If they have your key they also can unencrypt anything else of yours
Darn, so all those passphrases I keep in my head get magically stolen along with the key they go with?
What kind of idiot keeps keys that can decrypt everything they own on a portable device, but doesn't make it so that you have to know a passphrase to use the key?
Did I miswrite something, or does everyone not read the last line of a post, or what? I'm really not trying to pick on you specifically, because this is the fourth response I've gotten essentially suggesting excercise to strengthen the relevent muscles.
The last line of my post was 'I've also been working on the more "conventional" advice for people with the same problem, i.e. slowly strengthening those muscles, taking short breaks periodically to stand up and move around more.'
I didn't go into more detail because the main topic was office chairs, not strength training or physical therapy, but yeah, for those of you who have given good (yours) to useless (some of the ACs) advice, as I wrote earlier, I have in fact been working the physical therapy end of things, not just changing my sitting and sleeping position habits. Really, it's under control, thanks for the advice anyway.:)
1. It's semi-free, since I trade IT/web hosting services with his office.
2. I've been working 8-16 hours a day sitting in front of a computer for about 12 years. It's pretty typical for us in that situation to develop specific injuries and weaknesses, one common one of which is weakened lower back muscles, leading to back problems. I've been to chiropractors on and off for much of that time. Most of them fix the symptoms, but not the underlying cause.
3. I only built the chair six months ago. Before that I've had office chairs that were some ok, but one so bad (about 5 years ago) that the moderate sideways tilt on it literally caused me to slip a disc.
My current Chiropractor tries to figure out WHY someone is having a problem and recommends ways to fix the underlying cause, rather then just fixing it, then letting them go back to their usual habits that caused it in the first place. After some analysis of what I do all the time that causes back problems, I started researching better office chairs. I couldn't find what I wanted, so I built it. I've also been working on the more "conventional" advice for people with the same problem, i.e. slowly strengthening those muscles, taking short breaks periodically to stand up and move around more.
To get a good ergonomic chair of any height desired (such as to go with a tall engineer's desk), I took a barstool (gives you the proper forward leaning seat surface along with a nice built-in swivel), cut off the legs to the right height for me personally, then added a padded surface to the seat (memory foam tie-down seat cushion for $5 at walmart) and some lumbar support (adjustable lumbar support office-chair cushion from Staples for $10). The result was a chair custom sized for me that is good enough for my "computer professional's back" that a chiropractor took photos of it to send to all his buddies in the profession as an example of the perfect office chair.
That's right Broward County, home of all those Republican officials... oh wait, what's that, the county is heavily Democrat without any elected Republican officials, as in all nine of the County Commissioners are Democrats? Well... must be Bush's fault somehow anyway!
See, when a/. story says something negative about politician's actions, but doesn't emphasize their party affiliation, there's an extremely high correlation that the politicians in question are Democrats. Hence, you wouldn't even have to RTFA, but just the summary, to figure out that the unnamed County and officials are Democrats.
"railroad tycoons who devastated farmers by charging just enough to ship their goods to market that the farmers made nothing or lost money for their hard work."
I especially like how you complain about people who don't want the government to be able to control and regulate things like railroads, then use as your example a situation where special interests bought off the politicians because the government had the power to grant them severe railroad-right-of-ways monopolies and regulated pricing by the government, but controlled by the special interests.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what the libertarians and capitalists want the government to be able to do?
I've worked with various POS software/hardware as well as plenty of online ecommerce sites and I'm really stretching trying to think of at least one that didn't store CC information somewhere for much longer than the transaction lasted.
Sure, if someone was using a third-party card processor, that third-party usually stored the info instead (although most people would be shocked by the merchants who store this info when there really is no reason for them to do so, since their card processor stores it for them), but the info usually get's stored somewhere.
Typically, you were typically lucky if they encrypted the information and doubly lucky if the encryption key wasn't stored on the same server that the data was stored on (which is typical of these systems).
