Not only did you not RTFA, you evidently did not even R the F summary. That's Milan as in Italy listed as one of the world's worst polluted cities. And you're telling me that the people of Azerbaijan are building too many McMansions!? The vast majority of pollution is caused by industry (and particularly by uncontrolled industry), not wasteful citizens. And anyway, I do not agree that the air and water in Europe is better than in the US. Italy and Greece have real problems with air pollution eating away at their antiquities, and the Mediteranean is barely better than a cess-pool off Spain.
I agree that American culture is very wasteful and we should change our ways, but please don't just make crap up to support the idea.
First, as far as I know the DoD has never denied the existence of spy satellites - they just don't comment about them at all. That is a big difference. Anyone (and I'm not saying you) who thinks that the government is trying to trick the people into thinking there are no such thing as spy satellites needs to get a life.
Second, these photos prove absolutely nothing - they are just tracks in the sky. Who is to say they actually belong to secret military satellites, weather satellites, communications satellites or Google Earth satellites. And so what if they are spy satellites? Everyone knows they're up there - it's no secret. This is just manufactured controversy.
Third, I'm more mistrustful of the government than most but I don't see the problem with having military intelligence-gathering satellites in orbit. After all, that's what we pay the military to do. Wouldn't you want to know if the Cuban government tried to put nuclear missles in Cuba again, or if the Turks were preparing to send troops into northern Iraq, or if the Taliban were planning a major offensive into Afghanistan?
To classify the existence of these satellites as deceitful, censorship, or part of some vast government plot just doesn't make any sense to me.
I think you're just being pig-headed because someone pointed out his punishment wasn't going to be as trivial as you said it was. He's in high school, so he's still a kid. This isn't murder or rape, it's changing grades. You really need to get a handle on your sense of perspective.
No argument there. However, it is well established in our culture that kids should get a second chance so being stupid as a kid doesn't have to ruin your life. That's what typically happens in the court - he would get a second chance with a short or suspended sentence, or probation - lesson learned. But immigrants face a bigger challenge from the INS where there is NO SECOND CHANCE. Is this right? If what he did would only get an American kid probation, is it right to deport him at 18 to be separated from his family for the rest of his life - even if he is a jerk? I don't know, but I suspect not.
If he serves any time after pleading guilty and making a plea deal, it will likely be under a year. In all likelihood he will just get put on probation for a few years.
Except you are forgetting he is not a citizen. Even one felony will get you deported these days. He may never spend a day in jail after his trial, but there isn't a chance in hell the INS is going to let him stay in this country.
He won't get the maximum on any convictions (people rarely do), and he almost certainly won't get back-to-back sentencing, his terms will be concurrent. If convicted, he will most likely get anything from a suspended sentence to a couple of years. For you and me this might not be a huge problem, but this guy is an immigrant and not a citizen. The INS is very tough on immigrants who commit even petty crimes. If being charged with 69 felonies weren't enough, one of them is a serious breaking and entering charge which probably seals his fate. Under INS rules he doesn't even have to be found guilty to suffer immigration problems - the INS can just decide it was likely he was involved in these crimes and deport him. I suspect this guy's life is ruined.
Speaking of voters, isn't Sweden a member of the EU? The EU has strong privacy and government anti-spying regulations in place. I don't see how this proposed Swedish law can possibly be legal for any UE member state. Even if for some strange reason member states get a bye in internal spying laws (and I don't believe they do), those messages crossing the Swedish border have to come from somewhere - presumably mostly from other non-Swedish EU citizens. I'm pretty sure spying on other member-state's citizen's communications is a big no-no in the EU.
Perhaps that's why this law didn't get big press coverage - it will never pass UE muster?
I know nothing about your particular property, but in almost every state if undeveloped property is neither posted nor fenced individuals may enter it, and they will break no law by doing so. They must leave if asked, however.
Though I don't grab my shotgun before setting off to confront stupid people like that, most of my neighbors do. I can't say I blame them. These geohashers (and anyone else who shows up unannounced on private property) are pretty much looking to become s statistic. You mean someone actually keeps statistics on the number of people asked by property owners to leave!?
Do you think terrorists are going to BUY an airplane!? LOL
Having myself been trapped in Europe after 9/11 because of the shutdown in air travel I know that terrorist activites with airplanes disrupts the transporation system even when runways aren't destroyed. But even that was short-lived. The big problem is if there is another terrorist use of an aircraft there will be world-wide effects on air travel, security, and commerce. The only bright spot in the US economy, international tourism, would drop to zero. Airlines would go bankrupt.
