Heck, Gonzales once issued a statement once saying that people who haven't cleared customs technically are neither in nor out of the US, and therefore have no actual rights (can't dredge up a reference now).
I get your point, but let's face it - just because Alberto Gonzales says it's so doesn't make it so. I think any good lawyer could beat the "You weren't in the US" argument. For example, every time I come through customs there is a big sign that says "Welcome the the United States". That's exactly the kind of detail juries love.
The only way he was going to get away with this is if he had shoved a memory stick up his butt and made sure he didn't do anything that caused suspicion.
Maybe not the ONLY way. His excellent defense employs his right against self-incrimination. Once the files are closed and encrypted he is under no obligation to provide a password to the authorities.
You don't have a 4th Amendment right to cross the US border. As a condition of allowing you to cross the border, you are subject to search. It is as simple as that. All governments have always rightfully had the power to control traffic across their borders.
Wrong, you do have the right to enter the country if you are a citizen. I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but the government cannot keep an American citizen from entering the country. Philosphically that's because it is not the government's country, it is the citizen's country. The government can arrest you if you have broken a law, and they can detain you if they think you may have a communicable disease, but they can't refuse you entry.
Yes, yes, statistics. First, these are diagnosed AIDS cases in the US, and the CDC estimates 25% more people have AIDS but are not diagnosed. Also, your numbers are for AIDS and not HIV+, which is a much higher number. CDC estimates an HIV+ prevalence rate 20 times higher than the diagnosed AIDS rate. Also, your numbers are for the US only, and HIV/AIDS is much more prevelant in the rest of the world, infecting as much as 30% of the populations of some African countries. I add this last point as the original comment was that there is not a single thing that makes the WORLD not as dangerous as the 50s.
Having said that, I agree with you that overall the US is a much safer place than in the 50s. I don't think I would agree that EVERYTHING is safer, or that the world as a whole is safer.
If you are going to insult someone, at least use proper spelling when doing so. Don't look dumb when trying to insult someone else's intelligence. That's certainly good advice, but if you are going to complain about someone's spelling (the most pathetic of all slashdot rejoinders, BTW), make sure they actually spelled a word wrong. Here is the original post:
I thought it was common knowledge. If you limit your education to what is taught in the classroom, you will never be a well-educated person. The detonation of the Mike device was an important point in the cold war and the arms race between the USA and USSR. The "invention" of the bikini was a notable point in the cultural history of the West during the 1950s. Not a misspelled word in it that I can find. What word would you spell differently?
I thought it was common knowledge. If you limit your education to what is taught in the classroom, you will never be a well-educated person. It's an age thing. Like Dana Perino, Bush's 30-something Press Secretary who didn't know what the Cuban Missle Crisis was when asked a question about it. But still, you are right - what would seem to be common knowledge to people with curiosity are just obscure facts to those without it.
Polio's gone, playgrounds are MUCH safer, and should a seven year old kids kid break both his arms falling off the swingset like I did, they don't have to knock him out with ether like they did me. Cars have seat belts and air bags. In fact, there isn't a single thing I can think of that makes the world more dangerous now than in the past. AIDS
Medical billing is a complex game. Doctors and hospitals bill the insurance companies who then tell them what they will actually pay. That's the reason there appeared to be a large "insurance discount" on your bill. Trust me, hospitals dont give discounts for insurance. Unfortunately I can't negotiate like that for my $5,000 deductible so I have to pay the entire inflated amount. (Actually, it is possible to hire a negotiator to do it for me, but most people don't know that and it isn't cost-effective for smaller amounts).
If you are indigent and uninsured you get a huge bill, but the hospital gets to deduct the entire inflated amount from taxes or overhead when you don't pay. If you are uninsured but try to pay your bill, you pay the entire amount unless you negotiate, and then the hospital may lower your bill to the insurance company rate, but they aren't required to. Since most people don't know this is the way medical billing works, they don't even try to negotiate.
I assure you that when I asked why I was being billed $1,100 for a tetanus shot I was told it was because I had insurance. If the hospital had billed my insurance company a more reasonable $200 to begin with they probably would have only been paid $20.
I think you have a real self-image problem. Believe it or not, I'm entitled to my opinion, and when it is different than yours it isn't an attack on you. World doesn't revolve around you, Bub.
Did you even read what I said about a breakdown? I mean a real breakdown, not the bullshit that they call a breakdown and that you obviously think is a breakdown
How am I supposed to know what you MEANT to say? How much more of a breakdown do you need other than for individual band-aids? Wear and tear on the carpet?
