The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to to ahead anyway.
Well, if nothing else we have to give Hell, Bush, Cheney & Co. an "A" for persistence. This is totally within character for them, as well as the various agencies that have sprung up around and because of them (the TSA, for example.) This is going to get much worse before it gets better... assuming it gets better. Now granted, Federal law enforcement has gotten too big for its britches before (such as the FBI under Hoover) and eventually Congress had to take notice and rein them in. There is a pendulum effect here, these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, under Hoover the FBI was a direct threat to Congress itself, which no doubt explains their desire to restrict the FBI's activities. I doubt concern for the citizenry had much to do with it, but at least they were willing and able to put some controls in place.
The problem is qualitatively different today: Congress has proven inept at providing adequate oversight, and itself is interested in yet-more-powerful government. I don't think we're going to find salvation in Washington... they're on a collective power trip and see no reason to stop. Remember Darth Vader's first scene? He said "There will be no-one to stop us, this time." I think we're in the same boat as Princess Leia.
No, that makes me someone who has invested his life in the country of his birth, and who takes his citizenship seriously. Your attitude is bizarre, but unfortunately somewhat common. Yes, I was born here, and yes, I care about who is given the same rights that I enjoy. To think otherwise is to not care about my country at all. Believe me, I wouldn't let just anyone live under my roof, and I fail to see why I shouldn't be concerned about the caliber of people that my government allows to live in the house next door.
This is not a matter of race, and I'm goddamned sick of people who keep trying to make it one. It's a matter of trust, a matter of knowing that my neighbor shares the same core ideals that the rest of us do. If it were a matter of race I wouldn't be engaged to a woman from North Africa. That's not it at all.
I would like immigrants and those who become naturalized citizens to have the same loyalty to my country (which should now be their country) as I do. That attitude is not limited to the United States: other nations have far more restrictive immigration laws than we do. I suggest that you go read Mexico's immigration code. I have. It's eye-opening, and demonstrates governmental hypocrisy of Biblical proportions.
Far too many of those who come here I see as being more interested in getting what they can out of our economy while the getting is good, and to hell with America and its people. I don't care what you come from, I don't care where you were born: I just want you to be an American in all the ways that matter. Otherwise, as I said before... you're a liability.
And I'd appreciate your keeping unwarranted epithets to yourself.
You, like many other people that bring out the "racism" crap in an effort to neuter any meaningful discussion about immigration, keep losing sight of an important issue: assimilation. And if you want to talk about racism as applied to immigration policy, the United States and its people make a poor example. We allow thousands upon thousands of people from every country on Earth to emigrate here every year, and to try to become citizens if they so wish. Calling us racist demonstrates a remarkable degree of ignorance on this subject. Try emigrating to Japan, for example: unless you can show that you are as Japanese as humanly possible you will never be a citizen. That's a far more "racist" approach to immigration than U.S. policy has ever been, but you know what? It's their country, and it's their right to decide who they want to live there. Allow us the same privilege before you call us racist: contrary to what you may believe, you do not have any intrinsic right to come here. We get to decide that, not you.
Put it this way: no matter what country you hail from, granting citizenship to all comers is a mistake that few nations make. That's not to say that illegal immigration isn't just as big a problem for other countries as it is for America, but so far as legal immigration is concerned, the citizens of any nation have a stake in who is granted citizenship. The process of assimilation doesn't happen overnight, and just because someone is a "best and brightest" absolutely does not automatically qualify them as an asset, someone of benefit to our society. Bill Gates and his ilk would like you to believe otherwise, but only because they are insulated from the effects of their manipulations, and by their past actions have shown they don't care one whit about this country and its people. Their opinions in this matter are not to be taken seriously.
Citizenship should be earned, not handed out willy-nilly. Whether you're English, French, German, Venezualan, Russian, Chinese... you want to know that the people you are allowing in to your country understand your culture, accept your culture, and are willing to give their allegiance to it. That takes time, often lots of it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with your technical skills and knowledge, or whether you're willing to work for half of a domestic worker's pay. It has to do with who you are, what you believe in. If you don't believe in America, don't believe in the Constitution, don't believe in us... we don't want or need you. You're a liability.
My fiancee is a naturalized U.S. citizen who spent many years in this country before she was sworn in. She's proud of the fact that she worked hard, proved her worth, and is now a citizen of this great nation. However, she bitterly resents the fact that thousands of other foreign-born individuals (not to mention tens of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants) are being given rights and privileges that they have not earned and do not deserve.
