Sniffing of all incoming and outgoing email in a Department of Defense is usually a good thing. Sniffing all incoming and outgoing email in the country is usuially NOT a good thing. Big difference here. You want your military secrets protected from being emailed by employees and contractors.
Since when has the US government or Companies given a damn how anything goes over diplomatically?
Like Rhett would say, "Frankly, we just don't give a damn!"
Considering how much business the US pumps to India, the US Government could do pretty much anything it wanted, including saying Bend over India, you're going to get Fscked. Of course, that the way pretty much every other country sees the US a now. So, status quo, we can do anything we want as our reputation can't get much worse.
When private secure communication is outlawed, only criminals will have secure communication. Then we've got them. We won't know what they communicated, but we'll know it was criminals communicating.
Sorry, but according to the Numbers Japan and South Korea both beat out Norway in cost of living. Unless, you can show some impartial facts otherwise. I've shown you one link supporting.
Your OECD study leaves out one small, but crucial fact. The per capita of US healthcare is heavily skewed. The richest 1% of the people in US spend almost 1/4 of the total expenditure of healthcare. In order to get a true picture, you have to take the real average.
Of course, there is lies the crux of the problem. What is average? Over 60% of the healthcare costs in the US is by the top tier wealthiest in the US (richest 10%). And yes you do pay for healthcare. You pay for it through all the taxes you pay, and built into the prices you pay for goods and services.
Like I said, I've not tried to prove or disprove your theory, but I know it's not as extreme as some like to make it sound. Not that I would have a problem with a healthcare system like Norway's or Sweden's. They're great.
Not going to happen in the US, because the people who run the country are the powerful elite, and we only get a chance to vote for rich and powerful backed Candidate A or richer and more powerful candidate B. So there really isn't much choice in who we elect. Not like we could put in any decent candidate. Those only get assassinated. Although, FDR actually managed to survive the attempted coup by some very rich and powerful people. But you won't find that story in your regular history books. Personally, I would rather judge a country by it's people, than by it's leaders. If I did that, I might conclude that all Frenchmen are jerks, and that all Palestinians are extremist, gun toting, bombing, killers. Not every country has the chance to elect enlightened leaders. My only hope is to be able to affect local elections.
By feeding them, said Dave Webster, a conservation officer with the provincial government who launched an investigation of the case on Wednesday, the marijuana growers delivered "a death sentence for the wild animals."
Webster told AFP "tame" bears are dangerous, because once they're fed they commonly seek out other people, frequently destroy property, and in very rare cases attack or even kill people.
"If a bear is deemed to be a safety risk and is habituated to human food and not able to feed itself in the wild, it will be destroyed," he explained.
While they don't specifically say they killed the bears. That is clearly implied. The bears have been tamed, and thus now would be a safety risk, without they're pot growing owners to feed them anymore. It's possible they may be ok, but the whole death sentence quote leads me to believe otherwise.
Furthermore, for all your Nannying, that is so wonderful, it seems you've given up lots of freedoms to obtain that. You may have complete trust in the benign nature of your leaders, but most of us Americans still live by the knowledge of why we threw our European leaders out. Yeah, all those kings and queens, and Religious leaders were so benign weren't they? After all, no one really expects the Spanish Inquisition. I'm with Screwmaster on this one. If things get bad enough in this country, I feel comforted that I can pack a few things in my sack, pick up my guns and ammo and go hike into the mountains where I can't be found. I'm almost there now.
It's nice that you're proud of your country, but let's not confuse pride with the facts. Japan is the most expensive country to live in and has been for some time. South Korea is next and also has been for sometime.
Secondly, I call BS on your "cost" analysis. While it is almost certainly true Norwegians, on average, pay less, have better coverage, and less uncovered in the field of health care, the true cost can only be derived by an in depth analysis for what they pay and pay into the system, and what part the government foots. I think, you'll find it costs more in any socialized medicine European country than in the US. But let's be fair, US coverage sucks, doctors and pharmaceuticals are greedy, and if you include all the legal kickbacks Pharms get from Congress, you may be right on it. I haven't analyzed it, mainly, because I know knowing will probably just make me sick.
Lastly, please don't lump all Usians, in one category. Yes, there are a lot of old, prejudiced, f***ers running the country, that doesn't mean that all US citizens have old fashioned ideas of civil liberties. A significant portion of the people support homosexual marriage. On top of which 21 political states of 51 in Europe have some recognition of same sex couples, as opposed to 16 US states have done so. There are only 7 European states recognizing same sex marriage, versus 6 for the US. I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this one also. Europe is a bit ahead, but not significantly.