By the way, do you really think that your insurance company and hospitals would back off significantly on prices if the uninsured patient problem was removed?
Well, yes. When I questioned the $1,100 charge for a tetanus shot I was told that if I had not had insurance the bill would have been about $200. So yes, I do think my bill from the hospital would have been a lot less. Hmmm, ugly fact getting in your way?
Also, why use my comment as a vehicle for attacking another poster about the volunteer clinic doctor?
Because I felt like it? Also, it wasn't YOUR comment I was writing, it was MY comment and I'll put anything in it I feel like. Plus I didn't "attack" the other person, I diaagreed with him and pointed out that doctors are not the ones who are paying for non-insured patients - insured patients are paying for them. Let me help you to a little personal insight: You are actually upset that I said something in my post that wasn't about YOU.
Since you can't seem to understand my previous post, here's the summary:
I understood your post perfectly well - I just don't agree with it. You seem to be having a major problem with someone having a different opinion of the situation than you. You clearly can't believe that anyone can hold a valid opinion of an issue unless it is exactly like yours. Wrongo, buddy-boy.
Hey, anyone remember 16-color EGA?:) I remember Hercules Monochrome, you insensitive clod! *I* remember when a Hercules card was an UPGRADE. Ooooo...orange text!
The effect is something along the lines of me mailing you a letter and a key saying since your lawnmower broke last year, you can use mine on these days but you can't let anyone else use it and you can't attempt to sell it or otherwise dispose of it. If you post my mower on Ebay, then we have issues that this law might not cover.
This isn't an applicable analogy. I didn't mail you my lawnmower, I mailed you a key. You can throw the key away or sell it as you see fit, but you can't sell my lawnmower.
One of the issues of confusion here is that UMG specifically reserves their copyright privileges and rights but aren't asking for payment. This jumps into some gray area because they didn't ask for a payment and aren't asking for one.
That UMC is not asking for payment is not relevant... you are free to do whatever you want with the item. In the exact words of the Federal Code:
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation [i.e. unsolicited]... may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
That "without any obligation whatsoever to the sender" is very clear. UMC may have voided their own copyright by marketing the product in this manner.
Oh, please, yourself. How do you think I knew I got a $45 band-aid if the bill wasn't broken down? Anyway - this payment scheme between hospitals, doctors and insurance companies to cover uninsured patients is no secret. Everyone in the business knows it's done that way. I'll admit that when I had corporate health insurance I didn't much care, but now that I pay for my own and have a $5,000 deductable it is very painful to be sold $45 band-aids. *I* pay for the uninsured's care, and I don't want any doctors saying *they* pay for it.
And no matter how many times doctors tell me, I am not buying the poor under-compensated physician line. Maybe you (as a physician?) don't think you are paid enough, but doctors are paid plenty. How many physicians are driving around in eight year old cars like I am? And that poor doctor who posted earlier that he considers himself "uncompensated" for 30% of his work because he volunteers in a clinic two days a week, get a life - it's called volunteering for a reason.
EMTALA is an unfunded mandate that says that the nurses who work in an ER, the hospital who runs the ER, and ER physicians like me have to pay for uninsured emergency care.
Oh, the poor suffering physician! You have mislead the readers my dear doctor. YOU don't pay for that care - insured patients like me pay for that care. Hospitals vastly overcharge insured patients for their care in order to pay for patients who are unable to pay or do not have insurance. Hence my $1,100 bill for an emergency-room tetanus shot two years ago where I was charged outrageously for everything but the air I breathed while in the building, including $45 for a band-aid.
So you will pardon me if I have little sympathy for the poor down-trodden doctor class then it tries to convince me that THEY are the ones who foot the bill.
Well, it might work if they allow for a rather broad variation in the frequence of mistakes. But personally, I make much more typos depending on how tired I am and how much caffeine I've had lately. I would assume that others do too. So when I am well-rested I might appear to be a completely different person from when I am even slightly tired.
Just as friends can recognize you no matter what clothes you have on, caffeine isn't going to change your basic key-stroke patterns in ways that will lock you out.