They use the information for chargebacks, refunds, reconciliation, auto-renewal, etc..., etc...
Last time I read the VISA and MC guidelines, the only real requirement was that you are never supposed to store the VVC code for longer than you need to get the authorization. Everything else is fair game to store, subject to various security guidelines.
Hmmm... at what point will someone with a hacked 360 figure out how to setup replacing the video with your own video from another source just before it's sent to all their friends?
According to your link, she isn't being investigated for a crime, her bosses at the VA were pissed because she identified herself as a VA nurse in her letter, so on the order of their HR director, their IT guys took her work computer for a couple of days to see if she wrote the letter on company time and/or equipment. Her union told her that she was reported to the FBI, but no one from the VA or from the FBI seems to have told her that or confirmed it. She's certainly not being harrassed by the FBI, at least according to the article you cite she's never even spoked to the FBI, she just says she's worried that they "might" be watching her based on her personal stereotype of FBI agents.
Basically she wrote a letter to the editor identifying her job and then proceeded to publicly blast her employer as an employee. In the private sector, that'd probably get her fired. As a government employee, that's virtually impossible, so instead her bosses in the bureaucracy (who now look really bad to their bosses) are trying to make her life a little more miserable.
While I don't condone the screwed-up nature of the federal civil service bureaucracy, imagine the internal response if you had published a letter to the editor saying the CEO of your company was mismanaging several big aspects of the company and signed it with your name and job title. I'm pretty sure the response you'd get (if you worked at a large or small company) would dwarf the response she got from her bosses.
In other news, it was announced today that the "Bill could make it a crime to floss your teeth" and that the "Bill could make it a crime to use the telephone".
How about some specific language that would actually restrict speech from a proposed bill with a remote chance of passing Congress that the Supreme Court is also likely to find constitutional, instead of one long speculation about possible dire consequences that'd never survive the most rudimentary court challenge?
I mean, we could spend all year talking about what some theoretical bill "could" make illegal, if it only had a chance to pass Congress, the President and the Supremes.
Here's an example as to why this 3 year's of research on a very cyclical local phenomenom is useless for anything in the global warming debate:
I have extremely accurate and recent measurements of the temperature at my house, being less than 1/2 a mile from a small airport's weather station. Over the last two weeks, the high temperature has risen 15 degrees farenheit. That is an undisputed recorded fact.
Using this report to figure global warming is like me taking that rise and saying "Well, over the very recent and accurate period studied, the temperature is rising 7.5 degrees a week, therefore the earth is warming and we will all be dead by the end of summer, because in just another 20 weeks, the temperature will be over 200 degrees!"
I mean, the facts are there. It's obvious that it's getting hotter here and since there isn't any contrary evidence that disputes my facts, you should really take my warnings seriously and fund my research into heat-proof suits!
Of course, since the very cyclical and localized nature of the weather here is understood pretty well, we know that the temperature won't continue to rise at a rate of 7.5 degrees/week. It will eventually level out and then go back down in time for fall and then winter. It also varies from the current temperature changes in other parts of the world, so using local weather to try and prove a global effect is equally as unscientific.
It's the same thing with this study. The ice level fluctuates highly. We have records that start well before this study does. Those records show that the changes they recorded started at a point where the ice was on the "thick" end of the cycles, so you'd expect them to get smaller over the short life of the study, just like you'd expect high temperature increases in an area that is going through the spring season, since they just came off a cold spell called winter. This study is also very localized. 3/4 of the area studied had no net change in ice thickness, the loss is from 1/4 of the area, making it even more likely that the loss is from the local cycle, not from some sort of global effect.
Now do you see why the study has no relevence to if there is global warming or not? It's called science, not faith-in-any-article-that-warns-of-impending-doom.
Because the study being discussed happened to pick as their starting point a date when the ice was the thickest it'd been in 10 years? It's be really surprising with the constant fluctuations if the thickness didn't go down.