How is the sale of a Canadian company to US interests ever a net benefit for Canada? I've lost track of the companies that used to be Canadian owned, even a part of Canada's national identity (Tim Hortons), that have been sold off to make a penny.
Don't feel bad. We can make the same claim, like this:
How is the sale of an American company to Chinese interests ever a net benefit for the U.S.? I've lost track of the companies that used to be U.S.-owned, even a part of America's national identity, that have been sold off to make a penny.
And JUST when I thought I was done with WoW. Honestly, a crack addiction would probably cost less - I might spend more money on it, but I'd also have more friends and more free time.
Yes, and if nothing else there will be a few crack whores around to help you through those cold winter nights.
Interesting... my previous comment was repeatedly modded "Troll" and "Overrated". I guess the Creationists (and other people that didn't make it past the 7th grade) are out in full force tonight.
Depending on the school they went to, creationism may have been taught to them in their 7th grade science class.
Well, if that's what they were taught in their 7th grade science class... IT WASN'T A SCIENCE CLASS. In any event, people that wave their ignorance around like a badge of honor irritate the hell out of me. If you don't have a clue, get one before disturbing other people and causing so much hate and discontent.
So y'know, take it easy on the creationists. They may not understand how science works, but when faced with an article like this, can you really blame them?
Really, you should have gotten a +1 Funny not a Troll mod. Fact is, those are exactly the kind of people that bring down civilizations, so going easy on them isn't an option. So far as not understanding science... well, it's not my fault they didn't pay attention in 7th grade science class. If they don't understand what they're talking about they should either educate themselves or just shut up.
The appellation "extremist" has little meaning nowadays. It is used primarily to smear those who hold unpopular beliefs ("Oh, you don't think like the rest of us? YOU MUST BE AN EXTREMIST!") rather than being reserved for those who truly do advocate extreme positions.
... the interested party also violated [the code] which specifies that the lawyer cannot unfairly represent a situation or seriousness of threat.
I would think that there'd be similar Federal or State law here in the U.S. Not that it would matter: copyright law is so screwed up here that when the RIAA says you might go down for hundreds of thousands of dollars they actually aren't lying. Not about that, anyway.
Verizon and AT&T networks have always been open. They even brag about it. You can easily buy a handset from a variety of manufacturers and both Verizon and AT&T will hook you right up.
Sure, but that was their choice, not a legal requirement, and they could choose to lock it down just as easily if they felt that was in their best interests. The would, too. Google obviously wants to expand into the mobile market, but doesn't want to be dependent upon the likes of AT&T (really, SBC) and Verizon for wireless connectivity. Now they're not, at least within the C block.
These logos are clearly nothing alike in the ways that matter.
What matters to you, me and the rest of Slashdot doesn't matter. What matters is what the legal system thinks... and that's a lot less predictable, and maybe a lot less rational. Time will tell.
Verizon (and all the other Telcos and ISPs) want us in C-Block all right. Right next to that big guy named "Bubba" with the twinkle in his eye.
Seriously, I don't believe a word of what's coming out of Verizon's collective mouth. I really hope I'm wrong, but "open access" and "Telco" really don't belong in the same sentence.
Never mind that it's evil, or that it's a great step to losing their common-carrier status.
Another common misperception. I don't know of any major United States Internet Service Provider that operates under common carrier regulation. The Telcos still do, but only for phone service. Their data services are considered exceptions to common-carrier regulation.
They obviously looked at the legal situation and decided the lack of immunity from lawsuits over the use of their equipment was a risk worth taking. Operating as a common carrier has regulatory burdens that they really don't want. What they want, actually, is to have the immunity from prosecution and still operate without any particular regulatory controls (i.e., they want to have their cake and eat it too.)
Slashdot Mirror
The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to to ahead anyway.
... assuming it gets better. Now granted, Federal law enforcement has gotten too big for its britches before (such as the FBI under Hoover) and eventually Congress had to take notice and rein them in. There is a pendulum effect here, these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, under Hoover the FBI was a direct threat to Congress itself, which no doubt explains their desire to restrict the FBI's activities. I doubt concern for the citizenry had much to do with it, but at least they were willing and able to put some controls in place.
... they're on a collective power trip and see no reason to stop. Remember Darth Vader's first scene? He said "There will be no-one to stop us, this time." I think we're in the same boat as Princess Leia.