This is old stuff. During WWII the keystrokes of operatives sending Morse was often analyzed to determine if the person sending was the right person. It was esesntially impossible to fake it. That is why security agencies on both sides put so much effort into "turning" agents - no one could impersonate the agent's key-touch so the real person had to be coerced into sending false information. Even telegraphers in the 1800's could tell who was on the other end of the line by their style. Even though analyzing computer keystrokes in a short phrase by key-timing alone might increase the difficulty (Morse code has the additional characteristic of force), so too have analytical capabilities increased.
6) The paper was over turned internally, time when done internally is unknown but the easliest known record of statements refutting this paper are from 2003
It is unclear if you are referring to the main paper or the paper referenced in the footnote. In any event, neither have been public before this. I suspect the legal document you believe to hve been "overturned internally" is the infamous "torture memo" by J. Yoo that the White House has said does not reflect current administration policy (they have never said that it was wrong or refutted its conclusions). The footnoted paper mentioned in the article is a different J. Yoo opinion that is STILL not public. So how you can tell either have been "overturned internally" is beyond me. There has never been a statement by the White House refuting the footnoted paper or stating that its conclusion, that the 4th Ammendment does not protect citizens from military searches and seizures, is not the view of the White House.
3) The document was written at the request of the White House, shortly after 9/11, when they had asked the Justice departmant what could legally be done in response to another terrorist attack on US territory.
You are mistaken. John Yoo wrote this opinion while he was in the White House Office of Legal Counsel. It is not a Justice Department interpretation, but a White House justification (rationalization) of actions it could take. Most likely this was done to provide cover for the administration and/or military brass should they be charged with criminal actions in the future.
You mean to print ballots that are pre-filled out? I could print about one a second.
No you couldn't. Oh, you might be able to print out blank ballots at that speed, but printers only print replicas of pencil or pen checkmarks. Your printed ballots would be pretty obvious as forgeries.
If I pre-stuff the box with my pre-printed ballots before the polls even open... Zero. If you swap the ballot box out after the polling and dispose of the original, then you need a replica of the box.
OK, you MIGHT be able to get a pre-stuffed box into the polling station, but your fraud would be discovered pretty quickly. A relative of mine used to work on the elections board and the ballot boxes were always opened and inspected in front of the poll-workers before the polls opened, and then re-locked. Plus, the number of ballots are always matched to the number of people that voted. If there are several hundred extra ballots in the box how would you explain that? For a self-styled expert on voter-fraud you certainly don't know much about voting procedures.
Rationalize all you want, but your contention that it is just as easy to cheat with paper ballots as it is with e-voting is nonesense.
It should be stressed that this leak is not, in fact, revealling illegal activity.
That may not be the case. Just becase JPMorgan's lawyer's decided this strategy is legally defensible and does not violate insider-trading laws does not mean it is not illegal. It isn't the perps that get to decide what is legal or not - that is up to Congress, the FTC, and the courts.
If it was already public, then it's interesting for the process of defining the role of Wikileaks: here, it's role would be to raise awareness rather than reveal, which means acting like a news site.
There is public and then there is Public. I suspect this memo was neither. I do not know the distribution of the "how-to", but it clearly was restricted to customers who were finding themselves stymied by insider-trading laws. Communications between conspirators or potential conspirators is not public distribution. Don't be fooled by a glossy brochure distributed only to select Fortune 500 CEO's and COO's. Amazingly, there is a list of who adopted this strategy in the original JPM document - it's worth a look.
Personaly, I think that Wikileak should not stride from it's original goal: when you're run anonymously, you must keep close to your original description; it's the only kind of accountability you offer.
Personally, I think this is exactly the kind of thing Wikileaks should be exposing and fits their objectives perfectly. I don't know how many times I have heard company PR hacks say: "Mr. Bigpocket's trades may look like insider trading, but they were in fact planned long ago as a series of trades to diversify his holdings." I used to think that it was just lucky timing, but now I (and everyone else, including shareholders) know that is a complete sham. Go Wikileaks!
You hardly need some advanced chemical warfare; the thing is 12 feet across, you can just armor plate it and use the godzilla strategy.. just fly around the city ramming things and thowing people around like Nazgul in the LOTR movies. They won't be able to shoot it down because it's large and radioactive.
You're confused...having much experience being scared silly by 50's Japanese monster movies when I was a kid I know this is really the Rodan strategy, not the Godzilla strategy.
Would you say the same thing about "polish mine detector" propaganda though?
