It is also rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down by the court. Through the end of 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected (many sources say four). Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004.
Sorry, but having had a friend who cancelled their internet service because it "didn't work" when they really didn't have their ethernet plugged in after moving the computer to a different room... it's worth asking a question or two.
Hell, FISA allows retroactive applications for warrants! All concerns about the speed of the court system at granting warrants sorta go out the window when you can do first, ask later.
There's also the fun stat that they've turned down 5 of 19,000 requests.
If the Administration can't work within a system that allows them to ask permission after the fact and have a 99.9736842% chance of approval, just what are they hiding?
Just in case you think I'm being facetious, Jimbo Wales has recently cheerfully admitted that he get 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that they got an F because they cited Wikipedia and the citation turned out to be wrong. And Jimbo says "For God sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia"
My middle school teachers flunked people for cititing Britannica. A college student being dumb enought to cite one deserves and F.
The other remarkable thing about Slashdot is that this army of nerds who will mark down this post, would never accept a wikipedia model for writing software where anyone anywhere can write, edit, delete code at any time.
I don't suppose you've heard of the GPL? Believe it or not, you can download code and write, edit, and delete it at your leisure!
Why? How complex do you think hosting a name IP table is, especially when the basic, long-proven infrastructure costs are spread across tens of millions of domains.
There's a base price registrars need to pay for domains, isn't there? Something like $6 or $7 per domain?
Tremendously low margin, high competition markets encourage abuses to eek out a profit.
The Bible teaches that we are all one blood (Acts 17:26).
Blacks were considered subhuman by many, so Genesis 1:26 would up being a more popular verse.
It also teaches that the earth is a sphere.
Not really, unless you confuse 'circle' for 'sphere' and ignore a bunch of other passages.
Look instead for the roots of racism and the ideas of racial superiority to Darwin. The full title of his most famous work is "The origin of species by means of natural selection; or, The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life".
Race, in the 1850s, was used to describe animal populations as well as subsets of humanity.
Aborigines in Australia were slaughtered because they were considered to be evolutionarily inferior.
They were slaughtered on a pretext. The imperial Europeans had no issues with killing humans, white, black, or any other skin colour. It isn't as if the world was racism-free before evolution was described or something.
They have the facts and data - that's what scientific consensus is generally based upon. Consensus just comes in handy when it's time to drive the concept into slightly less hardheaded skulls than yours.
Science may not be a democracy, but without peer review it'd be nothing. Global warming has certainly survived peer review.
You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist.
There is a scientific consensus that it exists. The controversy is over how much humans speed it up.
the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years. One degree? For the largest polluting, greatest industrial achievements in the history of man? That sounds pretty damn stable to me.
You do realize how much energy it takes to raise an entire planet by a degree, right? Sure, one degree doesn't seem like much... but to an extraordinarily balanced system, it's a big deal.
Each new type of generating capacity produces less CO2 per watt generated than the previous systems. In this way, in 50 years time, we will be creating very little CO2 compared to today.
If we produce the same number of watts, you mean. Which would be an absurdly idiotic prediction to make.
If someone said they knew what the weather be like in 30 days from now, you'd be a fool to believe them. If someone said to you that they know what the weather will be like in 94 years from now, you'd tell them THEY were a fool.
Not at all. Long-term change is far easier to predict. Weather scientists can fairly competently predict the overall trend of a year, for example - saying that it'll be a hot summer, that there'll be lots of hurricanes, etc. Predicting day-to-day is far more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign _Intelligence_Surveillance_Court
It is also rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down by the court. Through the end of 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected (many sources say four). Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004.
You know someone's a wingnut when AOL's the innocent victim in their fantasies. Heh.
Sorry, but having had a friend who cancelled their internet service because it "didn't work" when they really didn't have their ethernet plugged in after moving the computer to a different room... it's worth asking a question or two.
Unless the old privacy policy says "AT&T can unilaterally change any terms of this policy without notice at any time"
The number of large companies lacking that phrase in their privacy policies can likely be counted on a limbless war victim's fingers.
For which there are nine Google results?
Hell, FISA allows retroactive applications for warrants! All concerns about the speed of the court system at granting warrants sorta go out the window when you can do first, ask later.
There's also the fun stat that they've turned down 5 of 19,000 requests.
