, you have to meet with them and explain what your business is doing, what location you want to move into (even if the building is already there), and talk about a few other things, such as whether you have adequate parking. They then either approve or decline your request, and that's that. Sound silly? Well, it is, and I have a feeling it'll only take one court case to remove that "power" from the townships.
"NJ isn't such a bad place when you actually take a turn off the NJ Turnpike.
Which exit?"
Any exit, so long as you travel a few miles away from the Turnpike. What most non-NJ residents don't realize is that most of the state's income is Atlantic City (gambling) and the NJ Turnpike. Look on a map sometime and perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about.
By the way, not only is our gas cheap (and full service), but we also have numerous no-tax zones throughout the state (places without sales tax).
"such as some vernacular -- 'forgetaboutit' and 'whaddyagonnado,' etc."
My friends in Baltimore say those words also. Do they have a "joisey" accent as well?
"perhaps what you meant to say was that the classic Jersey accent is not present in all of Jersey."
This is correct. Obviously, everyone in the world has some sort of accent, as there's no 100% accepted way of saying any given word. That being said, what I meant by my posting was that the accent most people expect from an NJ resident doesn't exist; at least not in any large area (I've yet to hear it).
One thing that is said in some places (mostly Browns Mills) is "youse guys"; which just annoys the shit out of me. But I don't hear that more often than maybe once every couple of weeks.:)
"Typical American attitude (I can say that, I'm one too). Everybody has an accent -- just because you sound like the people you see on TV doesn't mean that you're talking the normal way and other people have a weird accent that's a deviation from that. Sorry, just... no.
Anyway, how about instead of the usual Joisey jokes, we make fun of you all for being too damn defensive?"
What I meant by the posting was that the ridiculously strong accent that most people seem to think exists in NJ doesn't exist; at least not in any large area (I've yet to hear it). Of course there are small differences in the way people say certain words; you get that in any area; any part of any state in the union. I moved here after living most of my life in Maryland, and when I got here, I didn't notice any kind of strong accent coming from anywone; that was my point.
As for being defensive; I wasn't. I was, in fact, pointing out a silly, but commonly held misconception.
It's happened twice in one month, and neither time were any lives in immediate danger. As for the future, the FCC is stepping in and meeting with local officials to work out a solution, so I wouldn't worry about it. From everything I've seen, the FCC doesn't screw around when it comes to 911.
I'm guessing the moderators who modded that up have never actually been to New Jersey. Now, for one thing, the Meadowlands (up north close to NYC) is the only place that's even remotely smelly or of poor conditions in NJ that I've seen so far. Much of southern NJ was made up of small farming communities until recently when actual townships started forming. Most of NJ is now just that; small townships with hardly anything in between but trees, connected only by small (two lane) roads. I just moved to NJ a few years ago, and I'm not offended by comments - just the ignorance that their content shows. If you want to make a joke, call the people here simple, or make a comment about how almost everything is closed after 6pm, or how there's so much farmland. There's no accents in New Jersey; you're thinking of certain sections of NYC. These are (for the most part) normal, simple people who are MUCH friendlier and happier than the people from the DC-metro area. No one here says "joisey", we say "jersey". I must admit, however, that I was a bit surprised when I moved here from Maryland and couldn't find someone with any accent for a while.
Oh, and by the way, our gas is cheaper than most places in the country, and it's full service everywhere (state law). When my relatives in MD were paying $1.90 for gas, we were paying $1.25. NJ isn't such a bad place when you actually take a turn off the NJ Turnpike.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Great Emancipator" also suspended habeas corpus in 1861, at which time he had many dissenting politicians arrested to shut them up, and declared that anyone discouraging enlistment in the army or who spoke out against the war in general would come under martial law. Some great emancipator, hmm? Jail anyone who says something you don't like? Execute anyone who won't fight for your cause? Some great president. Luckily, all of that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan.
Our most honored leaders have often broken our most cherished laws. What does this say about us as a society and as a species?
And the social security number was NEVER to be used for identification purposes. For the first several years the cards were issued, it said right on the card, "not to be used for identification". Why? Those who created social security saw the inherant danger in boiling each citizen down to a series of numbers.
I am a human being with dignity and grace; not data to be stored, filed, and retrieved.
"It all makes sense folks. The truth is out there."
;)
No, you are "out there".
"If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure."
Not sure if you picked it up from somewhere, or if you came up with it yourself, but it's an excellent quote; one of the best I've seen yet in this whole liberty vs. security debate.