Sorry, mummies are not dried out, or rather not just dried out. They have the water both dissipated (dried out) and displaced with another chemical (usually something like sodium carbonate decahydrate). You have to break the organic compound bonds to extract *all* the water, as much of the water is bound up in large organic carbon based molecules. If you extract all the Hydrogen and all the Oxygen from a human being you'll be left with a pile of dusty carbon, liberated gases, and various other dust sized particle of chemicals (aka ashes). When I say ashes, don't think funerary ashes, which are mostly the wooden coffin used. The bones are ground up and not incinerated to ash.
So no, if you successfully remove *all* of the water you won't get a mummy, you'll get: a few pounds worth (maybe) of dust sized chemicals a lot of water, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide gases.
To further prove your theory wrong, if a mummy had all the water removed it would have to be less than half down to 1/4 the size of the original person. I've not yet seen one of those mummies, yet.
Right, on October 1st, 1958, NACA ceased to exist and NASA began. NASA began by absorbing all of NACA's facilities, property, and people. So what happened, was 8000 people got a new badge, and a new name on their paychecks. The NACA dates back to Orville Wright.
Oh, you mean those hand built, non-factory line, non-mass produced, non-"scale of economy" Mazeratis aren't junk cars?
Is it really possible that people can actually have a quality built product like those old Louis XIV furniture pieces or custom built Mazeratis that aren't mass-produced scale of economy products? You know once upon a time, quality didn't depend on an assembly line. Assembly lines are good for producing large quantities of products, but they they don't have any lock on quality. Just mass production and speed. Proper QA requires nothing more than mindful, careful, knowledgeable inspectors, and most important workers who know how to build things that work right and are committed to making it happen. Certainly, there are technological tools available to us today to make precision parts, and make them consistently. But non of that requires scaling. Hell, Intel started out as home-made.
Scale of economy just only gives you more points of failure, and more parts that can be discarded and still produce a working product. I've worked QC/QA. QC/QA is only effective if your builders give $#!@ about what they are building, or the builders who built the robots do, or the people watching the robots do, Things fail when they are not properly engineered, assembled, and tested. Not because some magical quality of "scale of economy".
I'm pretty sure your first #6 response is totally lacking in reality. I can pretty much guarantee that if you suck all the moisture (aka H2O) of a zombie you'll turn it into a pile of ash-like chemicals. Of course that's the hard part, extracting all of the moisture. Even a flamethrower is unlikely to remove the moisture from the bones. Then you'll be left with one really pissed off skeleton zombie!
Unless something has changed, the police have always been able to detain you, without charging you, for 24 hours. So, the fact he was detained for several hours really violates nothing. The fact they deprived him of his property, without due process is a problem.
There, fixed that for ya.
Make sure you're complaining about the right abuse of authority. Detaining people for hours is and always has been a useful tool for law enforcement in this country. It's a useful tool to hold someone, while they can easily do so, in order to build a case against them. Like detaining someone walking down the street with a flashlight and toolchest, who might just have attempted to rob that house up the street with the alarm blaring. He might be the robber, or he might just be a local guy walking over to a friend's house to fix a leaking pipe. But if you arrest and book him outright and he's not the crook he can sue, so it's smarter to detain, investigate and then book or release.
However, I will say all your freedoms are an illusion. That the law enforcement people regularly use their powers to harass. Your rights can be, and have been, taken away by Presidential, or Congressional, order at any time. Like...ohh... during WWII. Not that you'll read about that in any high school history books.
Lastly, I will say the FBI, et al were fishing. Trying anything and everything to find some poor slob they can pin the leak on. They really don't care if they get the right "guy". Anyone will do. Hence, if he'd said anything they could use against him, they would have. Even if it didn't really implicate him. Anything, anything at all, like: " I think the War in Afghanistan is a disgusting abuse of US authority", or "The troops really need to be brought home.", etc. Which is what they were trying to get him to say.
Unless, things have changed recently, in the UK refusing to talk can be used against you as much as anything you say.
We US people threw you Brits out for exactly the reasons we now complain about our own government (well that and your ancestors were messing with our ability to make gobs and gobs of money, and Money has always been the true King of the US). But recent government regulations have fixed the hole in British law that allowed us to revolt the first time. So, it's basically game over for revolutionaries in the modern US of A.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Maybe you should re-read your science books. Pay particular attention to a few basic laws.
Here's one for you. I'll put it in old style English for you.
Thou shallt not create nor destroy energy.
In other words you don't get to dream up some new kind of energy to make a new Big Bang.
