"Good, bad, effective, useless... doesn't matter. It just has to be perceived as responsive."
Your point is accurate as long as one myopically refuse to look outside one's local Congressional member's office, but here you are taking a very simplistic look at a very complex question involving a lot more than the perpetual desire of politicians to retain their seats.
As 9/11 pointed out, real world security failures can produce real world effects. While security as a product definitely has an aspect and goal of projecting a perception of security onto the citizenry, it is not its only aspect.
Additionally, you fail to acknowledge the many averted incidences credited to effective security policy and personnel (Millennium Plot/Shoe Bomber/etc). Were they toiling to provide a perception of security, or were they actually trying to project security into their assigned environment? Did they succeed in preventing or displacing some adverse phenomenon? To bring it back to your original calculus, how many lives have to be saved before it is worth the cost of technology like these scanners?
Security doesn't always exhibit a tangible quality, but it isn't a shell game regardless of your characterization. Just because you don't understand the social value or operative importance of criminal displacement through deterence does not alter the benefits it provides our communities on a daily basis.
The U.S. is the largest consumer of petroleum and derived products for energy consumption by percentage, by population and by total quantity. To be in tune with your sarcastic tone, I ask you why the world must suffer for our over indulgence? Do you hate the entire world, exclusive that is, of the U.S.?
You don't actually think we are consuming all the goods we produce do you? China and the U.S. both produce most of the world's goods, and as a result are bound to use most of the world's resources.
Globalization is slowing changing this, but even then you will always see the largest inflow of raw materials to the nations which produce the largest outflow of finished goods.
The reasons other countries aren't producing much in the way of goods bound for the global market are rarely related to how much oil they are able to purchase on the open market. It usually has to do with poor governmental institutions that limit or make infeasible international investment into their country.
Like most politics, this shit is mostly local. Economically-challenged countries begin with economically-inept political leaders. If the leaders of these countries would stop padding their bank accounts through the misery of their people, and start producing economically feasible government, not even Satan himself could stop Big Business from moving in to that country to take advantage of the low labor rates and untapped raw material wealth.
As long as the Internet continues to follow open and published standards for operation of the root servers, and does not deviate from those standards, ultimately the bulk of that power still lies with the local end-user service provider. They are the ones most ably-situationed to censor content - your coment on totalitarian political units is dead on in this respect.
Has anyone heard of the U.S. abusing this authority for particularistic gain?
Several presidents have won by a true majority. George Washington was voted in unanimously.
Which has nothing to do with my point. A majority of the POPULATION did not vote at all then (no women, minorities, non-landowners, etc were allowed to vote).
In 2000, Bush didn't have the most popular votes.
And again a majority of the population didn't elect anyone in 2000 when Gore won the most popular votes or in 2004 when Bush.2 won the most popular votes. In 2004 roughly 70 million people elected Bush which is a far cry from a majority of the U.S. population he now governs.
To use popular vote by a percentage of eligable voters in order to claim a public mandate is a farce. There is not such thing as a public mandate in our national public election. Our founding fathers went to some length to ensure that the vote had little to do with such a notion (the electorial system).
Right now we've got justices that are taking direction from international law.
International Law is simply the cummulation of treaty documents signed by the Executive branch and ratified by the Senate.
What you mean is foreign law. But when we began this experiment in democracy (the U.S. of A.), we borrowed all of our common law from one place - the British judicial system. So expecting our justices to operate in a vacuum isn't all that reasonable.
Beyond that you will see from time to time other foreign law cited by SCOTUS Justices. But usually it isn't citing precident, but rather an administrative way of handling a problem that has worked for other countries. Much like you will see during the development of all public policy.
SCOTUS is frequently called on to provide Administrative law, or operational instructions, due to the fact that the Legislature does such a poor job at oversight and self-correction.
Miranda warnings given by police during custodial arrest situtations provided by Miranda v. Arizona is an excellent instruction. Mirandizing was not a function of Legislative law, but Administrative (Judicial) law. You can thank John Marshall, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for allowing SCOTUS to create administrative law - all three made it happen in Mayberry v. Madison.
I'm simply pointing out that we have lost a lot of rights right now and this government, though a democracy/republic, feels like more of a dictatorship or is at least heading that way...so my sarcasm was to say let's just get it over with and get rid of all checks and balances because they are obviously not working in the first place.
Which rights have you lost again? You mentioned the right to burn the American Flag (a subset of personal expression) and hinted at the infrequently used eminent domain powers (a subset of property rights).