In fact, it went down in 1/4 of the area and stayed about the same in the other 3/4 of the area measured. A fact that says nothing about global climate change, because it's that same 3 year period.
In 97 there was another dip and it was lower than it was this year. 6 months to a year before this study started (2003), the ice level was also lower than it is right now.
The only thing interesting about this particular study is the method of measurement, namely, using satellite gravity variation measurements.
The interesting part of this study is the gravity variant method they are using. The actual study is meaningless in terms of the global warming debate, because of the timeline and the localized effects. See this TCS story for all the details and graphs.
Essentially, the study used gravity variation measurements from space to do their estimates. The Western part showed some melting in the 3 year time period they studied, but the 3x as large Eastern part didn't. Of course, if you look at a larger time period (a similar study was done for 82-03), the 3 years worth of data these guys chose just happens to start at a high period for the ice thickness and actually, the Eastern part has been getting thicker over the longer time period.
So the study just used a cool application of observations of gravitational variations, rather than bearing any relevance to the issue of global climate change and its implications.
So don't let your misunderstanding of the study blow up into some sort of big global warming scare. It's unscientific conclusions like that which give non-climatologists a bad name when it comes to these kinds of FUD political tactics.
Pack mules need to be fed even if you are just storing them in a camp. This thing can be packed tight in a box until you need it, then you just feed it the same gas that you feed your other vehicles. You're already shipping gas, but you aren't shipping much mule food to the camp. Sure, one the move a mule can eat some grass, but that becomes harder in the middle of the desert or while being shipped across the ocean.
Also, it's much harder to resupply a group under dangerous conditions with mules being led than it is with something you can remote control a group of across that same dangerous territory. As far as weight ratios, some of them can carry gas for the others, while those others carry what you want delivered. It's the same system trucks use.
Plus, I imagine (based on previous darpa results) these will end up quite a bit faster than mules are.
Picture remote controlled, locally autonomous truck convoys dropping these things off for the "last mile" delivery to the troops in the hills and you'll see where all this is going.
Of course, eventually they'll also use them for surveilance placements and then remote controlled combat.
The article (and your comment) has some points if you are talking about cheap-o best-buy setups, where the next price/quality level is pretty close together, but for nice setups, it's a little crazy.
I have a nice home theater setup, and also put them together for friends and relatives occasionally (more fun than fixing their computers.)
If you get a sufficiently nice AV receiver, it's almost always going to have at least 7 channels. Something inexpensive, but not cheap like a Denon 3806 (about $900 online) is going to give you 120 watts per channel. That's plenty for a home theater. If you get a decent 5.1 speaker setup for say, $1300 (which will get you good, individual bookshelf speakers that do up to 200 Watts with no clipping or distortion), does it really make that much sense to skimp on a couple of rear surrounds for another $200? Most people's speaker money is going into their nice senter mids, anyway. The difference in a nice, but inexpensive, system, ends up being $2200 vs $2500.
Yes, it's true that many DVDs are only using 5.1, but a decent receiver will move the sound field to use your whole 7.1 setup anyway.
For non-HD tv and listening to basic music (in other words, basic stereo input), you switch the receiver into 7 channel stereo mode, where all your side speakers are in use for the left and right channels. Trust me, it sounds a lot nicer than just using two front speakers, although you'll probably have to turn the volume down a bit as compared to using basic stereo.
In short, unless you have a tiny area (and with people wanting a minimum of 50" screens, with most people I help out using 100" or above, they don't have a tiny area) or are really going cheap, 7.1 makes a lot of sense.
Hence there also being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 different versions as well. However, picking 8 fits the story a little better, don't you think?
Of, course, when clicking on this story, the first thing I got was "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.", which is probably pretty similar to what MS has at that URL now.
