don't see why this is revolutionary technology. This could have been done for years, with basic motion-detector technology. I also don't see why this would make ads any more "localized" than any other print billboards. I don't see why people would mind a billboard talking to them either, it's not as if they haven't heard any other recorded voices being played back.
Ok, I haven't RTFA but it seemed SUCH a waste of time. Why is this new? Hasn't anyome been to a museum where the automated video starts when you walk up?...or been in a NYC taxi where a B-list star tells you to buckle-up?... or walked up to an escalator and had it start automatically?...or driven down the road and had your speed flashed on a sign?...or, etc. etc?
As for recorded voices - the vending machine industry tried talking vending machines a few years ago that would talk as you walked up to them and they were an incredible flop. No one wanted to have a conversation with a Coke machine.
And has no one experienced the incredibly annoying car alarm that says in an authoritarian voice, "STEP AWAY FROM THE CAR!" when you walk past. Yeah, right, where's my marker pen?
This "new" technology seems amazingly old hat to me.
There are actually two issues. The second is the increased murder rate on board planes as passengers are forced to listen to the inane conversations of the idiot(s) four rows up.
Seriously, cell phones on flights could be a serious irritation problem. Flights are one of the few places we can escape from loud stupid conversations, the other being the NYC subway system. I hope and prey there will he HEFTY surcharges on these calls.
We're just as likely to detect an early industrial civlization by their sitcom broadcasts as we are to detect some hyperadvanced godlike race beaming lasers at us accross the galaxy.
No, we're not. The odds of detecting an alien civilization that's within even a few hundred or thousand years of our own in terms of technology are ridiculously small. ---
That depends on how many civilizations exist at any one time doesn't it? We might miss 99.99999% of the civilizations that are out there because they are outside our tech level, but if there are 10^8 civilzations, then that's still a LOT of signals we could detect. The universe is a big place.
What makes you think that we could not detect a very wide range of signals anyway? If we walk along a path and see a snake we can communicate with it by stomping on the ground to sent it vibrations, even thought he snake is about as non-tech as it gets. The snake also communicates with us through its rattle or hiss and yet it can't even comprehend how much more advanced technically we are.
His records are available and show he was not unaccounted for.
No! His records are NOT available. There are no fitness reports, no medical reports, no evaluations, so sign-in sheets. Only some partial pay records for three months of the disputed time period have been released.
Look, if he was actually there why hasn't a SINGLE PERSON come forward to say they saw him during the disputed period??? If there were any at all don't you think Carl Rove would have come up with one?
As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
Kerry served in Vietnam for a year and four months. I think you are confused because he only served four months of his second tour. Incidently that's 16 more months in Nam than the chicken-hawks Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, and Feith served put together.
McCain is supporting Bush because he wants to be President and he does not want his political career to be over. If McCain abandoned the party to support Kerry, or even simply did not support Bush, he would be 1) crucified by the vindictive neocons and would never hold another office, not even Senator; and 2)insuring that the GOP remains ultra right for the forseeable future. He is the obvious candidate in 2008 since Cheney's two heart attacks rule him out for health reasons. Supposing the country survived Bush for another four years McCain probably sees that as his only chance to bring the party back toward the middle and reality.
For your information McCain and Kerry have been good friends for many years so your dogshit reference is worth exactly dogshit.
There is no "party of McCain". McCain has been relegated to a minor role as the party's manufactured facade of reasonableness. The Republican Party today is an extremist organization that only calls itself conservative while promoting ultra-right wing, neocon philosophies. The Republican Party today is a lot closer to Facism than it is to McCain's Republican Party of 10 or 15 years ago.
What do you suppose is cleaner for the environment? Lots and lots of small internal combustion engines running around, which may or may not be in good running condition - or a few large coal-fired power plants that are undoubtably well maintained?
Funny you should ask - the small engines. If you are concerned that almost all lakes and streams (and fish) in the US are contaminated with mercury (recent EPA report) that mostly comes from coal-fired power plants, or by acid rain, or by heavy-metal ash, or by mountain-top removal strip mining, or by mine tailing sulfuric acid runoff then lots of small engines using gasoline are better.