Does not being able to burn the American flag truly hinder your ability to express yourself? Do you even own any land right now you are afraid the government will take away?
Why do you have such a strong opinion that your rights are disappearing?
Since only 59.6% of eligable voters participated in the 2004 election (highest since 1968 which had 61.9% voting), it would take a landslide of over 85% of the vote to equal a real Mandate from the country (51% of eligable voters).
It's not really gerrymandering because the State lines aren't redrawn all that often.
It might not be Elbridge Gerry doing it, but it is Gerrymandering.
Redistricting is done every 10 years following the Census. Unless you have a non-partisan group handling your redistricting, then it accomplished by political gerrymandering. Political gerrymandering is supported by the Supreme Court, unless it discriminates against a cognizable class (by gender, race, etc).
In political gerrymandering, whoever controls the state legislature has considerable control over chances for reelection do to this additional control. Specifically, do some reading on the "excess vote" and "wasted vote" methods for gerrymandering if you want a full understanding of how this actually goes down at the district voting level.
Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.
This has to be the most tired argument advanced in modern politics today. This method of electing our executive branch has been our operative mode for over 200 years. Yet once your darling party is out of power you suddenly want a break from the system. Why didn't you or your party complain about this when you were in power and had a better chance to amend the constitution? The answer is obvious.
This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.
And this was any different than the way the Democrats controlled the Senate for 50-70 years prior to 1994? This is politics as usual for both parties. You lack objectivity when evaluating the process because you haven't studied the Congress in any temporal depth. Tyrany in an informal, deliberative body like our Senate? This isn't the House of Representatives where getting your bill through means controlling the Rules committee. The Senate is a totally different animal. If you aren't careful you risk being outed as a thoughtless shill yourself with meaningless utterances such as those.
Now, as a snide side comment, Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country.
No president has been elected by a majority of the population in my lifetime (if ever). They are elected by a majority of the people that vote - which historically has been far less than the total population of this country.
That said Bush.2 was elected to a second term by a majority of the popular vote and the electorial vote - a feet not frequently accomplished in the U.S. of A.
That is technically an "ex post facto" (adding punishment after the fact) law, which is illegal, but they weasel out of it by saying it isn't punishment, it is just aiding "public safety" by restricting "privileges" of persons with a "felony status", not punishment for a crime.
"Ex Post Facto" as a legal doctorine doesn't have anything to do with adding punishment after the crime. Since we don't live in a Minority Report (starring Tom Cruise!) world yet, all punishment comes after the crime... so this is somewhat normal. "Ex Post Facto" actually refers to adding a new law after the crime has been committed and then charging the person with that law. Even though the law did not exist prior to the commission of the criminal act.
Just as if the DMV takes your license away in an administrative hearing for DUI even if you are acquitted in criminal court! What about double jeapordy? Well the admin. hearing is not "punishment".
"Double Jeopardy" doesn't have much to do with punishment, it has to do with the prohibition of bringing a person to trial for the same crime after it has already been adjudicated.
However, in reality most offences have multiple punishments attached to them (i.e. your conduct can trigger responses from multiple sections of law). You pointed this out with your DUI-DMV example.
As another example, Armed robbery usually includes charges of aggrivated robbery, unlawful use of a deadly weapon, etc... depending on how you did what you did. After this you would probably be taken to civil court for violating the civil rights of your victims as well.
Is there any value in separating out either
of those two functions, ie, from our modern
word processing software?
I don't think so...
A lot of folks that publish scholarly material like to use a bibliography database to save time finding and refinding references to works they cite. This functionality is not provided in any word processor that I am aware of currently.
As a result, EndNotes and other programs have come to the rescue. They help you manage a library of citations for when you need to cite them again in your later material.
Basically it is a time saver since it will search the database index and then insert a preformated citation into your paper.
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
The military and research arms of most governments spend a considerable amount of time ginning up possible threats. They then try to exchange that potential threat for funding for their research, which they assure the financier will effectively combat that threat.
I imagine this is pretty much what the article was about. Generating some kind of public fear in the hope of obtaining funding for his research project.
I'm sure you think you are making some kind of point here, but you are missing the contents of this entire thread.
You are correct in one regard, I did believe his assessment of a legal matter to be worthless without citation. His reply to me included a citation, and if you read that and my reply you will see why I believe his opinion to be uneducated (not in the general sense of his personal education but in that he hasn't actually studied the specific matter like he claims). Further, he actually is claiming to have read the entire USAPA, which you will find if you bother to read his futher comments.