Please read up on:
a) the Big Bang
b) the Big Rip
c) Hartle-Hawkin no boundary condition
d) brane cosmology
e) chaotic inflation
f) Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model
g) Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
In any event, this Universe has a clear and distinct beginning. None of the existing accepted theories of the Universe offer any escape for an argument of creation by something, and that that "something" could not have been initiated by "some one". I am simply using pure logic, which seems to be a bit hard for you to grasp.
The flaw in your logic is that, at the least, this current Universe we live in has a very clear and distinct beginning. The "Big Bang" is the cause of this existing Universe. The current predominant opinion in the Physics community is there is insufficient matter + energy within this Universe to cause the eventual collapse and likely recreation. Hence, based on current knowledge this Universe is either a one shot deal with a definite beginning and end, or is the last occurrence in a decaying harmonic process, like a swinging pendulum under gravity.
Now the real question is when and if this Universe dies a thermal death, does time also end. Does anything exist outside of this Universe.
Given this Universe gives every indication of a beginning and an end, there is no logical reason to suspect this Universe wasn't created by something, that exists outside of this Universe, unless you also argue that time has a beginning and an end. If you argue that time has a beginning and an end, then there is no reason not to believe that something created time. If you argue something created time, then there is no logical reason not to argue that something could not be a living thing. Hence the existence of "God" is just as logical as the non-existence of "God", if there is a beginning and an end to the Universe.
Conversely, if you argue that nothing created the Universe or time, and concede that the Universe has a beginning and an end, and yet time does not, then you've just crossed over into religion. That religion being the religion of nothing. It is illogical to argue time has always existed and nothing exists outside of time and space-time, without having any means or evidence to conclude so. If time has always existed and the Universe has not, then what caused the Universe to come into existence?
If the current popular theory is wrong, and the Universe does have some mechanism by which it will expand and collapse ad infinitum, then it still does not rule out the existence of "something" outside of space-time that created it. It is illogical to claim that "something" does not encompass "some one".
Given all of the above, which can be easily represented in Symbolic Logic, it is logical to conclude that it is more logical to conclude that God exists than that God does not. Here my definition of God, merely being the process by which THIS Universe was created. It it also logical to conclude that "God" is equally likely to be a sentient being as natural phenomenon. In fact given the currently known facts and accepted theories it would be illogical to conclude there is no God..
The article's definition of a "Pirate ISP" is somewhat misleading. It really is just talking about making smaller ISPs.
I've thought about how to do real "Pirate ISP" stuff myself a few times, but how exactly does one go about becoming an ISP?
1) You have to have some kind of facility, even if it is a ship at sea. 2) You need to have lots of bandwidth. 3) You need to have some connection to other facilities, to form a root DNS zone. 4) You need to have a way of connecting others.
Now, if you plan on just being a small ISP, like the article says, then step 3 isn't necessary.
The thing that I have been contemplating is the creation of a truly "pirate" ISP. That is, one that uses the backbone fibre of the internet to create an internet within the internet. Here, I thought the article was really about that. An internet within the internet is the likely outcome of all this heavy handed behavior of the Entertainment industry, via politicians.
In a few more years, it'll be possible to build a wireless "alternet". A new internet with it's own DNS stack separate from the internet and the eyes of Big Brother. Except by capturing the signals and decrypting them. Technically a wireless alternet is feasible now. I have several wireless routers in my neighborhood. We could form our own network, and they can probably see a few routers I can't see further out and could connect with them. The question is: is there enough density now, that we could grow that out city-wide, county-wide, state-wide, country-wide, worldwide(how)? Certainly is major cities this is feasible. This will happen if the powers that be don't relent. If you make the internet illegal only the criminals will have internet, and almost everyone will be a criminal. The technology is out there. People have a real need to b e connected to the internet now. Take it away and they'll find new way.
You have a very idealized version of drug use's "Good Ole' Days". There really weren't any. To begin with, the first Federal prohibition against drugs didn't come until 1914,... The high water mark for addiction in this country was between the Civil War and right before WWI. Between 2 and 5 percent of the population was addicted to drugs. And I mean really addicted. Do you know who helped cause this? Dirty street pushers? Columbian gangs? No.
Doctors.
That's right, our biggest addiction rates came from the men in "clean white coats".... but it was all legal. After morphine became widely available, doctors so overused opiates for even minor patient problems that addiction became common. You could literally go the hospital with a middling ailment and come home addicted to morphine.
...
You have a very idealized notion of American history, and an odd definition of doctors, and a very warped perception of the 60s and 70s.