""...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety." "
Why don't you just intercept their constituents' phone calls, email, web traffic, faxes, pages, and all other forms of electronic communications, and then you'll know exactly what they want.
Oh.. wait..
"In the extreme, this would be companies finding out what things are important to you, and using those things as ways of manipulating you. Advertising becomes _very_ effective when the advertiser knows what your weaknesses are."
That being why many marketing gurus have psychology degrees. People don't have anywehre near as much free will as they'd like to believe. We're creatures of habit and instinct, and we're very easily manipulated.
But we already have the cartoon network...
"Consider trying to backup an 80 gig HDD onto 250meg zip disks...... that would really suck, or even onto 650-700 MB CD-Roms, that would still take 115 disks... at a cost of 50c each that's still 50 bucks, and when you consider the weeks time needed to make the back up... you see my point, the hard drives are cheaper backup storage than most other solutions"
:/
I have approx 630GB of disk storage and less than 100GB free. Backups are not an option, however thanks to File Scavenger, I'm at least able to run JBOD arrays without worrying about losing data. I just went through a clean install as my system partition became completely corrupted. Bought this product to try it out, and voila, everything recovered nicely. (Sorry kiddies, I'm pretty sure it only works on NTFS) Suddenly, I'm not nearly so worried about backups. (yes, I'll plug software that TRULY impresses me) I was considering tape backups, but I can see something going wrong on tape 15 or something. I could buy more hard drives, but I end up needing the space anyway. Video editing and database work tends to eat up HUGE amounts of space.
If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for backups, be my guest. I've considered DVD-r's, DVD-RW's, CD-R/W's, Tapes, and more hard drives, but nothing seems to really offer a solution.
P.S. Before the trolls/kids start with their "that's a lot of pr0n d00dz!", I have a small amount of porn, only a few gigs, so chill.
Assuming we granted you all these things as being valid/correct (and most have been refuted by a previous reply), you've said nothing about the other 90 features that Mozilla either does better than IE, or that IE completely lacks. Let's assume that 50 of these are rarely used or are trivial. We're left with about 40 nice features that IE either lacks or impliments poorly.
I'd love to see you either respond to the other 90 listed items you never mentioned, or boil the list down to the 40 strongest points and take a shot refuting them. Mozilla is far superior in my opinion, if not for the features, then for the stability and security.
How sad. You don't 'talk' to a support technician with Mozilla, but you can usually get in contact with the person who actually wrote the code that's giving you trouble. Personally, I find this preferable to sitting on hold, paying through the nose for phone support, and talking to someone who hardly has the technical knowledge to use a computer, let alone code a browser. Mozilla's problems and bugs are well-documented; IE's are well-hidden. Mozilla has an excellent secuity track record; IE's security track record can be seen by the seemingly endless stream of advirories and patchs.
It's a shame that these Fortune 500 companies choose inferior products with inferior support on the basis that they're able to hear a human voice when there's some sort of problem; regardless of whether or not that human voice has the slightest understanding of the problem, the solution, or even the product.
"To the extent that people read it and gain some insight into what Microsoft is actually thinking about Linux and Open Source Software, it's useful. To the extent that anyone draws a conclusion from this document like "we've got Microsoft on the run", that's just idiotic."
/.; doesn't seem to be needed anymore.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. I suppose we can now just do away with the comments section of
(From m-w.com)
Editor: 1 : someone who edits especially as an occupation
Edit: 1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation
I suppose it just bothers me when those we expect to be acting at least semi-impartially while in a professional capacity (an editor for instance) decide to arbitrarily prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion. Editors often add extra information or links (when publishing online) before publishing in addition to the usual typo/spelling-corrections and such, but I suppose I'm just not too thrilled seeing opinions cut down as "idiotic" within the posting of news. To the best of my knowledge, editors are allowed to post in the comments section, and I certainly wouldn't complain about seeing the above statement there, where I believe it belongs.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
What you need to understand is that this strategy works for us. Every time a ridiculous or outrageous law is passed in favor of the entertainment industry, it brings us one step closer to the massive US consumer backlash that ends up sending the largest and most powerful companies running for cover. The politicians in Washington are just fine with taking money from these people when almost no one hears about what the entertainment industry is asking for, but when citizens get up in arms and the media picks up the story about how consumers are getting screwed, they start worrying about the next election. What you'll see then is a law or series of laws that either partially or entirely bankrupt much of the entertainment industry, seeing as they're throwing so much of their capital into controlling consumers.