Coal fired power plants are the most polluting source of energy used today in the US. Your so called 'well-maintained' coal power plants are not maintained to reduce emissions - they are maintained to maximize profits for the owners. Since Bush has gutted the New Source Review Rule coal-powered plants no longer even have to upgrade their air pollution control technology when they upgrade their plants. We now have ultra-large generating plants with 1950's pollution controls. On the other hand, vehicle emission controls are state of the art AND use a fuel that is much cleaner than coal to begin with.
Although today more air pollution is generated by point sources (cars) than from coal-fired power plants, that is simply because there are so many cars. If, however, you were to start powering all those cars with electricity from coal-powered generating plants the pollution and environmental destruction would be unbearable.
The bottom line is this: if you live in an area with hydro, nuclear, natural gas or even oil-fired power plants then a hybrid or electric car will reduce air pollution. However, if you live in an area that gets it energy from coal-fired power plants you will INCREASE air pollution by using an electric car powered by the grid.
As for your national independence argument, the solution is to develop CLEAN power sources - not destroy the environment with coal. Don't be fooled by the coal industry's ad campaign about the "new" clean coal - it is still the most polluting fuel we have and the most damaging to the environment - from mountin-top removal mining to heavy-metal ash disposal.
Are you debating the point that, statistically, the average black candidate will have lower scores and less education than the average white/asian? If not, how can you accuse me of being racist? Are you asserting that scores and educational background are racist entities unto themselves? That, too, is ridiculous.
What I am saying is that you would have pre-conceived ideas about the qualifications and capabilities of any INDIVIDUAL black candidate based on what you believe to be true about a whole group. That *is* racist, and it is not ridiculous.
I do not grant your argument that blacks have lower test scores or are less capable than whites/asians, when evaluated on any PARTICULAR test. I will not grant you that black MBA's have lower test scores than white MBA's or that black lawyers are less capable than asian lawyers.
Are black high school graduates less well educated than whites on average? I suspect this is true, but it is NOT a result of your contention that they don't try or are not motivated to succeed. It is a result of a long history of inferior schools, inferior resources, and inferior opportunity.
Only a single generation ago a black could not get into a white college in this country or even attend a white high school, only two generations ago a black could not get a job working in a factory, only three generations ago blacks were slaves and were prohibited by law from even learning to read. If you can't see that the deck has been (and still is) stacked against this minority then you are blind.
i love it too. i've been an opera user for many years (i was a 1.0 user).
i had even forgotten about popups *entirely* until a relative asked me to fix her pc and then I saw my first popup in years. I remember thinking "Oh, a popup. Are those things still around?"
I object to your second paragraph for being ridiculous. Applicants are judged on many criteria, not the least of which is their past experience and education. It should be readily apparent from the applicant's resume whether she had exhibited a good work ethic in the past. Any hypothetical hiring manager who disregarded this and hired someone based on racial stereotypes would be an idiot.
It happens all the time. I have news for you - your perfect world where everyone is judged equally and fairly does not exist. It happens because of exactly the sterotypes that you are championing. It is clear that you think that any black interviewing for a job would be statistically more likely not to be the best candidate for the job. But wait...all you had to go on in my example was race - and that is the definition of racism.
You don't take into consideration all the roadblocks that are put in front of blacks such as poorer school districts, larger classroom sizes, lower quality teachers, lower expectations, difficulty in getting into top colleges (unlike George Bush's legacy admission to Yale with piss-poor grades), difficulty in getting hired for the better jobs, etc, etc, etc. Why would anyone be surprised that blacks are at the low end of the economic scale, and why in the world would they blame the victims?
The problem is that your perceptions are based on the way the world has worked for you, and that is not the way the world works for many people. You are making the invalid assumption that it just takes hard work and dedication to succeed, while nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe in your world, and for people of your (and my) background that is true, but it is simply not so for everyone. I used to think as you do, but decades of life have shown me the truth. I have seen again and again that minorities are not hired when they were the best candidates for the job. Ironically I've seen more of it in the North, where racism supposedly does not exist.