First off, most of the "medicines" you mention in the 1800s were discovered by doctors and scientists, but produced by both reputable companies and charlatan con artists. Not to mention many addictive drugs were simply added to food stuffs to give them an extra boost. Addiction in children and housewives and men was not so much abuse by the doctors but greed by legitimate companies and all manner of small time cheats. Sure doctors were far too liberal in using these new miracle drugs, and.some doctors were unethical with them also. But I blame simple greed most. Drugs were everywhere, and in almost every commercial product.
Secondly, in the sixties and seventies the popular drugs were by and far professionally produced drugs. Many of which were legal until the seventies. LSD was legal when it first hit the street scene and remained so for several years. So, before you go off spouting history, learn it first. I lived through the sixties and seventies, I was there. A firsthand witness. I can personally vouch that the majority of drugs in the sixties and seventies were produced by corporations, and not in people's basements. Sure there was some of that, but those were a small minority.
Actually, using the CAFRA 2000 Congressional law, you can hire an attorney(s) (don't ever try to represent yourself unless you have a law degree), and get back your money and the lawyers' fees.
Yes, the police do regularly seize cash and cars and other property from innocent citizens, but you can get it back through lawsuits. You can also, at the same time if your smart, sue them for damages (doing it all in a single lawsuit). If enough people do this, then those dirty little police run theft rings will shut down because it would become a losing proposition for them.
I don't generally advocate suing municipalities, but there are some in the USA that need it. We can thank the "Drug War" on this loss of our rights in the form of the drug money seizure laws.
Although all the studies indicate that overall home-schooled students are better educated and do better in college. I partially homeschool, and should my local district start buying Texas based curriculum, I may go whole hog on the homeschooling. At least she'll learn more than one language and have a decent math and science education. That's not to say there aren't a lot of religious whacks out there homeschooling. There definitely are. The thing is, a lot of those religious whacks actually love their children and seem to want them get a decent education, and want to teach them religion and their world view. So they homeschool and raise smart religious whacks. The only thing worse than a religious fanatic is a well educated religious fanatic. Which is why we need to educate our public educators on how to educate and not to be herders of mindless mobs. These incidents being cases in point. I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance in schools. It should be mandatory to medicate every educator, with say one joint for every 3 hours of school.
Well, if those two arguments weren't relative, than how aboutt this one. In libel, there are exceptions to the rules about public figures and reasonable belief. These exceptions are called "per se defamation", in other word they are by definition defamation irregardless of how believable they are or how famous or public a victim is. One of those exceptions is accusing a person of an infamous crime. Let's see, is being a sexual predator an infamous crime? You betcha! Congratulations we have a winner. This was per se defamation. Very actionable, and a crime in 17 states.
Doing a a simple google search on "porn gorilla suit" returns over 45,000 hits. Bizarre sex is out there. So, I'd find it very believable of just about any kind of crazy sex act you could dream up as a parody. But, since you're apparently ignorant of the law, I'll educate you. Accusing someone of a notorious crime is always considered libel. It's not considered parody and is not part of protected speech. You can't hide behind parody to commit libel. There are some very clear lines you can't cross even when claiming parody.
Too bad your school education didn't include any study in: the English language, spelling, syntax or grammar. Nor did it apparently include "insight" into logical reasoning. It's never ok to ruin someone's career because some spoiled brat didn't like being punished for misbehavior in school and therefore took it to the internet with malicious defamation. Also, you seem to be totally ignorant in the State of the Union on parents. There a fairly good probability the parents are as bad or worse than the child. As a parent exposed to other parents, I can attest to the fact that probably 50%-75% of parents would have done nothing were this girl their child and the principal brought this to their attention. I don't know, maybe you're just a troll and I fell in to it.
- We can, apparently, fix: cars, planes, electronics and all manor of things, except stupid or leaking oil wells.
But PA isn't one of them. A Colorado man was convicted and sentenced to 23 years for criminal libel he committed on the internet. Internet libel is a felony in Colorado.
Clearly, the girl committed what is called "libel per se". Hence the principal could have sued over it, regardless of how public or famous he was. It's an urban legend that if a libel is so unbelievable or the person famous or public enough they can't sue and win libel laws. Libel that implies criminal conduct is always actionable. There are other exceptions to the rules that protect certain libel from prosecution.
suspending the student may or may not have been appropriate, but libel isn't protected speech. Parody is. Once you cross the line you lose that First Amendment right. Remember not all speech is protected First amendment speech. For one If I say, "I'm coming over there with a bat and I'm going to bash your skull in with it", that's not protected speech. But saying, "I think you need to be taken out to the shed and given 50 lashes of Licorice", probably is.