I used to get mad about things like this, but now I sit back, laugh, and wait for the backlash.
"Sounds like they want stem piracy and to increase cash flow by resales because of "SCRATCHED" CDs."
That's ok with me, just so long as they remain consistant with their policies on CDs. According to the music industry, I don't own that CD, only a license to listen to the music it contains. Therefore, if my disc becomes unusable, I demand an immediate replacement so I may continue to exercise my rightfully purchased license. To demand further payments so I may exercise rights already granted to me sounds like extortion to me.
"BMG may be pretty soon recquired to put a special label on CDs, indicating that the CD is crippled."
Might I suggest a 3" x 3" bright red skull and crossbones?
89% of voters polled said they supported legalizing Marijuana.
34% of supporters forgot to vote
13% supported legalization, but picked the wrong option
22% of supporters were unable to make it from the couch to the voting booth, collapsing at differing points between.
18% of supporters were too unmotivated to leave the house
7% were unable to complete the ballot due to incredibly poor depth perception
6% entered the voting booth, but forgot why they were there and thought they were in the shower
13% of those who thought they were in the shower began masturbating
" Is it not reasonable that the FBI, if it gets a court order, can bug a computer or a telephone? Is ./ really against bugging in any situation?"
Of course we're not against law enforcement monitoring communications between individuals who are under investigation so long as they show just cause to a judge and receive the appropriate warrents. The main problem I have with this is that what you read is very close to what you think. I don't believe that our government has the right to tell us which books are ok, nor do I believe they have the right to judge what we read or think. It's absolutely impossible that reading something can lead to imminent danger for yourself or others. You might use knowledge gained from a book to do harm to yourself or others, but that's a decision not affected by what you've read. If you believe it's ok for the government to look into what you read, what do you think about the government surveilling your thoughts as well? Think that's silly? NASA doesn't seem to think so.
"If such power is misused then it is cause of great convern, but the article provides no evidence that this is the case."
Quite alright, I'll provide the much-anticipated evidence. The FBI began its campaign of illegal monitoring and other abuses back in the 1960's during the civil rights movements. Organizations such as SNCC were routinely infiltrated by FBI agents while many of the leaders were being bugged and had their phones tapped; most of it without even so much as a warrant. The abuses continued until the 1970's when major restrictions were put in place on the FBI's domestic spying capabilities. The culmination of these efforts was the 1974 Privacy Act. (back then, the names of laws weren't usually misleading like they are now). What's been going on lately? Well, just recently, the FISA court (secretive court created to deal with foreign intelligence gathering on US soil), in an unprecidented move, blasted the FBI publicly for abuse of the FISA act, lying to the FISA court about evidence and such, and a whole host of other things. They even barred one agent from ever again appearing before the court due to his consistantly inaccurate depositions and testimony before the court.
What's my point? The FBI has, for the last 40 some-odd years shown a constant disregard for laws and civil liberties, as well as the Constitutionally-protected rights of citizens; especially with regard to matters of free speech. The evidence against the FBI is very damning, and the FISA court's anger with the FBI clearly shows they have no intention of staying within the limits of the law, even now. Now, we're giving the FBI more powers of surveillance? The USA PATRIOT act basically removed all the restrictions placed upon the FBI in the 1970's, and gave them a whole host of new powers. Did you know they can now look through your financial and banking information without so much as a visit to a courthouse? The book-bugging escapade appears as though it'll require judges to get rubber stamps made up just for the occasion. The fact that the entire process is secretive is even more frightening. As was said in a recent court ruling, "democracies die behind closed doors." But like I said, I don't think they should be able to monitor what you or I read anyway, so this is all moot.
"Well, it is pretty obvious that if you are going to bug something you can't tell the world what you are doing."
While this is correct, we also assume that when law enforcement takes an action, especially one which has the potential for massive abuse, there's going to be some kind of oversight. The USA PATRIOT act removes virtually all oversight, granting the FBI unprecidented free reign to spy on Americans.
I don't know about you, but I really don't want my government spying on me.
If anyone's interested in a little honesty-in-politics, we should rename the "war on terrorism" to "The War on Freedom and the Average Citizen", and then we should rename the USA PATRIOT act to the "Dividing and Frightening America by Providing Inappropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Freedom Act". Hmm, DFAPITRIOFA - perhaps not the best acronym, but certainly more accurate. USA PATRIOT act... What's patriotic about shredding the US Constitution?