If you are concerned with likelihood of success, doing the most damage to an economy possible, and creating as much fear and panic as possible an airliner is a vastly superior weapon to a missle.
In fact, as far as effctiveness goes, three or four large truck bombs set off around the country would cause vastly more damage to the economy than missiles.
I have no idea how you got modded so insightful.. are airline jets now somehow regarded as the most effective weapon on earth since Sept 11th? Almost anything can be an effective weapon if you know how to use it. A missile happens to be one of the most effective weapons ever created though, and is much preferable in a lot of situations to a passenger jet. COST: If you're on a budget they are.
EFFECTIVENESS: Two airliners brought down the WTC buildngs, and two missiles could never have done that. Hint: it was the fuel, not the impact.
ECONOMICS: Crashing airliners also have the advantage of crippling your transporation system and causing economic damage far out of proportion to the physical damage they might do.
AVAILABILITY: How many airliners are there within 50 miles of you right now, and you can get on any of them for a $200 ticket. How many missiles are there near you, how close can you get to them?
EASE OF USE: Would you have a chance in Hell of firing a missile even if you did get near it?
EASE OF TRANSPORT: Try transporting a missile across the country to a place near your target. Good luck on that. Airplanes on the other hand are delivered daily by professional pilots to handy locations near your targets.
I know that the Oklahoma bombing occurred. That's where I found out the mixture from. What I was referring to was terrorists doing so. What my post revolves around was that they haven't made a huge move since 9/11 (even though it's so easy), not that such a bomb has never gone off in the US. Timothy McVey WAS a terrorist.
Actually it's not so easy any more. You try being a middle eastern man or woman and buying 5,000 lbs of fertilizer. For that matter, try being a white anglo-saxon and buying that much fertilizer and not be a farmer known to your local ag dealer.
I don't think invading Iraq was the right thing to do in retrospect, but couldn't it have a "swamp draining" effect on terrorism? No, because there were no [international] terrorists in Iraq at the time of the invasion. There were defintely no Al Queda terrorists in Iraq. If there was one government that bin Ladin hated more than the US and Israel it was the secular Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. To make your swamp analogy accurate - the Iraq war was like re-directing a river to MAKE a swamp. It would seem less than rational to be creating swamps when you are tying to get rid of them.
Don't confuse Al Queda in Iraq with the al Queda that attacked the WTC. The two are related in name only. Plus, what the heck are we doing providing a local training ground, just a bus ride away, for jihadists? We're going to be suffering the consequences of the Iraq invasion for decades. That's the big problem that no one seems to recognize - there is NO winning in Iraq - all we are doing is creating and training our own future enemies.
Re:completely missing the point with SUV's.
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
You've fallen for the automaker's PR. SUVs and cross-overs are NOT safe. They have the highest rollover rate of any vehicle on the road, including 15-passenger vans!
The safety of SUVs is an illusion that hides the single most unsafe vehicle class in existence. Any soccer mom who really values the lives of her children would never let them get into an SUV or cross-over.
I agree and can do you one better. Used to live on Rabbit Ears Pass, near Steamboat Springs Colorado. Annual snowfall 370 inches. I didn't even see pavement for five months of the year and often drove in blizzard conditions from snowplow--marker to snowplow-marker over the pass. I drove a RWD car with snow tires and NEVER got stuck.
However, I did frequently stop for Denver tourists stuck in their 4WDs and would promise to send a tow-truck when I got to town.
There are lot of monoque chasis construction all time AWD crossovers which are good looking, offer a higher seating position, handle well, and give good gas mileage(Atleast better than minivans) Handle well? You're wrong there. SUVs (large and small) have the highest rollover rate and the highest single-vehicle accident fatality rate of any vehicle on the road - higher even than 15-passenger vans that everyone thinks are death on wheels. Cross-overs for example have sedan suspensions that are simply not beefy enough to keep the high center of gravity vehicle stable in any sort of aggressive maneuver - particularly when loaded with kids or stuff. The same goes for larger SUVs that almost always have suspensions sized for ride rather than for safety and stability. An SUV with four occupants is six times more likely to roll over than a sedan or wagon with four occupants.
It's one of the Great Lies that SUVs are sold to soccer moms and families for safety when they are really the class of vehicle most likely to kill its passengers.
Excellent points. OP is really a poser trying to look like a real man. "I need a truck so I can pull people out of the ditch and drive when there is a flood"!? Give me a break. As for snow - pickups, even 4wd pickups, really suck in snow. Every year when it first snows I read about some new local fool who's killed himself in his 4WD pickup.