In the two large companies I have worked for in New York the workplaces have been almost completely black-free except for the mailrooms and secretarial pools. That isn't because there are not black lawyers or black scientists, or black business school graduates, or black college grads - it is because those companies seldom hire blacks for "real" positions. Oh, they rationalize it away and would NEVER admit to racism, even to themselves. In their heads they find some rationalization that the black isn't really the best candidate, while their subconscious minds go "Whew!". Go into ANY any cafeteria of ANY large New York City firm and you will see almost no blacks. As my mother used to say: "The proof is in the pudding".
I hope they come to their senses and will lend every support to that effort.
Maybe you don;t know this, but the American people never lost their senses. Al Gore won the election in 2000, not Bush. Gore got more votes than Bush. In the US, because each state is winner-take-all, it is possible to get more total votes and still not win the election. However in this case it is even worse since Gore DID win the state (Electoral) votes as well. Bush's brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, stopped the voting in his state with almost 250,000 votes uncounted. It was no coincidence that the uncounted votes were from districts heavily favoring Gore. Since Bush "won" Florida by less than 500 votes this clearly gave the deciding state to Bush.
In November I fully expect Americans to take back the country from Bush. In 2000 51% of Americans voted for Gore and NONE of them will ever vote for Bush. On top of that Bush has been such a screw-up in every area: environmental, foreign policy, economic, and personal freedoms that a lot of Americans who voted for him the first time will not vote for him again. I expect a landslide victory for Kerry in November. Unfortunately it will take years for Kerry to dig us out of the hole Bush has put us in.
A lot of people won't want to bring a $300/$400 or even more expensive camera with them when they're just going to be taking snapshots to show off what they did and where they were and other touristy stuff.
I see a use for these for myself, but I don't know how typical I am. I have some very expensive medium format cameras and when in poorer countries I often feel morally uncomfortable pulling out a camera that can cost the equivalent of 10 years of per capita annual income. Even a $150 digital camera could easily cost several months of local income.
A $20 disposable camera would make me less self-concious as well as reduce the chance of having my expensive equipment stolen.
Re:Major security issues...
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 1
No offense intended, but why are you talking about top secret data when the article describes how to best communicate with families back home?
Obviously the post was talking about Harris's secure network just to show that security on a WiFi network is possible.
The issue about family information on WiFi networks is this: The face of war and the enemy has changed. We no longer fight organized militias exclusively, but decentralized organizations that attack soft targets by preference. Terrorists could get the names and addresses of soldier's relatives and attack their families around the world. This would be a very smart, effective terror tactic for them. Therefore even information not classified as "secret" has to be protected.
Also don't get me wrong about the location of the terrorists. I know there were no al Queda in Iraq before the invasion and that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, but they are in Iraq now (thank you oh so much, W). As a result these types of insecure communications have to be guarded even if no so-called secret info is passed on them.
The cleverest terrorists may already be fully in control of the world. Their 'attacks' may not be indentified as such. They may be so subtle that they are not even...
Hmmm. This sounds a lot like the Saudi Royal family.
That is only true when and if a motor vehicle enters the equation. It is not true in general public situations (i.e. you are walking on the sidewalk); the police can pull up and ask for ID, but you do not have to provide it to them
Not so. You are required to identify yourself if the police have probable cause that a crime has been committed, or if they think they are in danger. You really don't think the police cannot ask your name if they catch you shooting someone or robbing a store, do you?
You also have to identify yourself in airports and train stations. Publicly funded transportation systems (roads, airports, trains, etc) are the special case here, not merely "motor vehicles". Police are also allowed to search you without warrants in these places.
But your advice to read the ACLU pages is very good advice (unfortunately few police officers will have taken it). Join up and send them some money while you are there.
Federal courts have already stated we do not have the right to not identify ourselves to law enforcement. Obviously, we are still physically able to refuse to identify ourselves, but doing so will result in arrest
Citizens on the street must identify themselves to police only in certain specific circumstances: 1)where there is probable cause that a crime has been committed by the person, and 2)when the officer feels that his safety might be in danger. The second is called a "Terry Stop".
The Supreme Court has now added a third circumstance: When the state you are in has a law that requires citizens to identify themselves to police when requested, those laws are Constitutional and citizens must do so. (I will disagree with this to my dying day, as did 4 of the 9 justices). If the state you are in does not have such a law then you are still not required to identify yourself to the police except under examples 1 and 2 above.