Slashdot Mirror
Sniffing of all incoming and outgoing email in a Department of Defense is usually a good thing. Sniffing all incoming and outgoing email in the country is usuially NOT a good thing. Big difference here. You want your military secrets protected from being emailed by employees and contractors.
Since when has the US government or Companies given a damn how anything goes over diplomatically?
Like Rhett would say, "Frankly, we just don't give a damn!"
Considering how much business the US pumps to India, the US Government could do pretty much anything it wanted, including saying Bend over India, you're going to get Fscked. Of course, that the way pretty much every other country sees the US a now. So, status quo, we can do anything we want as our reputation can't get much worse.
How about Flamebait! How is this insightful? Who the hell is moderating today? Damn I want some of that smoke too!
At best it's Funny. HTF did this get insightful?
Damn!
When private secure communication is outlawed, only criminals will have secure communication. Then we've got them. We won't know what they communicated, but we'll know it was criminals communicating.
Sorry, but according to the Numbers Japan and South Korea both beat out Norway in cost of living. Unless, you can show some impartial facts otherwise. I've shown you one link supporting.
Your OECD study leaves out one small, but crucial fact. The per capita of US healthcare is heavily skewed. The richest 1% of the people in US spend almost 1/4 of the total expenditure of healthcare. In order to get a true picture, you have to take the real average.
Of course, there is lies the crux of the problem. What is average? Over 60% of the healthcare costs in the US is by the top tier wealthiest in the US (richest 10%). And yes you do pay for healthcare. You pay for it through all the taxes you pay, and built into the prices you pay for goods and services.
Like I said, I've not tried to prove or disprove your theory, but I know it's not as extreme as some like to make it sound. Not that I would have a problem with a healthcare system like Norway's or Sweden's. They're great.
Not going to happen in the US, because the people who run the country are the powerful elite, and we only get a chance to vote for rich and powerful backed Candidate A or richer and more powerful candidate B. So there really isn't much choice in who we elect. Not like we could put in any decent candidate. Those only get assassinated. Although, FDR actually managed to survive the attempted coup by some very rich and powerful people. But you won't find that story in your regular history books. Personally, I would rather judge a country by it's people, than by it's leaders. If I did that, I might conclude that all Frenchmen are jerks, and that all Palestinians are extremist, gun toting, bombing, killers. Not every country has the chance to elect enlightened leaders. My only hope is to be able to affect local elections.
From the article
While they don't specifically say they killed the bears. That is clearly implied. The bears have been tamed, and thus now would be a safety risk, without they're pot growing owners to feed them anymore. It's possible they may be ok, but the whole death sentence quote leads me to believe otherwise.
I'm curious, how many flavors does this hack comes in?
Furthermore, for all your Nannying, that is so wonderful, it seems you've given up lots of freedoms to obtain that. You may have complete trust in the benign nature of your leaders, but most of us Americans still live by the knowledge of why we threw our European leaders out. Yeah, all those kings and queens, and Religious leaders were so benign weren't they? After all, no one really expects the Spanish Inquisition. I'm with Screwmaster on this one. If things get bad enough in this country, I feel comforted that I can pack a few things in my sack, pick up my guns and ammo and go hike into the mountains where I can't be found. I'm almost there now.
It's nice that you're proud of your country, but let's not confuse pride with the facts.
Japan is the most expensive country to live in and has been for some time. South Korea is next and also has been for sometime.
Secondly, I call BS on your "cost" analysis. While it is almost certainly true Norwegians, on average, pay less, have better coverage, and less uncovered in the field of health care, the true cost can only be derived by an in depth analysis for what they pay and pay into the system, and what part the government foots. I think, you'll find it costs more in any socialized medicine European country than in the US. But let's be fair, US coverage sucks, doctors and pharmaceuticals are greedy, and if you include all the legal kickbacks Pharms get from Congress, you may be right on it. I haven't analyzed it, mainly, because I know knowing will probably just make me sick.
Lastly, please don't lump all Usians, in one category. Yes, there are a lot of old, prejudiced, f***ers running the country, that doesn't mean that all US citizens have old fashioned ideas of civil liberties. A significant portion of the people support homosexual marriage. On top of which 21 political states of 51 in Europe have some recognition of same sex couples, as opposed to 16 US states have done so. There are only 7 European states recognizing same sex marriage, versus 6 for the US. I'm sorry, I have to call BS on this one also. Europe is a bit ahead, but not significantly.