I own a Jeep. Gas mileage is pretty bad but it's paid off so I don't mind too much... gas would need to get a lot higher than it is for it to be worth financing another car when you factor in a monthly payment. Sell it and buy a higher mileage used car. It isn't necessary to get a hybrid, or even a new car to get better mileage. You're in good shape. The people who are really hurting are those that recently bought huge SUVs - they can't afford to sell them OR drive them.
... the link between Islam and anti-democratic movements, is justified. In contrast to Islam, Christian churches, Jews, Buddhists, etc. are not engaged in large scale anti-democratic or anti-US activities. You're really buying into that "They hate our freedom" bullshit aren't you? What they really hate are our policies, and maybe our religion. They couldn't care less if our governments are Royal, democracies or dictatorships.
I don't necessarily agree that the US government has the legitimate Contitutional power to spy on anyone. We're talking about warrantless spying, but that caveat aside I agree 100%. I did not go that far in my reply because putting just one US citizen into the phone conversation made the issue a slam dunk. It's absurd for the Bush administration to claim that I give up my Constitutional rights just because I'm talking to a Spaniard or a Dane. Not that I could give up my rights even if I wanted to - they're in-alienable. However, recognizing that the US Constitution recognizes the rights of all people and not just US citizens, while true, isn't so obvious.
There isn't much question that tapping *international* calls is within the government's power. (At least I haven't heard any major Democrats argue with this). Oh no - there is a BIG question about it because one of the speakers is an American citizen. Your rights as a citizen to not disappear when you leave the country or talk to a non-citizen. You may not have heard about it, but that's one of the big sticking points with the warrantless wiretaps.
What defines a war? Does it have to be against another country? Can it be... According to that pesky ol' Constitution, only Congress can declare war, ad they have not. Since they have not done that, we really are not at war, and the special powers given to a war-time President do not acrue to Bush. Of course Dick Cheney has a different opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only did you not RTFA, you evidently did not even R the F summary. That's Milan as in Italy listed as one of the world's worst polluted cities. And you're telling me that the people of Azerbaijan are building too many McMansions!? The vast majority of pollution is caused by industry (and particularly by uncontrolled industry), not wasteful citizens. And anyway, I do not agree that the air and water in Europe is better than in the US. Italy and Greece have real problems with air pollution eating away at their antiquities, and the Mediteranean is barely better than a cess-pool off Spain.
I agree that American culture is very wasteful and we should change our ways, but please don't just make crap up to support the idea.
First, as far as I know the DoD has never denied the existence of spy satellites - they just don't comment about them at all. That is a big difference. Anyone (and I'm not saying you) who thinks that the government is trying to trick the people into thinking there are no such thing as spy satellites needs to get a life.
Second, these photos prove absolutely nothing - they are just tracks in the sky. Who is to say they actually belong to secret military satellites, weather satellites, communications satellites or Google Earth satellites. And so what if they are spy satellites? Everyone knows they're up there - it's no secret. This is just manufactured controversy.
Third, I'm more mistrustful of the government than most but I don't see the problem with having military intelligence-gathering satellites in orbit. After all, that's what we pay the military to do. Wouldn't you want to know if the Cuban government tried to put nuclear missles in Cuba again, or if the Turks were preparing to send troops into northern Iraq, or if the Taliban were planning a major offensive into Afghanistan?
To classify the existence of these satellites as deceitful, censorship, or part of some vast government plot just doesn't make any sense to me.
I think you're just being pig-headed because someone pointed out his punishment wasn't going to be as trivial as you said it was. He's in high school, so he's still a kid. This isn't murder or rape, it's changing grades. You really need to get a handle on your sense of perspective.
No argument there. However, it is well established in our culture that kids should get a second chance so being stupid as a kid doesn't have to ruin your life. That's what typically happens in the court - he would get a second chance with a short or suspended sentence, or probation - lesson learned. But immigrants face a bigger challenge from the INS where there is NO SECOND CHANCE. Is this right? If what he did would only get an American kid probation, is it right to deport him at 18 to be separated from his family for the rest of his life - even if he is a jerk? I don't know, but I suspect not.
If he serves any time after pleading guilty and making a plea deal, it will likely be under a year. In all likelihood he will just get put on probation for a few years.