Having studied the USAPA for a solid 4 months as part of a research project, including the specific section he cites in his later comments, I believe that he is totally off base. His conclusion as cited is not supportable.
If someone says something you don't agree with you call them liars or dumb and their ideas uninteresting.
Please cite where I called him or anyone else a "liar" or "dumb". The only person engaging in name calling is you, and while I find it amusing that you attribute my "request" to the parent for citation as an ad hominem laden argument it serves no purpose whatsoever to informing this debate.
Apparently you did not get it that I was calling you on your sarcastic ad hominem style of attacking the person and not his ideas. I said that if you didn't agree with his ideas YOU should do the citation search to prove him wrong, not put the work back on the person you just insulted.
I have indeed cited specific sections of the act and the code that that act modified in discenting from his opinion. Which you would know if you had bothered to read them. Unfortunately you seem bent on name calling instead. If you really want to contribute read our replies to eachother and join a useful conversation. I'd be glad to hear your opinions on a useful matter.
The definitions in USAPA 814 apply to USC 1030, which is the principle anti-hacker statute for federal law enforcement.
The definition you cite 1030(d)(11) which was changed by 814(d)(5) is where your "economic loss" reference actually comes from.
It has nothing to do with certifying companies as terrorist simply because they cause economic damage. Specifically because this definition is ONLY used if you have committed one of the offenses listed under 1030(a-b), which again only include cybercrime and are to some degree pretty limited in scope.
Economic loss was a big change to this section (previously economic loss could not be calculated into damages used to determine the level of the felony or the damages awarded in a civil suit), but the reality is that Congress only included in a form statute what the courts had already determined in Middleton v. US. So this really didn't change anything. It only codified that congress agreed with the 10th circuit court of appeals (ignore for the moment that hackers typically don't have deep pockets).
I don't how you came to the conclusion that a definition of economic loss can be extrapalated into defining you as a terrorist simply because your company succeeds in competing against a US company. You couldn't have gotten it from reading 814 and USC 1030 which it modifies because it simply isn't there.
You should reread my post a couple times, and then you might figure out I was asking him to cite which part of the USAPA he got that from (pay close attention to the ":p", as you will note from his reply, the parent actually understood what I was saying where as you didn't.
Title 8 of the USAPA contains numerous legal definitions, but some of the sections which modify multiple parts of the USC contain seperate definitions only applicable to that specific part of the code. Clarity my friend is paramount in any discusson of law.
Have you honestly read the entire USAPA? If so I'd like to know your name. You are probably only the second person on earth to do so.:p
If not it might be more useful to cite for us which subsections you derive your conclusions from. I promise the ensuing discussion would be much more interesting.
Do a search on LexisNexis on NSLs. The FBI has never actually had to use USAPA provisions to obtain information from a library. NSLs have been used for years successfully for this purpose, including the more recent anti-terrorism investigations following 9/11 and the inception of the USAPA.
...everytime I pushed the button, my voting terminal would blue screen
In Longhorn the BSOD has been replaced by a RSOD to correctly reflect the party colors of the your corrected voting choice as determined by the system.
Slashdot Mirror
"Good, bad, effective, useless... doesn't matter. It just has to be perceived as responsive."
Your point is accurate as long as one myopically refuse to look outside one's local Congressional member's office, but here you are taking a very simplistic look at a very complex question involving a lot more than the perpetual desire of politicians to retain their seats.
As 9/11 pointed out, real world security failures can produce real world effects. While security as a product definitely has an aspect and goal of projecting a perception of security onto the citizenry, it is not its only aspect.
Additionally, you fail to acknowledge the many averted incidences credited to effective security policy and personnel (Millennium Plot/Shoe Bomber/etc). Were they toiling to provide a perception of security, or were they actually trying to project security into their assigned environment? Did they succeed in preventing or displacing some adverse phenomenon? To bring it back to your original calculus, how many lives have to be saved before it is worth the cost of technology like these scanners?
Security doesn't always exhibit a tangible quality, but it isn't a shell game regardless of your characterization. Just because you don't understand the social value or operative importance of criminal displacement through deterence does not alter the benefits it provides our communities on a daily basis.
The U.S. is the largest consumer of petroleum and derived products for energy consumption by percentage, by population and by total quantity. To be in tune with your sarcastic tone, I ask you why the world must suffer for our over indulgence? Do you hate the entire world, exclusive that is, of the U.S.?