It is an important point that the Court did NOT say that citizens must identify themselves to police, it said that state laws requiring citizens to do so are constitutional. This may seem a small point, but we have to hang on to every ounce of freedom we have left for as long as we can.
The Hiibel case was a very narrow decision that supported laws in certain states that have laws requiring persons to identify themselves to police. The court ruled that those laws were constitutional. The Supreme Court case does NOT require citizens in states that do not have such laws (which is most of them) to identify themselves.
Having said that, I think it is a travesty that the Supreme Court ruling degraded citizens' right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution in ANY state.
No one really saw the FIRST plane, but many people saw the second plane.
Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people saw the first plane hit. Plane 1 flew the length of Manhattan at high speed barely above rooftops. I think what you meant to say was that there wasn't any VIDEO of the first impact, which by the way is not true either. There are at least two that I am aware of, one from two tourists in a car about 5 miles away, and another from a film crew shooting a documentary about firefighters who were almost under the tower.
SHow me a source that says there were no aircrft parts found at the Pentagon, because I find that not creditable. Maybe you just have'nt seen any on TV. Think about it - you haven't seen any aircraft parts from the two towers OR the Pennsylvania crash either. (And no, they weren;t destroyed in the collapse, engines and other heavy parts were hurled through both buildings and fell blocks from both towers - you can see them in the videos.) The government is just being super secretive about all the attacks.
They also produce some of the deadliest weapons on earth, and all in simple production houses.. Yes, and they also laid waste to thousands of square kilometers of land as nuclear no-man's lands while doing it, killed hundred (if not thousands of people) from exposure to radioactivity, and made entire lakes and rivers unfit for life for the next 10,000 years. Oh yea - they're great.
The FreeRepublic? Don't you think they are a bit biased in their viewpoint? Did they tell you this:
Because of an $87 billion overpayment for a cancelled program that was included in that bill DICK CHENEY himself was recommending that the Senate not pass it until that item was removed. Of course Dick can claim HE didn't "vote against body armor" because as Vice-President he only votes in tie-breakers.
So -
1. Kerry voted for a defense spending bill (one small part of which included funds for body armor) 2. When it was discovered that there was an $87 billion error he voted against it at the request of Dick Cheney 3. when the mistake was corrected he voted for the bill
Republicans call this "flip-flopping" on defense. When Kerry tries to explain what happened Cheney calls it "just another nuance in his flip-flopping."
Who would you rather have as your President, Americans - one who tries to trick you into voting for him, or one who tries to tell you what happened?
when i read it i read that it was done to protect the car. if that is not the case then you are correct, it was not a man-trap.
barbed wire is not a trap as it is clearly visible and identifiable for what it is. however, if you put the barbed-wire in a pit that was disguised so an intruder would fall into, it it would be a trap and illegal. but i believe you are referring to strung wire used as a security device.
as for electric fences, electrical fencing that would be lethal to humans IS illegal except in extraordinary circumstances (i'm thnking military). if *you* strung a lethal electric fence around your house it would be called a man-trap since the electricity is essentiall "hidden" no matter how many signs you posted (remember kids can't read).
property owners are not allowed to impose the death penalty for trespassing - via an electric fence or any other means. in cases where trespassers have been shot the legal defense has been that the homeowner was in fear of his life, NOT that the person was trespassing. the self-defense argument would not be available in the case of a lethal electric fence designed to kill whether or not the owner was even there.
no, the post i was replying to had fishhooks under the seat.
However much you might rationalize it, no amount of signs or warnings will protect you if you set a man-trap, particularly if it kills someone as did the high-voltage trap. it matters not one bit if the intruder was acting illegally or not. this may not sit well with you logically, but it is the law.
Slashdot Mirror
don't see why this is revolutionary technology. This could have been done for years, with basic motion-detector technology. I also don't see why this would make ads any more "localized" than any other print billboards. I don't see why people would mind a billboard talking to them either, it's not as if they haven't heard any other recorded voices being played back.