"Polish jokes" are one thing - stories of Polish troops defending their country against impossible odds are another. True, it was (and is) a common propaganda technique to make one's enemies look ridiculous, but stories about the Polish cavalry's defense of Poland don't do that. In fact, they do just the opposite - making the Poles look very brave and valiant in the face of certain death. If it was Nazi propaganda it was pretty stupid propaganda - and Goebbles wasn't stupid. As for Polish jokes being propaganda - I'm going to go out on a limb with no evidence and say I doubt that many Polish jokes are German in origin because they just aren't scatalogical enough, which is typical of German low-brow humor. They actually sound more American.
And by the way, the Russians used mounted troops very effectively against the Germans in WWII, and they won.
The idea that Polish cavalry attacked tanks is Nazi propaganda. Stop repeating it. The Nazis made it up so that it made the Poles look stupid.
I find that highly unlikely. Rather than stupid, it would make them appear brave and very willing to die to protect Poland no matter how hopeless the situation appeared. Not the kind of thing you'd want your troops to think.
You want to know stupid? Using Wikipedia as primary reference material.
There are proper businesses behind them. Why can't we trace where the money goes and sue their butts off?
It isn't that easy, unfortunately. I don't know what your spam looks like, but all mine is for pirated software, prescription drugs, porn, nigerian money-laundering, penny-stock pumping, and offshore gambling sites - all illegal (except maybe the porn). You are not going to be able to find any corporate offices for these "proper businesses".
They are often located offshore, and change their bank accounts, banks and company names frequently. The owner of the bank accounts usually are not even in the same country as the bank accounts which are set up by other shell companies anyway. If they ship a product to you it will be handled by a drop-ship company so it can't be traced to them that way.
"Not to get off topic, but you really can't assume any sort of symmetric distribution with something like "tech savviness". More likely there are a whole lot more folks below the mean than above it (long tail on the high end)."
Well, no. There are always just as many people below the mean as there are above it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not the ONLY way. His excellent defense employs his right against self-incrimination. Once the files are closed and encrypted he is under no obligation to provide a password to the authorities.
Wrong, you do have the right to enter the country if you are a citizen. I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but the government cannot keep an American citizen from entering the country. Philosphically that's because it is not the government's country, it is the citizen's country. The government can arrest you if you have broken a law, and they can detain you if they think you may have a communicable disease, but they can't refuse you entry.
Yes, yes, statistics. First, these are diagnosed AIDS cases in the US, and the CDC estimates 25% more people have AIDS but are not diagnosed. Also, your numbers are for AIDS and not HIV+, which is a much higher number. CDC estimates an HIV+ prevalence rate 20 times higher than the diagnosed AIDS rate. Also, your numbers are for the US only, and HIV/AIDS is much more prevelant in the rest of the world, infecting as much as 30% of the populations of some African countries. I add this last point as the original comment was that there is not a single thing that makes the WORLD not as dangerous as the 50s.
Having said that, I agree with you that overall the US is a much safer place than in the 50s. I don't think I would agree that EVERYTHING is safer, or that the world as a whole is safer.
Medical billing is a complex game. Doctors and hospitals bill the insurance companies who then tell them what they will actually pay. That's the reason there appeared to be a large "insurance discount" on your bill. Trust me, hospitals dont give discounts for insurance. Unfortunately I can't negotiate like that for my $5,000 deductible so I have to pay the entire inflated amount. (Actually, it is possible to hire a negotiator to do it for me, but most people don't know that and it isn't cost-effective for smaller amounts).
If you are indigent and uninsured you get a huge bill, but the hospital gets to deduct the entire inflated amount from taxes or overhead when you don't pay. If you are uninsured but try to pay your bill, you pay the entire amount unless you negotiate, and then the hospital may lower your bill to the insurance company rate, but they aren't required to. Since most people don't know this is the way medical billing works, they don't even try to negotiate.
I assure you that when I asked why I was being billed $1,100 for a tetanus shot I was told it was because I had insurance. If the hospital had billed my insurance company a more reasonable $200 to begin with they probably would have only been paid $20.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation [i.e. unsolicited]... may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
That "without any obligation whatsoever to the sender" is very clear. UMC may have voided their own copyright by marketing the product in this manner.
Oh, please, yourself. How do you think I knew I got a $45 band-aid if the bill wasn't broken down? Anyway - this payment scheme between hospitals, doctors and insurance companies to cover uninsured patients is no secret. Everyone in the business knows it's done that way. I'll admit that when I had corporate health insurance I didn't much care, but now that I pay for my own and have a $5,000 deductable it is very painful to be sold $45 band-aids. *I* pay for the uninsured's care, and I don't want any doctors saying *they* pay for it.