Well, if nothing else we have to give Hell, Bush, Cheney & Co. an "A" for persistence. This is totally within character for them, as well as the various agencies that have sprung up around and because of them (the TSA, for example.) This is going to get much worse before it gets better
The problem is qualitatively different today: Congress has proven inept at providing adequate oversight, and itself is interested in yet-more-powerful government. I don't think we're going to find salvation in Washington
Sorry, Nazlfrag, I meant to reply to the previous poster.
That makes you an asshole, my friend.
... you're a liability.
No, that makes me someone who has invested his life in the country of his birth, and who takes his citizenship seriously. Your attitude is bizarre, but unfortunately somewhat common. Yes, I was born here, and yes, I care about who is given the same rights that I enjoy. To think otherwise is to not care about my country at all. Believe me, I wouldn't let just anyone live under my roof, and I fail to see why I shouldn't be concerned about the caliber of people that my government allows to live in the house next door.
This is not a matter of race, and I'm goddamned sick of people who keep trying to make it one. It's a matter of trust, a matter of knowing that my neighbor shares the same core ideals that the rest of us do. If it were a matter of race I wouldn't be engaged to a woman from North Africa. That's not it at all.
I would like immigrants and those who become naturalized citizens to have the same loyalty to my country (which should now be their country) as I do. That attitude is not limited to the United States: other nations have far more restrictive immigration laws than we do. I suggest that you go read Mexico's immigration code. I have. It's eye-opening, and demonstrates governmental hypocrisy of Biblical proportions.
Far too many of those who come here I see as being more interested in getting what they can out of our economy while the getting is good, and to hell with America and its people. I don't care what you come from, I don't care where you were born: I just want you to be an American in all the ways that matter. Otherwise, as I said before
And I'd appreciate your keeping unwarranted epithets to yourself.
Community Network Neighborhood.
You, like many other people that bring out the "racism" crap in an effort to neuter any meaningful discussion about immigration, keep losing sight of an important issue: assimilation. And if you want to talk about racism as applied to immigration policy, the United States and its people make a poor example. We allow thousands upon thousands of people from every country on Earth to emigrate here every year, and to try to become citizens if they so wish. Calling us racist demonstrates a remarkable degree of ignorance on this subject. Try emigrating to Japan, for example: unless you can show that you are as Japanese as humanly possible you will never be a citizen. That's a far more "racist" approach to immigration than U.S. policy has ever been, but you know what? It's their country, and it's their right to decide who they want to live there. Allow us the same privilege before you call us racist: contrary to what you may believe, you do not have any intrinsic right to come here. We get to decide that, not you.
... you want to know that the people you are allowing in to your country understand your culture, accept your culture, and are willing to give their allegiance to it. That takes time, often lots of it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with your technical skills and knowledge, or whether you're willing to work for half of a domestic worker's pay. It has to do with who you are, what you believe in. If you don't believe in America, don't believe in the Constitution, don't believe in us ... we don't want or need you. You're a liability.
Put it this way: no matter what country you hail from, granting citizenship to all comers is a mistake that few nations make. That's not to say that illegal immigration isn't just as big a problem for other countries as it is for America, but so far as legal immigration is concerned, the citizens of any nation have a stake in who is granted citizenship. The process of assimilation doesn't happen overnight, and just because someone is a "best and brightest" absolutely does not automatically qualify them as an asset, someone of benefit to our society. Bill Gates and his ilk would like you to believe otherwise, but only because they are insulated from the effects of their manipulations, and by their past actions have shown they don't care one whit about this country and its people. Their opinions in this matter are not to be taken seriously.
Citizenship should be earned, not handed out willy-nilly. Whether you're English, French, German, Venezualan, Russian, Chinese
My fiancee is a naturalized U.S. citizen who spent many years in this country before she was sworn in. She's proud of the fact that she worked hard, proved her worth, and is now a citizen of this great nation. However, she bitterly resents the fact that thousands of other foreign-born individuals (not to mention tens of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants) are being given rights and privileges that they have not earned and do not deserve.
How is the sale of a Canadian company to US interests ever a net benefit for Canada? I've lost track of the companies that used to be Canadian owned, even a part of Canada's national identity (Tim Hortons), that have been sold off to make a penny.