...or been in a NYC taxi where a B-list star tells you to buckle-up? ... or walked up to an escalator and had it start automatically? ...or driven down the road and had your speed flashed on a sign? ...or, etc. etc?
Ok, I haven't RTFA but it seemed SUCH a waste of time. Why is this new? Hasn't anyome been to a museum where the automated video starts when you walk up?
As for recorded voices - the vending machine industry tried talking vending machines a few years ago that would talk as you walked up to them and they were an incredible flop. No one wanted to have a conversation with a Coke machine.
And has no one experienced the incredibly annoying car alarm that says in an authoritarian voice, "STEP AWAY FROM THE CAR!" when you walk past. Yeah, right, where's my marker pen?
This "new" technology seems amazingly old hat to me.
There is one issue, though:
There are actually two issues. The second is the increased murder rate on board planes as passengers are forced to listen to the inane conversations of the idiot(s) four rows up.
Seriously, cell phones on flights could be a serious irritation problem. Flights are one of the few places we can escape from loud stupid conversations, the other being the NYC subway system. I hope and prey there will he HEFTY surcharges on these calls.
We're just as likely to detect an early industrial civlization by their sitcom broadcasts as we are to detect some hyperadvanced godlike race beaming lasers at us accross the galaxy.
No, we're not. The odds of detecting an alien civilization that's within even a few hundred or thousand years of our own in terms of technology are ridiculously small.
---
That depends on how many civilizations exist at any one time doesn't it? We might miss 99.99999% of the civilizations that are out there because they are outside our tech level, but if there are 10^8 civilzations, then that's still a LOT of signals we could detect. The universe is a big place.
What makes you think that we could not detect a very wide range of signals anyway? If we walk along a path and see a snake we can communicate with it by stomping on the ground to sent it vibrations, even thought he snake is about as non-tech as it gets. The snake also communicates with us through its rattle or hiss and yet it can't even comprehend how much more advanced technically we are.
His records are available and show he was not unaccounted for.
No! His records are NOT available. There are no fitness reports, no medical reports, no evaluations, so sign-in sheets. Only some partial pay records for three months of the disputed time period have been released.
Look, if he was actually there why hasn't a SINGLE PERSON come forward to say they saw him during the disputed period??? If there were any at all don't you think Carl Rove would have come up with one?
Ok, that's just silly. Joining the Air National Guard may have been a ploy to avoid the draft, but that does NOT make one a deserter.
You are right, of course, but not showing up for your last 10 months of duty without permission sure does.
As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
Kerry served in Vietnam for a year and four months. I think you are confused because he only served four months of his second tour. Incidently that's 16 more months in Nam than the chicken-hawks Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, and Feith served put together.
McCain is supporting Bush because he wants to be President and he does not want his political career to be over. If McCain abandoned the party to support Kerry, or even simply did not support Bush, he would be 1) crucified by the vindictive neocons and would never hold another office, not even Senator; and 2)insuring that the GOP remains ultra right for the forseeable future. He is the obvious candidate in 2008 since Cheney's two heart attacks rule him out for health reasons. Supposing the country survived Bush for another four years McCain probably sees that as his only chance to bring the party back toward the middle and reality.
For your information McCain and Kerry have been good friends for many years so your dogshit reference is worth exactly dogshit.
There is no "party of McCain". McCain has been relegated to a minor role as the party's manufactured facade of reasonableness. The Republican Party today is an extremist organization that only calls itself conservative while promoting ultra-right wing, neocon philosophies. The Republican Party today is a lot closer to Facism than it is to McCain's Republican Party of 10 or 15 years ago.
What do you suppose is cleaner for the environment? Lots and lots of small internal combustion engines running around, which may or may not be in good running condition - or a few large coal-fired power plants that are undoubtably well maintained?
Funny you should ask - the small engines. If you are concerned that almost all lakes and streams (and fish) in the US are contaminated with mercury (recent EPA report) that mostly comes from coal-fired power plants, or by acid rain, or by heavy-metal ash, or by mountain-top removal strip mining, or by mine tailing sulfuric acid runoff then lots of small engines using gasoline are better.