And no matter how many times doctors tell me, I am not buying the poor under-compensated physician line. Maybe you (as a physician?) don't think you are paid enough, but doctors are paid plenty. How many physicians are driving around in eight year old cars like I am? And that poor doctor who posted earlier that he considers himself "uncompensated" for 30% of his work because he volunteers in a clinic two days a week, get a life - it's called volunteering for a reason.
Oh, the poor suffering physician! You have mislead the readers my dear doctor. YOU don't pay for that care - insured patients like me pay for that care. Hospitals vastly overcharge insured patients for their care in order to pay for patients who are unable to pay or do not have insurance. Hence my $1,100 bill for an emergency-room tetanus shot two years ago where I was charged outrageously for everything but the air I breathed while in the building, including $45 for a band-aid.
So you will pardon me if I have little sympathy for the poor down-trodden doctor class then it tries to convince me that THEY are the ones who foot the bill.
This is old stuff. During WWII the keystrokes of operatives sending Morse was often analyzed to determine if the person sending was the right person. It was esesntially impossible to fake it. That is why security agencies on both sides put so much effort into "turning" agents - no one could impersonate the agent's key-touch so the real person had to be coerced into sending false information. Even telegraphers in the 1800's could tell who was on the other end of the line by their style. Even though analyzing computer keystrokes in a short phrase by key-timing alone might increase the difficulty (Morse code has the additional characteristic of force), so too have analytical capabilities increased.
It is unclear if you are referring to the main paper or the paper referenced in the footnote. In any event, neither have been public before this. I suspect the legal document you believe to hve been "overturned internally" is the infamous "torture memo" by J. Yoo that the White House has said does not reflect current administration policy (they have never said that it was wrong or refutted its conclusions). The footnoted paper mentioned in the article is a different J. Yoo opinion that is STILL not public. So how you can tell either have been "overturned internally" is beyond me. There has never been a statement by the White House refuting the footnoted paper or stating that its conclusion, that the 4th Ammendment does not protect citizens from military searches and seizures, is not the view of the White House.
You are mistaken. John Yoo wrote this opinion while he was in the White House Office of Legal Counsel. It is not a Justice Department interpretation, but a White House justification (rationalization) of actions it could take. Most likely this was done to provide cover for the administration and/or military brass should they be charged with criminal actions in the future.
Ziiiing! That was a good one. lol!
Rationalize all you want, but your contention that it is just as easy to cheat with paper ballots as it is with e-voting is nonesense.
You're confused...having much experience being scared silly by 50's Japanese monster movies when I was a kid I know this is really the Rodan strategy, not the Godzilla strategy.
"Polish jokes" are one thing - stories of Polish troops defending their country against impossible odds are another. True, it was (and is) a common propaganda technique to make one's enemies look ridiculous, but stories about the Polish cavalry's defense of Poland don't do that. In fact, they do just the opposite - making the Poles look very brave and valiant in the face of certain death. If it was Nazi propaganda it was pretty stupid propaganda - and Goebbles wasn't stupid. As for Polish jokes being propaganda - I'm going to go out on a limb with no evidence and say I doubt that many Polish jokes are German in origin because they just aren't scatalogical enough, which is typical of German low-brow humor. They actually sound more American.
And by the way, the Russians used mounted troops very effectively against the Germans in WWII, and they won.
I find that highly unlikely. Rather than stupid, it would make them appear brave and very willing to die to protect Poland no matter how hopeless the situation appeared. Not the kind of thing you'd want your troops to think.
You want to know stupid? Using Wikipedia as primary reference material.
It isn't that easy, unfortunately.
I don't know what your spam looks like, but all mine is for pirated software, prescription drugs, porn, nigerian money-laundering, penny-stock pumping, and offshore gambling sites - all illegal (except maybe the porn). You are not going to be able to find any corporate offices for these "proper businesses".
They are often located offshore, and change their bank accounts, banks and company names frequently. The owner of the bank accounts usually are not even in the same country as the bank accounts which are set up by other shell companies anyway. If they ship a product to you it will be handled by a drop-ship company so it can't be traced to them that way.
"Not to get off topic, but you really can't assume any sort of symmetric distribution with something like "tech savviness". More likely there are a whole lot more folks below the mean than above it (long tail on the high end)."
Well, no. There are always just as many people below the mean as there are above it.