If the Administration can't work within a system that allows them to ask permission after the fact and have a 99.9736842% chance of approval, just what are they hiding?
We wouldn't want them to actually 'innovate', would we?
Re-read the comment.
Your post would be better if you knew what Windows Live actually is.
Installing other peoples' poorly documented and often buggy scripts is not terribly convenient for most people.
Go watch some Aussie Rules Football and you'll realize they're actually being quite restrained. ;-)
Or just use http://flickr.com/services/api/misc.urls.html
"You can construct the source URL to a photo once you know its ID, server ID and secret, as returned by many API methods."
Just in case you think I'm being facetious, Jimbo Wales has recently cheerfully admitted that he get 10 e-mails a week from students who complain that they got an F because they cited Wikipedia and the citation turned out to be wrong. And Jimbo says "For God sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia"
My middle school teachers flunked people for cititing Britannica. A college student being dumb enought to cite one deserves and F.
The other remarkable thing about Slashdot is that this army of nerds who will mark down this post, would never accept a wikipedia model for writing software where anyone anywhere can write, edit, delete code at any time.
I don't suppose you've heard of the GPL? Believe it or not, you can download code and write, edit, and delete it at your leisure!
World's Shortest Police Chases?
That's just the ICANN fee. There's more that has to be paid to Network Solutions for .com names.
Why? How complex do you think hosting a name IP table is, especially when the basic, long-proven infrastructure costs are spread across tens of millions of domains.
There's a base price registrars need to pay for domains, isn't there? Something like $6 or $7 per domain?
Tremendously low margin, high competition markets encourage abuses to eek out a profit.
Have you looked at their financials? How are billions in revenue not sustainable?
What if you were a multi-billion dollar horseshoe manufacturer circa 1910? Google could see their fortunes change just as quickly.
The Bible teaches that we are all one blood (Acts 17:26).
Blacks were considered subhuman by many, so Genesis 1:26 would up being a more popular verse.
It also teaches that the earth is a sphere.
Not really, unless you confuse 'circle' for 'sphere' and ignore a bunch of other passages.
Look instead for the roots of racism and the ideas of racial superiority to Darwin. The full title of his most famous work is "The origin of species by means of natural selection; or, The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life".
Race, in the 1850s, was used to describe animal populations as well as subsets of humanity.
Aborigines in Australia were slaughtered because they were considered to be evolutionarily inferior.
They were slaughtered on a pretext. The imperial Europeans had no issues with killing humans, white, black, or any other skin colour. It isn't as if the world was racism-free before evolution was described or something.
They have the facts and data - that's what scientific consensus is generally based upon. Consensus just comes in handy when it's time to drive the concept into slightly less hardheaded skulls than yours.
Science may not be a democracy, but without peer review it'd be nothing. Global warming has certainly survived peer review.
I like the link to the ExxonMobil-funded shill. Awesome.
There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.
A common myth. Even the ancient Greeks knew it wasn't true, though.
There was a scientific consensus that Black people were inferior to White people. There was a scientific consensus that Iraq had WMDs.
I think we're working off a different definition of "science" here.
disregarding the fact that 50 years ago these same kinds of figures would indicate that the planet is cooling...
Ooh, more myths. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Like Pat Robertson, who advocated nuking the State Department headquarters?
You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist.
There is a scientific consensus that it exists. The controversy is over how much humans speed it up.
the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years. One degree? For the largest polluting, greatest industrial achievements in the history of man? That sounds pretty damn stable to me.
You do realize how much energy it takes to raise an entire planet by a degree, right? Sure, one degree doesn't seem like much... but to an extraordinarily balanced system, it's a big deal.
Well, unless you count Greenland.
Each new type of generating capacity produces less CO2 per watt generated than the previous systems. In this way, in 50 years time, we will be creating very little CO2 compared to today.
If we produce the same number of watts, you mean. Which would be an absurdly idiotic prediction to make.
If someone said they knew what the weather be like in 30 days from now, you'd be a fool to believe them. If someone said to you that they know what the weather will be like in 94 years from now, you'd tell them THEY were a fool.
Not at all. Long-term change is far easier to predict. Weather scientists can fairly competently predict the overall trend of a year, for example - saying that it'll be a hot summer, that there'll be lots of hurricanes, etc. Predicting day-to-day is far more difficult.
Starcraft With Extremely Entertaining Things?