I think what you are missing is that the reality is that government at all levels is doing more to violate civil rights and while you can be a partisan and blame that on Republicans when they happen to be running the government in question, the reality ignored by the old media press and by people like this/. story submitter (by convieniently leaving out the party affiliate of Democrats who do bad stuff like this) is that both parties do it when they are in power.
In fact, I can name at least a couple of Republicans in Congress who adamently oppose all unconstitutional civil liberties violations (Ron Paul-R TX and Jeff Flake-R AZ), but can't think of any Democrat in Congress opposed enough to vote against all forms of it. Perhaps you can name a couple?
The reality is that when a Democrat is in power, they tend to be even worse on civil liberties than the Republicans, so the solution isn't going to be replacing one with the other.
Why do I think that if the Mayor and his hired flunky the Police Chief were Republicans, that'd be highlighted in the story and we'd have a quote from the ACLU already?
Anyway, the article summary as usual lies about what the Chief actually said, but anything to sell/. ads.
Also, the article summary is wrong in one little detail. The actual article continues the sentence with "or else explain the legal basis under which the records cannot be released."
So basically, the judge set a deadline by with the government must respond to the FOIA request (which could just be a denial saying you can't have the records cause it's classified, likely in this case), he didn't order them to actually release the records.
You forgot to add that Ed Chavez is a Democrat and a member of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition. As such, I'm pretty sure he's not going to be going out of his way to denigrate communism any time soon. More likely would be some sort of anti-war rant.
But don't take my word for it, feel free to call or write one of his offices below and express your opinion:
Industry Office: 13181 Crossroads Parkway North Suite #160 Industry, CA 91746 (626) 961-8492
Capitol Office: State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0057 Phone: (916) 319-2057 Fax: (916) 319-2157
Slashdot Mirror
Darn, so all those passphrases I keep in my head get magically stolen along with the key they go with?
What kind of idiot keeps keys that can decrypt everything they own on a portable device, but doesn't make it so that you have to know a passphrase to use the key?
Well, leaving aside government users.
Did I miswrite something, or does everyone not read the last line of a post, or what? I'm really not trying to pick on you specifically, because this is the fourth response I've gotten essentially suggesting excercise to strengthen the relevent muscles.
:)
The last line of my post was 'I've also been working on the more "conventional" advice for people with the same problem, i.e. slowly strengthening those muscles, taking short breaks periodically to stand up and move around more.'
I didn't go into more detail because the main topic was office chairs, not strength training or physical therapy, but yeah, for those of you who have given good (yours) to useless (some of the ACs) advice, as I wrote earlier, I have in fact been working the physical therapy end of things, not just changing my sitting and sleeping position habits. Really, it's under control, thanks for the advice anyway.
1. It's semi-free, since I trade IT/web hosting services with his office.
2. I've been working 8-16 hours a day sitting in front of a computer for about 12 years. It's pretty typical for us in that situation to develop specific injuries and weaknesses, one common one of which is weakened lower back muscles, leading to back problems. I've been to chiropractors on and off for much of that time. Most of them fix the symptoms, but not the underlying cause.
3. I only built the chair six months ago. Before that I've had office chairs that were some ok, but one so bad (about 5 years ago) that the moderate sideways tilt on it literally caused me to slip a disc.
My current Chiropractor tries to figure out WHY someone is having a problem and recommends ways to fix the underlying cause, rather then just fixing it, then letting them go back to their usual habits that caused it in the first place. After some analysis of what I do all the time that causes back problems, I started researching better office chairs. I couldn't find what I wanted, so I built it. I've also been working on the more "conventional" advice for people with the same problem, i.e. slowly strengthening those muscles, taking short breaks periodically to stand up and move around more.
To get a good ergonomic chair of any height desired (such as to go with a tall engineer's desk), I took a barstool (gives you the proper forward leaning seat surface along with a nice built-in swivel), cut off the legs to the right height for me personally, then added a padded surface to the seat (memory foam tie-down seat cushion for $5 at walmart) and some lumbar support (adjustable lumbar support office-chair cushion from Staples for $10). The result was a chair custom sized for me that is good enough for my "computer professional's back" that a chiropractor took photos of it to send to all his buddies in the profession as an example of the perfect office chair.