You don't actually think we are consuming all the goods we produce do you? China and the U.S. both produce most of the world's goods, and as a result are bound to use most of the world's resources.
Globalization is slowing changing this, but even then you will always see the largest inflow of raw materials to the nations which produce the largest outflow of finished goods.
The reasons other countries aren't producing much in the way of goods bound for the global market are rarely related to how much oil they are able to purchase on the open market. It usually has to do with poor governmental institutions that limit or make infeasible international investment into their country.
Like most politics, this shit is mostly local. Economically-challenged countries begin with economically-inept political leaders. If the leaders of these countries would stop padding their bank accounts through the misery of their people, and start producing economically feasible government, not even Satan himself could stop Big Business from moving in to that country to take advantage of the low labor rates and untapped raw material wealth.
ROFL
As long as the Internet continues to follow open and published standards for operation of the root servers, and does not deviate from those standards, ultimately the bulk of that power still lies with the local end-user service provider. They are the ones most ably-situationed to censor content - your coment on totalitarian political units is dead on in this respect.
Has anyone heard of the U.S. abusing this authority for particularistic gain?
Several presidents have won by a true majority. George Washington was voted in unanimously.
Which has nothing to do with my point. A majority of the POPULATION did not vote at all then (no women, minorities, non-landowners, etc were allowed to vote).
In 2000, Bush didn't have the most popular votes.
And again a majority of the population didn't elect anyone in 2000 when Gore won the most popular votes or in 2004 when Bush.2 won the most popular votes. In 2004 roughly 70 million people elected Bush which is a far cry from a majority of the U.S. population he now governs.
To use popular vote by a percentage of eligable voters in order to claim a public mandate is a farce. There is not such thing as a public mandate in our national public election. Our founding fathers went to some length to ensure that the vote had little to do with such a notion (the electorial system).
Right now we've got justices that are taking direction from international law.
International Law is simply the cummulation of treaty documents signed by the Executive branch and ratified by the Senate.
What you mean is foreign law. But when we began this experiment in democracy (the U.S. of A.), we borrowed all of our common law from one place - the British judicial system. So expecting our justices to operate in a vacuum isn't all that reasonable.
Beyond that you will see from time to time other foreign law cited by SCOTUS Justices. But usually it isn't citing precident, but rather an administrative way of handling a problem that has worked for other countries. Much like you will see during the development of all public policy.
SCOTUS is frequently called on to provide Administrative law, or operational instructions, due to the fact that the Legislature does such a poor job at oversight and self-correction.
Miranda warnings given by police during custodial arrest situtations provided by Miranda v. Arizona is an excellent instruction. Mirandizing was not a function of Legislative law, but Administrative (Judicial) law. You can thank John Marshall, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for allowing SCOTUS to create administrative law - all three made it happen in Mayberry v. Madison.
I'm simply pointing out that we have lost a lot of rights right now and this government, though a democracy/republic, feels like more of a dictatorship or is at least heading that way...so my sarcasm was to say let's just get it over with and get rid of all checks and balances because they are obviously not working in the first place.
Which rights have you lost again? You mentioned the right to burn the American Flag (a subset of personal expression) and hinted at the infrequently used eminent domain powers (a subset of property rights).
Does not being able to burn the American flag truly hinder your ability to express yourself? Do you even own any land right now you are afraid the government will take away?
Why do you have such a strong opinion that your rights are disappearing?
Ahh, by state line he ment state BORDER. I've got ya now.
A mandate from the people in the US is a fiction.
Since only 59.6% of eligable voters participated in the 2004 election (highest since 1968 which had 61.9% voting), it would take a landslide of over 85% of the vote to equal a real Mandate from the country (51% of eligable voters).
Now back to your normally scheduled trolling...
It's not really gerrymandering because the State lines aren't redrawn all that often.
It might not be Elbridge Gerry doing it, but it is Gerrymandering.
Redistricting is done every 10 years following the Census. Unless you have a non-partisan group handling your redistricting, then it accomplished by political gerrymandering. Political gerrymandering is supported by the Supreme Court, unless it discriminates against a cognizable class (by gender, race, etc).
In political gerrymandering, whoever controls the state legislature has considerable control over chances for reelection do to this additional control. Specifically, do some reading on the "excess vote" and "wasted vote" methods for gerrymandering if you want a full understanding of how this actually goes down at the district voting level.