Except you are forgetting he is not a citizen. Even one felony will get you deported these days. He may never spend a day in jail after his trial, but there isn't a chance in hell the INS is going to let him stay in this country.Speaking of voters, isn't Sweden a member of the EU? The EU has strong privacy and government anti-spying regulations in place. I don't see how this proposed Swedish law can possibly be legal for any UE member state. Even if for some strange reason member states get a bye in internal spying laws (and I don't believe they do), those messages crossing the Swedish border have to come from somewhere - presumably mostly from other non-Swedish EU citizens. I'm pretty sure spying on other member-state's citizen's communications is a big no-no in the EU.
Perhaps that's why this law didn't get big press coverage - it will never pass UE muster?
I know nothing about your particular property, but in almost every state if undeveloped property is neither posted nor fenced individuals may enter it, and they will break no law by doing so. They must leave if asked, however.
You mean someone actually keeps statistics on the number of people asked by property owners to leave!?
There are no shortages of people willing to die.
Do you think terrorists are going to BUY an airplane!? LOL
Having myself been trapped in Europe after 9/11 because of the shutdown in air travel I know that terrorist activites with airplanes disrupts the transporation system even when runways aren't destroyed. But even that was short-lived. The big problem is if there is another terrorist use of an aircraft there will be world-wide effects on air travel, security, and commerce. The only bright spot in the US economy, international tourism, would drop to zero. Airlines would go bankrupt.
If you are concerned with likelihood of success, doing the most damage to an economy possible, and creating as much fear and panic as possible an airliner is a vastly superior weapon to a missle.
In fact, as far as effctiveness goes, three or four large truck bombs set off around the country would cause vastly more damage to the economy than missiles.
EFFECTIVENESS: Two airliners brought down the WTC buildngs, and two missiles could never have done that. Hint: it was the fuel, not the impact.
ECONOMICS: Crashing airliners also have the advantage of crippling your transporation system and causing economic damage far out of proportion to the physical damage they might do.
AVAILABILITY: How many airliners are there within 50 miles of you right now, and you can get on any of them for a $200 ticket. How many missiles are there near you, how close can you get to them?
EASE OF USE: Would you have a chance in Hell of firing a missile even if you did get near it?
EASE OF TRANSPORT: Try transporting a missile across the country to a place near your target. Good luck on that. Airplanes on the other hand are delivered daily by professional pilots to handy locations near your targets.
You haven't relly thought this out, have you?
Actually it's not so easy any more. You try being a middle eastern man or woman and buying 5,000 lbs of fertilizer. For that matter, try being a white anglo-saxon and buying that much fertilizer and not be a farmer known to your local ag dealer.
Don't confuse Al Queda in Iraq with the al Queda that attacked the WTC. The two are related in name only. Plus, what the heck are we doing providing a local training ground, just a bus ride away, for jihadists? We're going to be suffering the consequences of the Iraq invasion for decades. That's the big problem that no one seems to recognize - there is NO winning in Iraq - all we are doing is creating and training our own future enemies.
You've fallen for the automaker's PR. SUVs and cross-overs are NOT safe. They have the highest rollover rate of any vehicle on the road, including 15-passenger vans!
The safety of SUVs is an illusion that hides the single most unsafe vehicle class in existence. Any soccer mom who really values the lives of her children would never let them get into an SUV or cross-over.
I agree and can do you one better. Used to live on Rabbit Ears Pass, near Steamboat Springs Colorado. Annual snowfall 370 inches. I didn't even see pavement for five months of the year and often drove in blizzard conditions from snowplow--marker to snowplow-marker over the pass. I drove a RWD car with snow tires and NEVER got stuck.
However, I did frequently stop for Denver tourists stuck in their 4WDs and would promise to send a tow-truck when I got to town.
Moral: brains beats 4WD.
One of the very rare LOL posts on /. Good work.
It's one of the Great Lies that SUVs are sold to soccer moms and families for safety when they are really the class of vehicle most likely to kill its passengers.
Excellent points. OP is really a poser trying to look like a real man. "I need a truck so I can pull people out of the ditch and drive when there is a flood"!? Give me a break. As for snow - pickups, even 4wd pickups, really suck in snow. Every year when it first snows I read about some new local fool who's killed himself in his 4WD pickup.
... the link between Islam and anti-democratic movements, is justified. In contrast to Islam, Christian churches, Jews, Buddhists, etc. are not engaged in large scale anti-democratic or anti-US activities. You're really buying into that "They hate our freedom" bullshit aren't you? What they really hate are our policies, and maybe our religion. They couldn't care less if our governments are Royal, democracies or dictatorships. ... or you're doing it on such a large scale, getting court approval is not practical.
...or wht you are doing is so far out of bounds that even the FISA court wouldn't go along with it.