That's right Broward County, home of all those Republican officials... oh wait, what's that, the county is heavily Democrat without any elected Republican officials, as in all nine of the County Commissioners are Democrats? Well... must be Bush's fault somehow anyway!
/. story says something negative about politician's actions, but doesn't emphasize their party affiliation, there's an extremely high correlation that the politicians in question are Democrats. Hence, you wouldn't even have to RTFA, but just the summary, to figure out that the unnamed County and officials are Democrats.
See, when a
Right. Next you'll be telling me that Apple is selling x86 machines. Sheesh.
Those damn Republicans, trying to protect your private data. What will they think of next?
I especially like how you complain about people who don't want the government to be able to control and regulate things like railroads, then use as your example a situation where special interests bought off the politicians because the government had the power to grant them severe railroad-right-of-ways monopolies and regulated pricing by the government, but controlled by the special interests.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what the libertarians and capitalists want the government to be able to do?
It seems more and more like Ajax is the new Flash.
I'm trying to figure out why this is news.
I've worked with various POS software/hardware as well as plenty of online ecommerce sites and I'm really stretching trying to think of at least one that didn't store CC information somewhere for much longer than the transaction lasted.
Sure, if someone was using a third-party card processor, that third-party usually stored the info instead (although most people would be shocked by the merchants who store this info when there really is no reason for them to do so, since their card processor stores it for them), but the info usually get's stored somewhere.
Typically, you were typically lucky if they encrypted the information and doubly lucky if the encryption key wasn't stored on the same server that the data was stored on (which is typical of these systems).
They use the information for chargebacks, refunds, reconciliation, auto-renewal, etc..., etc...
Last time I read the VISA and MC guidelines, the only real requirement was that you are never supposed to store the VVC code for longer than you need to get the authorization. Everything else is fair game to store, subject to various security guidelines.
Hmmm... at what point will someone with a hacked 360 figure out how to setup replacing the video with your own video from another source just before it's sent to all their friends?
Imagine the possibilities...
According to your link, she isn't being investigated for a crime, her bosses at the VA were pissed because she identified herself as a VA nurse in her letter, so on the order of their HR director, their IT guys took her work computer for a couple of days to see if she wrote the letter on company time and/or equipment. Her union told her that she was reported to the FBI, but no one from the VA or from the FBI seems to have told her that or confirmed it. She's certainly not being harrassed by the FBI, at least according to the article you cite she's never even spoked to the FBI, she just says she's worried that they "might" be watching her based on her personal stereotype of FBI agents.
Basically she wrote a letter to the editor identifying her job and then proceeded to publicly blast her employer as an employee. In the private sector, that'd probably get her fired. As a government employee, that's virtually impossible, so instead her bosses in the bureaucracy (who now look really bad to their bosses) are trying to make her life a little more miserable.
While I don't condone the screwed-up nature of the federal civil service bureaucracy, imagine the internal response if you had published a letter to the editor saying the CEO of your company was mismanaging several big aspects of the company and signed it with your name and job title. I'm pretty sure the response you'd get (if you worked at a large or small company) would dwarf the response she got from her bosses.
In other news, it was announced today that the "Bill could make it a crime to floss your teeth" and that the "Bill could make it a crime to use the telephone".
How about some specific language that would actually restrict speech from a proposed bill with a remote chance of passing Congress that the Supreme Court is also likely to find constitutional, instead of one long speculation about possible dire consequences that'd never survive the most rudimentary court challenge?
I mean, we could spend all year talking about what some theoretical bill "could" make illegal, if it only had a chance to pass Congress, the President and the Supremes.
Here's an example as to why this 3 year's of research on a very cyclical local phenomenom is useless for anything in the global warming debate:
.