"The proper weapon for the proper task."
;)
Ahh, but why does one learn martial arts? So he doesn't have to fight. YrWrstNtmr-san, you must learn value of showing your enemy amazing and overwhelmingly superior firepower before the battle. Will you fight against a man who just liquified 50 other guys while you were loading your gun? Or will you raise the white flag and wait to be sent to one of those lovely American prisons with the hot meals and warm beds?
How does he carry the rounds? I don't know, ask an engineer; I'm just the Four-Star General with the great strategy ideas!
"These rights are granted to all in the US"
They're not 'granted', we took them in several massive and very costly wars starting in the late 1700's. This is one of the problems with how people view our current government, and any government for that matter. The US government derives its power solely from the will of the goverened. Every so often, we put certain people in positions of power with the understanding that they will carry our out will. We are granted nothing by our government, our government is granted privileges and powers by us.
"this also means that they get granted to people who would attack the US from within."
Each person is granted certain unalienable rights by their creator. The extra rights we enjoy in the US are granted to all law-abiding citizens. Those who abuse those rights and use them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others lose some of them (ie. persons in jail). You cannot bar rights from those "who would do harm" until they've done harm or show imminent intent and ability to do so. To try to do otherwise is both futile and undermines the very principles upon which our judicial system founded. Those who do it in the name of "protecting Americans" are cowards who lack the courage and conviction to stand up for what is just.
"how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking?"
They're not, and that's why I have a problem with them monitoring what you and I are reading; it gets very close to what you're thinking. Policing thoughts is something so detestible to the senses of human freedom that it has no place beyond the depths of the Orwellian hell which we find ourselves so perilously close to experiencing first-hand.
"2 wars and innumerable conflicts have been fought by the US to "preserve and maintain our way of life", you can't get rid of that and still call yourself an American."
Our way of life? Are you joking? Our way of life shouldn't be even close to what we're worried about. How about our principles? How about beliefs (secular)? How about our childrens' future? How about our ideals? Our way of life can always be improved, but our ideals are just that; ideals. As for our way of life, if we stand firmly grounded in our ideals and beliefs, our way of life is intrinsically preserved. Our freedom is our strength; our courage is our protection; our ideals are the life through which we live eternally.
I agree we need to protect ourselves from our enemy, but restricting the rights and liberties of Americans is NOT the way to do it. Nor is ubiquitous surveillence. Not only that, but none of these things will help us in the end. Most of the people who are involved in terrorist (and I use that word sparingly) plots and such against America grew up in countries that have more restrictions on freedom and more surveillance than you or I can possibly imagine. They've lived their lives bypassing security, surveillance, and other measures. Israel has security tighter that most Americans dream of, yet they must endure regular suicide bombings. Ask someone from Israel who's lost a loved one to a suicide bomber what super-tight security is good for; you'll have no shortage of people to talk to. You really think checking reading habits is going to help? Certainly checking mine doesn't help you; merely gives you more irrelevant data to sort through. Aside from that, just what the hell gives you the right to monitor what I read and judge whether the books I'm reading are ok?
Most of the changes being made will do nothing to deter those who are determined to do us harm, and many of the new policies do nothing more than overwhelm authorities with data completely irrelevant to terrorism; only relevant to societal control. If you want to control what I think or control what I say, you're in for a big surprise. Myself and many like me will MUCH sooner die resisting you than let you destroy the freedoms and ideals preserved by the blood of the thousands who've defended that in which they believed and held dear. If you'd like to kill those willing and ready to defend their rights, you can start with me. To destroy the freedoms of Americans in the name of America is to disgrace our forefathers, our flag, our Constitution, and everything those things represent. To those like Ashcroft who commit these heinous acts, you are dishonoring the American government, your position, and yourself as an American. And you should know that the American people will not tolerate but so much of your totalitarianistic edicts before they rise up against you.
Protect us from those who would do harm to America; do not "protect us" from ourselves, and do not believe for a moment that we will happily trade our freedom like candy for your bitter and distastful tyranical "protection".