Coal fired power plants are the most polluting source of energy used today in the US. Your so called 'well-maintained' coal power plants are not maintained to reduce emissions - they are maintained to maximize profits for the owners. Since Bush has gutted the New Source Review Rule coal-powered plants no longer even have to upgrade their air pollution control technology when they upgrade their plants. We now have ultra-large generating plants with 1950's pollution controls. On the other hand, vehicle emission controls are state of the art AND use a fuel that is much cleaner than coal to begin with.
Although today more air pollution is generated by point sources (cars) than from coal-fired power plants, that is simply because there are so many cars. If, however, you were to start powering all those cars with electricity from coal-powered generating plants the pollution and environmental destruction would be unbearable.
The bottom line is this: if you live in an area with hydro, nuclear, natural gas or even oil-fired power plants then a hybrid or electric car will reduce air pollution. However, if you live in an area that gets it energy from coal-fired power plants you will INCREASE air pollution by using an electric car powered by the grid.
As for your national independence argument, the solution is to develop CLEAN power sources - not destroy the environment with coal. Don't be fooled by the coal industry's ad campaign about the "new" clean coal - it is still the most polluting fuel we have and the most damaging to the environment - from mountin-top removal mining to heavy-metal ash disposal.
Are you debating the point that, statistically, the average black candidate will have lower scores and less education than the average white/asian? If not, how can you accuse me of being racist? Are you asserting that scores and educational background are racist entities unto themselves? That, too, is ridiculous.
What I am saying is that you would have pre-conceived ideas about the qualifications and capabilities of any INDIVIDUAL black candidate based on what you believe to be true about a whole group. That *is* racist, and it is not ridiculous.
I do not grant your argument that blacks have lower test scores or are less capable than whites/asians, when evaluated on any PARTICULAR test. I will not grant you that black MBA's have lower test scores than white MBA's or that black lawyers are less capable than asian lawyers.
Are black high school graduates less well educated than whites on average? I suspect this is true, but it is NOT a result of your contention that they don't try or are not motivated to succeed. It is a result of a long history of inferior schools, inferior resources, and inferior opportunity.
Only a single generation ago a black could not get into a white college in this country or even attend a white high school, only two generations ago a black could not get a job working in a factory, only three generations ago blacks were slaves and were prohibited by law from even learning to read. If you can't see that the deck has been (and still is) stacked against this minority then you are blind.
i love it too. i've been an opera user for many years (i was a 1.0 user).
i had even forgotten about popups *entirely* until a relative asked me to fix her pc and then I saw my first popup in years. I remember thinking "Oh, a popup. Are those things still around?"
I object to your second paragraph for being ridiculous. Applicants are judged on many criteria, not the least of which is their past experience and education. It should be readily apparent from the applicant's resume whether she had exhibited a good work ethic in the past. Any hypothetical hiring manager who disregarded this and hired someone based on racial stereotypes would be an idiot.
It happens all the time. I have news for you - your perfect world where everyone is judged equally and fairly does not exist. It happens because of exactly the sterotypes that you are championing. It is clear that you think that any black interviewing for a job would be statistically more likely not to be the best candidate for the job. But wait...all you had to go on in my example was race - and that is the definition of racism.
You don't take into consideration all the roadblocks that are put in front of blacks such as poorer school districts, larger classroom sizes, lower quality teachers, lower expectations, difficulty in getting into top colleges (unlike George Bush's legacy admission to Yale with piss-poor grades), difficulty in getting hired for the better jobs, etc, etc, etc. Why would anyone be surprised that blacks are at the low end of the economic scale, and why in the world would they blame the victims?
The problem is that your perceptions are based on the way the world has worked for you, and that is not the way the world works for many people. You are making the invalid assumption that it just takes hard work and dedication to succeed, while nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe in your world, and for people of your (and my) background that is true, but it is simply not so for everyone. I used to think as you do, but decades of life have shown me the truth. I have seen again and again that minorities are not hired when they were the best candidates for the job. Ironically I've seen more of it in the North, where racism supposedly does not exist.