Don't feel bad. We can make the same claim, like this:
How is the sale of an American company to Chinese interests ever a net benefit for the U.S.? I've lost track of the companies that used to be U.S.-owned, even a part of America's national identity, that have been sold off to make a penny.
And JUST when I thought I was done with WoW. Honestly, a crack addiction would probably cost less - I might spend more money on it, but I'd also have more friends and more free time.
Yes, and if nothing else there will be a few crack whores around to help you through those cold winter nights.
will the King's henchmen be known as "lichens"?
Ironically, they complain that 'this would make the market far less competitive.'
what the summary really meant was:
Hypocritically, they complain that 'this would make the market far less competitive.'
$309 (including shipping) for a mint-condition Thinkpad R40 from Ebay. Original IBM unit, not a Lenovo.
Works for me.
And no mail server in 2008, much less one run by a major tech company, should make that possible.
Just because one isn't evil, doesn't mean one is competent or incapable of error.
Interesting ... my previous comment was repeatedly modded "Troll" and "Overrated". I guess the Creationists (and other people that didn't make it past the 7th grade) are out in full force tonight.
I won't speak the name of the most effective method, for it is a word of power and would cause much wailing in a crowd such as this.
Castration?
Depending on the school they went to, creationism may have been taught to them in their 7th grade science class.
... IT WASN'T A SCIENCE CLASS. In any event, people that wave their ignorance around like a badge of honor irritate the hell out of me. If you don't have a clue, get one before disturbing other people and causing so much hate and discontent.
Well, if that's what they were taught in their 7th grade science class
With that kind of attitude on Yahoo's part, no wonder Microsoft is so eager to mate with them.
... an IP lawyer.
Yes, and the offspring of that unholy union will most likely be
So y'know, take it easy on the creationists. They may not understand how science works, but when faced with an article like this, can you really blame them?
... well, it's not my fault they didn't pay attention in 7th grade science class. If they don't understand what they're talking about they should either educate themselves or just shut up.
Really, you should have gotten a +1 Funny not a Troll mod. Fact is, those are exactly the kind of people that bring down civilizations, so going easy on them isn't an option. So far as not understanding science
12. Hire lots of good lawyers
13. Use them.
Botany Bay is actually quite a nice place now.
Sure, it's a great place to take a long nap, until your suspended animation chamber fails.
Interesting. Doesn't do much for due process.
The appellation "extremist" has little meaning nowadays. It is used primarily to smear those who hold unpopular beliefs ("Oh, you don't think like the rest of us? YOU MUST BE AN EXTREMIST!") rather than being reserved for those who truly do advocate extreme positions.
... the interested party also violated [the code] which specifies that the lawyer cannot unfairly represent a situation or seriousness of threat.
I would think that there'd be similar Federal or State law here in the U.S. Not that it would matter: copyright law is so screwed up here that when the RIAA says you might go down for hundreds of thousands of dollars they actually aren't lying. Not about that, anyway.
Verizon and AT&T networks have always been open. They even brag about it. You can easily buy a handset from a variety of manufacturers and both Verizon and AT&T will hook you right up.
Sure, but that was their choice, not a legal requirement, and they could choose to lock it down just as easily if they felt that was in their best interests. The would, too. Google obviously wants to expand into the mobile market, but doesn't want to be dependent upon the likes of AT&T (really, SBC) and Verizon for wireless connectivity. Now they're not, at least within the C block.
These logos are clearly nothing alike in the ways that matter.
... and that's a lot less predictable, and maybe a lot less rational. Time will tell.
What matters to you, me and the rest of Slashdot doesn't matter. What matters is what the legal system thinks
Verizon (and all the other Telcos and ISPs) want us in C-Block all right. Right next to that big guy named "Bubba" with the twinkle in his eye.
Seriously, I don't believe a word of what's coming out of Verizon's collective mouth. I really hope I'm wrong, but "open access" and "Telco" really don't belong in the same sentence.
Never mind that it's evil, or that it's a great step to losing their common-carrier status.
Another common misperception. I don't know of any major United States Internet Service Provider that operates under common carrier regulation. The Telcos still do, but only for phone service. Their data services are considered exceptions to common-carrier regulation.
They obviously looked at the legal situation and decided the lack of immunity from lawsuits over the use of their equipment was a risk worth taking. Operating as a common carrier has regulatory burdens that they really don't want. What they want, actually, is to have the immunity from prosecution and still operate without any particular regulatory controls (i.e., they want to have their cake and eat it too.)