Sorry, mummies are not dried out, or rather not just dried out. They have the water both dissipated (dried out) and displaced with another chemical (usually something like sodium carbonate decahydrate). You have to break the organic compound bonds to extract *all* the water, as much of the water is bound up in large organic carbon based molecules. If you extract all the Hydrogen and all the Oxygen from a human being you'll be left with a pile of dusty carbon, liberated gases, and various other dust sized particle of chemicals (aka ashes). When I say ashes, don't think funerary ashes, which are mostly the wooden coffin used. The bones are ground up and not incinerated to ash.
So no, if you successfully remove *all* of the water you won't get a mummy, you'll get: a few pounds worth (maybe) of dust sized chemicals a lot of water, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide gases.
To further prove your theory wrong, if a mummy had all the water removed it would have to be less than half down to 1/4 the size of the original person. I've not yet seen one of those mummies, yet.
Right, on October 1st, 1958, NACA ceased to exist and NASA began. NASA began by absorbing all of NACA's facilities, property, and people. So what happened, was 8000 people got a new badge, and a new name on their paychecks. The NACA dates back to Orville Wright.
Oh, you mean those hand built, non-factory line, non-mass produced, non-"scale of economy" Mazeratis aren't junk cars?
Is it really possible that people can actually have a quality built product like those old Louis XIV furniture pieces or custom built Mazeratis that aren't mass-produced scale of economy products? You know once upon a time, quality didn't depend on an assembly line. Assembly lines are good for producing large quantities of products, but they they don't have any lock on quality. Just mass production and speed. Proper QA requires nothing more than mindful, careful, knowledgeable inspectors, and most important workers who know how to build things that work right and are committed to making it happen. Certainly, there are technological tools available to us today to make precision parts, and make them consistently. But non of that requires scaling. Hell, Intel started out as home-made.
Scale of economy just only gives you more points of failure, and more parts that can be discarded and still produce a working product. I've worked QC/QA. QC/QA is only effective if your builders give $#!@ about what they are building, or the builders who built the robots do, or the people watching the robots do, Things fail when they are not properly engineered, assembled, and tested. Not because some magical quality of "scale of economy".
I'm pretty sure your first #6 response is totally lacking in reality. I can pretty much guarantee that if you suck all the moisture (aka H2O) of a zombie you'll turn it into a pile of ash-like chemicals. Of course that's the hard part, extracting all of the moisture. Even a flamethrower is unlikely to remove the moisture from the bones. Then you'll be left with one really pissed off skeleton zombie!
Unless something has changed, the police have always been able to detain you, without charging you, for 24 hours. So, the fact he was detained for several hours really violates nothing. The fact they deprived him of his property, without due process is a problem.
There, fixed that for ya.
Make sure you're complaining about the right abuse of authority. Detaining people for hours is and always has been a useful tool for law enforcement in this country. It's a useful tool to hold someone, while they can easily do so, in order to build a case against them. Like detaining someone walking down the street with a flashlight and toolchest, who might just have attempted to rob that house up the street with the alarm blaring. He might be the robber, or he might just be a local guy walking over to a friend's house to fix a leaking pipe. But if you arrest and book him outright and he's not the crook he can sue, so it's smarter to detain, investigate and then book or release.
...ohh ... during WWII. Not that you'll read about that in any high school history books.
However, I will say all your freedoms are an illusion. That the law enforcement people regularly use their powers to harass. Your rights can be, and have been, taken away by Presidential, or Congressional, order at any time. Like
Lastly, I will say the FBI, et al were fishing. Trying anything and everything to find some poor slob they can pin the leak on. They really don't care if they get the right "guy". Anyone will do. Hence, if he'd said anything they could use against him, they would have. Even if it didn't really implicate him. Anything, anything at all, like: " I think the War in Afghanistan is a disgusting abuse of US authority", or "The troops really need to be brought home.", etc. Which is what they were trying to get him to say.
Unless, things have changed recently, in the UK refusing to talk can be used against you as much as anything you say.
We US people threw you Brits out for exactly the reasons we now complain about our own government (well that and your ancestors were messing with our ability to make gobs and gobs of money, and Money has always been the true King of the US). But recent government regulations have fixed the hole in British law that allowed us to revolt the first time. So, it's basically game over for revolutionaries in the modern US of A.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Maybe you should re-read your science books. Pay particular attention to a few basic laws.
Here's one for you. I'll put it in old style English for you.
Thou shallt not create nor destroy energy.
In other words you don't get to dream up some new kind of energy to make a new Big Bang.