In the two large companies I have worked for in New York the workplaces have been almost completely black-free except for the mailrooms and secretarial pools. That isn't because there are not black lawyers or black scientists, or black business school graduates, or black college grads - it is because those companies seldom hire blacks for "real" positions. Oh, they rationalize it away and would NEVER admit to racism, even to themselves. In their heads they find some rationalization that the black isn't really the best candidate, while their subconscious minds go "Whew!". Go into ANY any cafeteria of ANY large New York City firm and you will see almost no blacks. As my mother used to say: "The proof is in the pudding".
I hope they come to their senses and will lend every support to that effort.
Maybe you don;t know this, but the American people never lost their senses. Al Gore won the election in 2000, not Bush. Gore got more votes than Bush. In the US, because each state is winner-take-all, it is possible to get more total votes and still not win the election. However in this case it is even worse since Gore DID win the state (Electoral) votes as well. Bush's brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, stopped the voting in his state with almost 250,000 votes uncounted. It was no coincidence that the uncounted votes were from districts heavily favoring Gore. Since Bush "won" Florida by less than 500 votes this clearly gave the deciding state to Bush.
In November I fully expect Americans to take back the country from Bush. In 2000 51% of Americans voted for Gore and NONE of them will ever vote for Bush. On top of that Bush has been such a screw-up in every area: environmental, foreign policy, economic, and personal freedoms that a lot of Americans who voted for him the first time will not vote for him again. I expect a landslide victory for Kerry in November. Unfortunately it will take years for Kerry to dig us out of the hole Bush has put us in.
A lot of people won't want to bring a $300/$400 or even more expensive camera with them when they're just going to be taking snapshots to show off what they did and where they were and other touristy stuff.
I see a use for these for myself, but I don't know how typical I am. I have some very expensive medium format cameras and when in poorer countries I often feel morally uncomfortable pulling out a camera that can cost the equivalent of 10 years of per capita annual income. Even a $150 digital camera could easily cost several months of local income.
A $20 disposable camera would make me less self-concious as well as reduce the chance of having my expensive equipment stolen.
No offense intended, but why are you talking about top secret data when the article describes how to best communicate with families back home?
Obviously the post was talking about Harris's secure network just to show that security on a WiFi network is possible.
The issue about family information on WiFi networks is this: The face of war and the enemy has changed. We no longer fight organized militias exclusively, but decentralized organizations that attack soft targets by preference. Terrorists could get the names and addresses of soldier's relatives and attack their families around the world. This would be a very smart, effective terror tactic for them. Therefore even information not classified as "secret" has to be protected.
Also don't get me wrong about the location of the terrorists. I know there were no al Queda in Iraq before the invasion and that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, but they are in Iraq now (thank you oh so much, W). As a result these types of insecure communications have to be guarded even if no so-called secret info is passed on them.
The weak point of any ransom scheme is the money drop.
"Be at the the corner of 1st and Main at noon. Have six 3-caret diamonds."
Police could never track it and kidnapper gets away.
The cleverest terrorists may already be fully in control of the world. Their 'attacks' may not be indentified as such. They may be so subtle that they are not even...
Hmmm. This sounds a lot like the Saudi Royal family.
That is only true when and if a motor vehicle enters the equation. It is not true in general public situations (i.e. you are walking on the sidewalk); the police can pull up and ask for ID, but you do not have to provide it to them
Not so. You are required to identify yourself if the police have probable cause that a crime has been committed, or if they think they are in danger. You really don't think the police cannot ask your name if they catch you shooting someone or robbing a store, do you?
You also have to identify yourself in airports and train stations. Publicly funded transportation systems (roads, airports, trains, etc) are the special case here, not merely "motor vehicles". Police are also allowed to search you without warrants in these places.
But your advice to read the ACLU pages is very good advice (unfortunately few police officers will have taken it). Join up and send them some money while you are there.
Federal courts have already stated we do not have the right to not identify ourselves to law enforcement. Obviously, we are still physically able to refuse to identify ourselves, but doing so will result in arrest
Citizens on the street must identify themselves to police only in certain specific circumstances: 1)where there is probable cause that a crime has been committed by the person, and 2)when the officer feels that his safety might be in danger. The second is called a "Terry Stop".