The Sum of All Fears had a lovely scene showing a little bit of how the system works. Radar tracked, took a second for the computer to react, gatling guns layed down fire knocking incoming missles out long before they reached the ship. Problem was, in that movie there were 9 incoming at once, and two or three actually hit the ship. Looked quite cool though, and I kept thinking that we need to get those guns in the hands of ground troops. How would you feel about shooting at an enemy who has a gun capable of firing 4500 rounds per minute? :)
"That's what the main problem with NJ is... too damn many laws and regulations. The state govt there has run amok with overbearing, overzealous, overregulation of anything and everything they can think of, "
Not so much the state, as the townships. The townships seem to think they've got the power to do whatever they wish, and the state doesn't step in until either someone complains loudly enough, or the township does something against a state law. The NJ DMV is about the worst I've ever seen for organization and such, but in all honesty, I had my license transfered in about two or three hours when I got here, so I can only complain but so much. What's really funny to see is when a large company comes in and completely disregards all the local townships laws and such. Lowes recently decided to place a new location in Lumberton with a hiring office in Mt Holly. They got the usual building permits and such, but never even bothered to ask either township if it's ok, let alone went to a township meeting to discuss the location, parking, etc with the board. The result? Nothing; they're far too large a company for either township to mess with. In many of the townships, if you want to start a business, you have to meet with them and explain what your business is doing, what location you want to move into (even if the building is already there), and talk about a few other things, such as whether you have adequate parking. They then either approve or decline your request, and that's that. Sound silly? Well, it is, and I have a feeling it'll only take one court case to remove that "power" from the townships.
"NJ isn't such a bad place when you actually take a turn off the NJ Turnpike.
Which exit?"
Any exit, so long as you travel a few miles away from the Turnpike. What most non-NJ residents don't realize is that most of the state's income is Atlantic City (gambling) and the NJ Turnpike. Look on a map sometime and perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about.
By the way, not only is our gas cheap (and full service), but we also have numerous no-tax zones throughout the state (places without sales tax).
"such as some vernacular -- 'forgetaboutit' and 'whaddyagonnado,' etc."
:)
My friends in Baltimore say those words also. Do they have a "joisey" accent as well?
"perhaps what you meant to say was that the classic Jersey accent is not present in all of Jersey."
This is correct. Obviously, everyone in the world has some sort of accent, as there's no 100% accepted way of saying any given word. That being said, what I meant by my posting was that the accent most people expect from an NJ resident doesn't exist; at least not in any large area (I've yet to hear it).
One thing that is said in some places (mostly Browns Mills) is "youse guys"; which just annoys the shit out of me. But I don't hear that more often than maybe once every couple of weeks.
"Typical American attitude (I can say that, I'm one too). Everybody has an accent -- just because you sound like the people you see on TV doesn't mean that you're talking the normal way and other people have a weird accent that's a deviation from that. Sorry, just... no.
Anyway, how about instead of the usual Joisey jokes, we make fun of you all for being too damn defensive?"
What I meant by the posting was that the ridiculously strong accent that most people seem to think exists in NJ doesn't exist; at least not in any large area (I've yet to hear it). Of course there are small differences in the way people say certain words; you get that in any area; any part of any state in the union. I moved here after living most of my life in Maryland, and when I got here, I didn't notice any kind of strong accent coming from anywone; that was my point.
As for being defensive; I wasn't. I was, in fact, pointing out a silly, but commonly held misconception.
"It's a very big problem"
It's happened twice in one month, and neither time were any lives in immediate danger. As for the future, the FCC is stepping in and meeting with local officials to work out a solution, so I wouldn't worry about it. From everything I've seen, the FCC doesn't screw around when it comes to 911.
Score 5 Funny?
I'm guessing the moderators who modded that up have never actually been to New Jersey. Now, for one thing, the Meadowlands (up north close to NYC) is the only place that's even remotely smelly or of poor conditions in NJ that I've seen so far. Much of southern NJ was made up of small farming communities until recently when actual townships started forming. Most of NJ is now just that; small townships with hardly anything in between but trees, connected only by small (two lane) roads. I just moved to NJ a few years ago, and I'm not offended by comments - just the ignorance that their content shows. If you want to make a joke, call the people here simple, or make a comment about how almost everything is closed after 6pm, or how there's so much farmland. There's no accents in New Jersey; you're thinking of certain sections of NYC. These are (for the most part) normal, simple people who are MUCH friendlier and happier than the people from the DC-metro area. No one here says "joisey", we say "jersey". I must admit, however, that I was a bit surprised when I moved here from Maryland and couldn't find someone with any accent for a while.
Oh, and by the way, our gas is cheaper than most places in the country, and it's full service everywhere (state law). When my relatives in MD were paying $1.90 for gas, we were paying $1.25. NJ isn't such a bad place when you actually take a turn off the NJ Turnpike.