Please read up on:
a) the Big Bang
b) the Big Rip
c) Hartle-Hawkin no boundary condition
d) brane cosmology
e) chaotic inflation
f) Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model
g) Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
In any event, this Universe has a clear and distinct beginning. None of the existing accepted theories of the Universe offer any escape for an argument of creation by something, and that that "something" could not have been initiated by "some one". I am simply using pure logic, which seems to be a bit hard for you to grasp.
The flaw in your logic is that, at the least, this current Universe we live in has a very clear and distinct beginning. The "Big Bang" is the cause of this existing Universe. The current predominant opinion in the Physics community is there is insufficient matter + energy within this Universe to cause the eventual collapse and likely recreation. Hence, based on current knowledge this Universe is either a one shot deal with a definite beginning and end, or is the last occurrence in a decaying harmonic process, like a swinging pendulum under gravity.
Now the real question is when and if this Universe dies a thermal death, does time also end. Does anything exist outside of this Universe.
Given this Universe gives every indication of a beginning and an end, there is no logical reason to suspect this Universe wasn't created by something, that exists outside of this Universe, unless you also argue that time has a beginning and an end. If you argue that time has a beginning and an end, then there is no reason not to believe that something created time. If you argue something created time, then there is no logical reason not to argue that something could not be a living thing. Hence the existence of "God" is just as logical as the non-existence of "God", if there is a beginning and an end to the Universe.
Conversely, if you argue that nothing created the Universe or time, and concede that the Universe has a beginning and an end, and yet time does not, then you've just crossed over into religion. That religion being the religion of nothing. It is illogical to argue time has always existed and nothing exists outside of time and space-time, without having any means or evidence to conclude so. If time has always existed and the Universe has not, then what caused the Universe to come into existence?
If the current popular theory is wrong, and the Universe does have some mechanism by which it will expand and collapse ad infinitum, then it still does not rule out the existence of "something" outside of space-time that created it. It is illogical to claim that "something" does not encompass "some one".
Given all of the above, which can be easily represented in Symbolic Logic, it is logical to conclude that it is more logical to conclude that God exists than that God does not. Here my definition of God, merely being the process by which THIS Universe was created. It it also logical to conclude that "God" is equally likely to be a sentient being as natural phenomenon. In fact given the currently known facts and accepted theories it would be illogical to conclude there is no God..
The article's definition of a "Pirate ISP" is somewhat misleading. It really is just talking about making smaller ISPs.
I've thought about how to do real "Pirate ISP" stuff myself a few times, but how exactly does one go about becoming an ISP?
1) You have to have some kind of facility, even if it is a ship at sea.
2) You need to have lots of bandwidth.
3) You need to have some connection to other facilities, to form a root DNS zone.
4) You need to have a way of connecting others.
Now, if you plan on just being a small ISP, like the article says, then step 3 isn't necessary.
The thing that I have been contemplating is the creation of a truly "pirate" ISP. That is, one that uses the backbone fibre of the internet to create an internet within the internet. Here, I thought the article was really about that. An internet within the internet is the likely outcome of all this heavy handed behavior of the Entertainment industry, via politicians.
In a few more years, it'll be possible to build a wireless "alternet". A new internet with it's own DNS stack separate from the internet and the eyes of Big Brother. Except by capturing the signals and decrypting them. Technically a wireless alternet is feasible now. I have several wireless routers in my neighborhood. We could form our own network, and they can probably see a few routers I can't see further out and could connect with them. The question is: is there enough density now, that we could grow that out city-wide, county-wide, state-wide, country-wide, worldwide(how)? Certainly is major cities this is feasible. This will happen if the powers that be don't relent. If you make the internet illegal only the criminals will have internet, and almost everyone will be a criminal. The technology is out there. People have a real need to b e connected to the internet now. Take it away and they'll find new way.
You have a very idealized version of drug use's "Good Ole' Days". There really weren't any. To begin with, the first Federal prohibition against drugs didn't come until 1914, ... The high water mark for addiction in this country was between the Civil War and right before WWI. Between 2 and 5 percent of the population was addicted to drugs. And I mean really addicted. Do you know who helped cause this? Dirty street pushers? Columbian gangs? No.
Doctors.
That's right, our biggest addiction rates came from the men in "clean white coats".... but it was all legal. After morphine became widely available, doctors so overused opiates for even minor patient problems that addiction became common. You could literally go the hospital with a middling ailment and come home addicted to morphine.
...
You have a very idealized notion of American history, and an odd definition of doctors, and a very warped perception of the 60s and 70s.