The Supreme Court has now added a third circumstance: When the state you are in has a law that requires citizens to identify themselves to police when requested, those laws are Constitutional and citizens must do so. (I will disagree with this to my dying day, as did 4 of the 9 justices). If the state you are in does not have such a law then you are still not required to identify yourself to the police except under examples 1 and 2 above.
It is an important point that the Court did NOT say that citizens must identify themselves to police, it said that state laws requiring citizens to do so are constitutional. This may seem a small point, but we have to hang on to every ounce of freedom we have left for as long as we can.
The Hiibel case was a very narrow decision that supported laws in certain states that have laws requiring persons to identify themselves to police. The court ruled that those laws were constitutional. The Supreme Court case does NOT require citizens in states that do not have such laws (which is most of them) to identify themselves.
Having said that, I think it is a travesty that the Supreme Court ruling degraded citizens' right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution in ANY state.
No one really saw the FIRST plane, but many people saw the second plane.
Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people saw the first plane hit. Plane 1 flew the length of Manhattan at high speed barely above rooftops. I think what you meant to say was that there wasn't any VIDEO of the first impact, which by the way is not true either. There are at least two that I am aware of, one from two tourists in a car about 5 miles away, and another from a film crew shooting a documentary about firefighters who were almost under the tower.
SHow me a source that says there were no aircrft parts found at the Pentagon, because I find that not creditable. Maybe you just have'nt seen any on TV. Think about it - you haven't seen any aircraft parts from the two towers OR the Pennsylvania crash either. (And no, they weren;t destroyed in the collapse, engines and other heavy parts were hurled through both buildings and fell blocks from both towers - you can see them in the videos.) The government is just being super secretive about all the attacks.
They also produce some of the deadliest weapons on earth, and all in simple production houses..
Yes, and they also laid waste to thousands of square kilometers of land as nuclear no-man's lands while doing it, killed hundred (if not thousands of people) from exposure to radioactivity, and made entire lakes and rivers unfit for life for the next 10,000 years. Oh yea - they're great.
The FreeRepublic? Don't you think they are a bit biased in their viewpoint? Did they tell you this:
Because of an $87 billion overpayment for a cancelled program that was included in that bill DICK CHENEY himself was recommending that the Senate not pass it until that item was removed. Of course Dick can claim HE didn't "vote against body armor" because as Vice-President he only votes in tie-breakers.
So -
1. Kerry voted for a defense spending bill (one small part of which included funds for body armor)
2. When it was discovered that there was an $87 billion error he voted against it at the request of Dick Cheney
3. when the mistake was corrected he voted for the bill
Republicans call this "flip-flopping" on defense. When Kerry tries to explain what happened Cheney calls it "just another nuance in his flip-flopping."
Who would you rather have as your President, Americans - one who tries to trick you into voting for him, or one who tries to tell you what happened?
when i read it i read that it was done to protect the car. if that is not the case then you are correct, it was not a man-trap.
barbed wire is not a trap as it is clearly visible and identifiable for what it is. however, if you put the barbed-wire in a pit that was disguised so an intruder would fall into, it it would be a trap and illegal. but i believe you are referring to strung wire used as a security device.
as for electric fences, electrical fencing that would be lethal to humans IS illegal except in extraordinary circumstances (i'm thnking military). if *you* strung a lethal electric fence around your house it would be called a man-trap since the electricity is essentiall "hidden" no matter how many signs you posted (remember kids can't read).
property owners are not allowed to impose the death penalty for trespassing - via an electric fence or any other means. in cases where trespassers have been shot the legal defense has been that the homeowner was in fear of his life, NOT that the person was trespassing. the self-defense argument would not be available in the case of a lethal electric fence designed to kill whether or not the owner was even there.
no, the post i was replying to had fishhooks under the seat.
However much you might rationalize it, no amount of signs or warnings will protect you if you set a man-trap, particularly if it kills someone as did the high-voltage trap. it matters not one bit if the intruder was acting illegally or not. this may not sit well with you logically, but it is the law.
Man-traps are illegal no matter how they may be signed. This is because children can't read. Neither can some adults.
There was one post here about someone getting off because he posted signs on a man-trap that killed someone, but I simply do not believe it.