I have extremely accurate and recent measurements of the temperature at my house, being less than 1/2 a mile from a small airport's weather station. Over the last two weeks, the high temperature has risen 15 degrees farenheit. That is an undisputed recorded fact.
Using this report to figure global warming is like me taking that rise and saying "Well, over the very recent and accurate period studied, the temperature is rising 7.5 degrees a week, therefore the earth is warming and we will all be dead by the end of summer, because in just another 20 weeks, the temperature will be over 200 degrees!"
I mean, the facts are there. It's obvious that it's getting hotter here and since there isn't any contrary evidence that disputes my facts, you should really take my warnings seriously and fund my research into heat-proof suits!
Of course, since the very cyclical and localized nature of the weather here is understood pretty well, we know that the temperature won't continue to rise at a rate of 7.5 degrees/week. It will eventually level out and then go back down in time for fall and then winter. It also varies from the current temperature changes in other parts of the world, so using local weather to try and prove a global effect is equally as unscientific.
It's the same thing with this study. The ice level fluctuates highly. We have records that start well before this study does. Those records show that the changes they recorded started at a point where the ice was on the "thick" end of the cycles, so you'd expect them to get smaller over the short life of the study, just like you'd expect high temperature increases in an area that is going through the spring season, since they just came off a cold spell called winter. This study is also very localized. 3/4 of the area studied had no net change in ice thickness, the loss is from 1/4 of the area, making it even more likely that the loss is from the local cycle, not from some sort of global effect.
Now do you see why the study has no relevence to if there is global warming or not? It's called science, not faith-in-any-article-that-warns-of-impending-doom
Because the study being discussed happened to pick as their starting point a date when the ice was the thickest it'd been in 10 years? It's be really surprising with the constant fluctuations if the thickness didn't go down.
In fact, it went down in 1/4 of the area and stayed about the same in the other 3/4 of the area measured. A fact that says nothing about global climate change, because it's that same 3 year period.
In 97 there was another dip and it was lower than it was this year. 6 months to a year before this study started (2003), the ice level was also lower than it is right now.
The only thing interesting about this particular study is the method of measurement, namely, using satellite gravity variation measurements.
The interesting part of this study is the gravity variant method they are using. The actual study is meaningless in terms of the global warming debate, because of the timeline and the localized effects. See this TCS story for all the details and graphs.
Essentially, the study used gravity variation measurements from space to do their estimates. The Western part showed some melting in the 3 year time period they studied, but the 3x as large Eastern part didn't. Of course, if you look at a larger time period (a similar study was done for 82-03), the 3 years worth of data these guys chose just happens to start at a high period for the ice thickness and actually, the Eastern part has been getting thicker over the longer time period.
So the study just used a cool application of observations of gravitational variations, rather than bearing any relevance to the issue of global climate change and its implications.
So don't let your misunderstanding of the study blow up into some sort of big global warming scare. It's unscientific conclusions like that which give non-climatologists a bad name when it comes to these kinds of FUD political tactics.
The advantages are pretty easy to see.
Pack mules need to be fed even if you are just storing them in a camp. This thing can be packed tight in a box until you need it, then you just feed it the same gas that you feed your other vehicles. You're already shipping gas, but you aren't shipping much mule food to the camp. Sure, one the move a mule can eat some grass, but that becomes harder in the middle of the desert or while being shipped across the ocean.
Also, it's much harder to resupply a group under dangerous conditions with mules being led than it is with something you can remote control a group of across that same dangerous territory. As far as weight ratios, some of them can carry gas for the others, while those others carry what you want delivered. It's the same system trucks use.
Plus, I imagine (based on previous darpa results) these will end up quite a bit faster than mules are.
Picture remote controlled, locally autonomous truck convoys dropping these things off for the "last mile" delivery to the troops in the hills and you'll see where all this is going.
Of course, eventually they'll also use them for surveilance placements and then remote controlled combat.