First off, most of the "medicines" you mention in the 1800s were discovered by doctors and scientists, but produced by both reputable companies and charlatan con artists. Not to mention many addictive drugs were simply added to food stuffs to give them an extra boost. Addiction in children and housewives and men was not so much abuse by the doctors but greed by legitimate companies and all manner of small time cheats. Sure doctors were far too liberal in using these new miracle drugs, and.some doctors were unethical with them also. But I blame simple greed most. Drugs were everywhere, and in almost every commercial product.
Secondly, in the sixties and seventies the popular drugs were by and far professionally produced drugs. Many of which were legal until the seventies. LSD was legal when it first hit the street scene and remained so for several years. So, before you go off spouting history, learn it first. I lived through the sixties and seventies, I was there. A firsthand witness. I can personally vouch that the majority of drugs in the sixties and seventies were produced by corporations, and not in people's basements. Sure there was some of that, but those were a small minority.
Actually, using the CAFRA 2000 Congressional law, you can hire an attorney(s) (don't ever try to represent yourself unless you have a law degree), and get back your money and the lawyers' fees.
Yes, the police do regularly seize cash and cars and other property from innocent citizens, but you can get it back through lawsuits. You can also, at the same time if your smart, sue them for damages (doing it all in a single lawsuit). If enough people do this, then those dirty little police run theft rings will shut down because it would become a losing proposition for them.
I don't generally advocate suing municipalities, but there are some in the USA that need it. We can thank the "Drug War" on this loss of our rights in the form of the drug money seizure laws.
Although all the studies indicate that overall home-schooled students are better educated and do better in college. I partially homeschool, and should my local district start buying Texas based curriculum, I may go whole hog on the homeschooling. At least she'll learn more than one language and have a decent math and science education. That's not to say there aren't a lot of religious whacks out there homeschooling. There definitely are. The thing is, a lot of those religious whacks actually love their children and seem to want them get a decent education, and want to teach them religion and their world view. So they homeschool and raise smart religious whacks. The only thing worse than a religious fanatic is a well educated religious fanatic. Which is why we need to educate our public educators on how to educate and not to be herders of mindless mobs. These incidents being cases in point. I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance in schools. It should be mandatory to medicate every educator, with say one joint for every 3 hours of school.
Well, if those two arguments weren't relative, than how aboutt this one. In libel, there are exceptions to the rules about public figures and reasonable belief. These exceptions are called "per se defamation", in other word they are by definition defamation irregardless of how believable they are or how famous or public a victim is. One of those exceptions is accusing a person of an infamous crime. Let's see, is being a sexual predator an infamous crime? You betcha! Congratulations we have a winner. This was per se defamation. Very actionable, and a crime in 17 states.
Doing a a simple google search on "porn gorilla suit" returns over 45,000 hits. Bizarre sex is out there. So, I'd find it very believable of just about any kind of crazy sex act you could dream up as a parody. But, since you're apparently ignorant of the law, I'll educate you. Accusing someone of a notorious crime is always considered libel. It's not considered parody and is not part of protected speech. You can't hide behind parody to commit libel. There are some very clear lines you can't cross even when claiming parody.
Too bad your school education didn't include any study in: the English language, spelling, syntax or grammar. Nor did it apparently include "insight" into logical reasoning. It's never ok to ruin someone's career because some spoiled brat didn't like being punished for misbehavior in school and therefore took it to the internet with malicious defamation. Also, you seem to be totally ignorant in the State of the Union on parents. There a fairly good probability the parents are as bad or worse than the child. As a parent exposed to other parents, I can attest to the fact that probably 50%-75% of parents would have done nothing were this girl their child and the principal brought this to their attention. I don't know, maybe you're just a troll and I fell in to it.
- We can, apparently, fix: cars, planes, electronics and all manor of things, except stupid or leaking oil wells.
But PA isn't one of them. A Colorado man was convicted and sentenced to 23 years for criminal libel he committed on the internet. Internet libel is a felony in Colorado.
Clearly, the girl committed what is called "libel per se". Hence the principal could have sued over it, regardless of how public or famous he was. It's an urban legend that if a libel is so unbelievable or the person famous or public enough they can't sue and win libel laws. Libel that implies criminal conduct is always actionable. There are other exceptions to the rules that protect certain libel from prosecution.
suspending the student may or may not have been appropriate, but libel isn't protected speech. Parody is. Once you cross the line you lose that First Amendment right. Remember not all speech is protected First amendment speech. For one If I say, "I'm coming over there with a bat and I'm going to bash your skull in with it", that's not protected speech. But saying, "I think you need to be taken out to the shed and given 50 lashes of Licorice", probably is.