The article (and your comment) has some points if you are talking about cheap-o best-buy setups, where the next price/quality level is pretty close together, but for nice setups, it's a little crazy.
I have a nice home theater setup, and also put them together for friends and relatives occasionally (more fun than fixing their computers.)
If you get a sufficiently nice AV receiver, it's almost always going to have at least 7 channels. Something inexpensive, but not cheap like a Denon 3806 (about $900 online) is going to give you 120 watts per channel. That's plenty for a home theater. If you get a decent 5.1 speaker setup for say, $1300 (which will get you good, individual bookshelf speakers that do up to 200 Watts with no clipping or distortion), does it really make that much sense to skimp on a couple of rear surrounds for another $200? Most people's speaker money is going into their nice senter mids, anyway. The difference in a nice, but inexpensive, system, ends up being $2200 vs $2500.
Yes, it's true that many DVDs are only using 5.1, but a decent receiver will move the sound field to use your whole 7.1 setup anyway.
For non-HD tv and listening to basic music (in other words, basic stereo input), you switch the receiver into 7 channel stereo mode, where all your side speakers are in use for the left and right channels. Trust me, it sounds a lot nicer than just using two front speakers, although you'll probably have to turn the volume down a bit as compared to using basic stereo.
In short, unless you have a tiny area (and with people wanting a minimum of 50" screens, with most people I help out using 100" or above, they don't have a tiny area) or are really going cheap, 7.1 makes a lot of sense.
Hence there also being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 different versions as well. However, picking 8 fits the story a little better, don't you think?
Of, course, when clicking on this story, the first thing I got was "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.", which is probably pretty similar to what MS has at that URL now.
/. out there.
At least there aren't 8 different versions of
Then what about these guys actually passing city ordinances requiring camera coverage on private property?
/. story submitter (by convieniently leaving out the party affiliate of Democrats who do bad stuff like this) is that both parties do it when they are in power.
Let's see: Daly, Chicago, Democrat. Baltimore City Council, Democrats, Milwaukee, Democrats...
I think what you are missing is that the reality is that government at all levels is doing more to violate civil rights and while you can be a partisan and blame that on Republicans when they happen to be running the government in question, the reality ignored by the old media press and by people like this
In fact, I can name at least a couple of Republicans in Congress who adamently oppose all unconstitutional civil liberties violations (Ron Paul-R TX and Jeff Flake-R AZ), but can't think of any Democrat in Congress opposed enough to vote against all forms of it. Perhaps you can name a couple?
The reality is that when a Democrat is in power, they tend to be even worse on civil liberties than the Republicans, so the solution isn't going to be replacing one with the other.
Yeah, those darn Democrats in charge of Houston need to stop trying to violate our civil liberties.
/. ads.
Why do I think that if the Mayor and his hired flunky the Police Chief were Republicans, that'd be highlighted in the story and we'd have a quote from the ACLU already?
Anyway, the article summary as usual lies about what the Chief actually said, but anything to sell
Also, the article summary is wrong in one little detail. The actual article continues the sentence with "or else explain the legal basis under which the records cannot be released."
So basically, the judge set a deadline by with the government must respond to the FOIA request (which could just be a denial saying you can't have the records cause it's classified, likely in this case), he didn't order them to actually release the records.
You forgot to add that Ed Chavez is a Democrat and a member of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition. As such, I'm pretty sure he's not going to be going out of his way to denigrate communism any time soon. More likely would be some sort of anti-war rant.
But don't take my word for it, feel free to call or write one of his offices below and express your opinion:
Industry Office:
13181 Crossroads Parkway North
Suite #160
Industry, CA 91746
(626) 961-8492
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0057
Phone: (916) 319-2057
Fax: (916) 319-2157
I agree. All we need is a bunch of new government regulations to make it harder for employers and employees to get together.
Has someone looked at the low unemployment rates recently and decided something had to be done to raise them, or what?