Yes, because 51% percent of voters prefer Bush to Kerry, we should have an all-conservative-all-the-time goverrnment. I scoff.
This has to be the most tired argument advanced in modern politics today. This method of electing our executive branch has been our operative mode for over 200 years. Yet once your darling party is out of power you suddenly want a break from the system. Why didn't you or your party complain about this when you were in power and had a better chance to amend the constitution? The answer is obvious.
This "up-or-down vote" is just a front for the Republicans' desire for a tyranny of the majority. Finally Democrats are standing up to them, and rightly so.
And this was any different than the way the Democrats controlled the Senate for 50-70 years prior to 1994? This is politics as usual for both parties. You lack objectivity when evaluating the process because you haven't studied the Congress in any temporal depth. Tyrany in an informal, deliberative body like our Senate? This isn't the House of Representatives where getting your bill through means controlling the Rules committee. The Senate is a totally different animal. If you aren't careful you risk being outed as a thoughtless shill yourself with meaningless utterances such as those.
Now, as a snide side comment, Bush wasn't elected by a majority of this country.
No president has been elected by a majority of the population in my lifetime (if ever). They are elected by a majority of the people that vote - which historically has been far less than the total population of this country.
That said Bush.2 was elected to a second term by a majority of the popular vote and the electorial vote - a feet not frequently accomplished in the U.S. of A.
That is technically an "ex post facto" (adding punishment after the fact) law, which is illegal, but they weasel out of it by saying it isn't punishment, it is just aiding "public safety" by restricting "privileges" of persons with a "felony status", not punishment for a crime.
"Ex Post Facto" as a legal doctorine doesn't have anything to do with adding punishment after the crime. Since we don't live in a Minority Report (starring Tom Cruise!) world yet, all punishment comes after the crime... so this is somewhat normal. "Ex Post Facto" actually refers to adding a new law after the crime has been committed and then charging the person with that law. Even though the law did not exist prior to the commission of the criminal act.
Just as if the DMV takes your license away in an administrative hearing for DUI even if you are acquitted in criminal court! What about double jeapordy? Well the admin. hearing is not "punishment".
"Double Jeopardy" doesn't have much to do with punishment, it has to do with the prohibition of bringing a person to trial for the same crime after it has already been adjudicated.
However, in reality most offences have multiple punishments attached to them (i.e. your conduct can trigger responses from multiple sections of law). You pointed this out with your DUI-DMV example.
As another example, Armed robbery usually includes charges of aggrivated robbery, unlawful use of a deadly weapon, etc... depending on how you did what you did. After this you would probably be taken to civil court for violating the civil rights of your victims as well.
That's a problem that needs to be solved, but it doesn't account for a lot of spam, and spammers will just stop faking domains in their mass emails.
Admittedly I don't get a lot of spam by most people's measures, but all the spam I get uses at least some form of impersonation.
Is there any value in separating out either
of those two functions, ie, from our modern
word processing software?
I don't think so...
A lot of folks that publish scholarly material like to use a bibliography database to save time finding and refinding references to works they cite. This functionality is not provided in any word processor that I am aware of currently.
As a result, EndNotes and other programs have come to the rescue. They help you manage a library of citations for when you need to cite them again in your later material.
Basically it is a time saver since it will search the database index and then insert a preformated citation into your paper.
How much is your time worth to you?
commit 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Author: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat Apr 16 15:20:36 2005 -0700
Linux-2.6.12-rc2
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
The military and research arms of most governments spend a considerable amount of time ginning up possible threats. They then try to exchange that potential threat for funding for their research, which they assure the financier will effectively combat that threat.
I imagine this is pretty much what the article was about. Generating some kind of public fear in the hope of obtaining funding for his research project.
Is this really supprising considering that people, on average, are living longer today than they did 100 years ago?
I'm sure you think you are making some kind of point here, but you are missing the contents of this entire thread.
You are correct in one regard, I did believe his assessment of a legal matter to be worthless without citation. His reply to me included a citation, and if you read that and my reply you will see why I believe his opinion to be uneducated (not in the general sense of his personal education but in that he hasn't actually studied the specific matter like he claims). Further, he actually is claiming to have read the entire USAPA, which you will find if you bother to read his futher comments.
Having studied the USAPA for a solid 4 months as part of a research project, including the specific section he cites in his later comments, I believe that he is totally off base. His conclusion as cited is not supportable.
If someone says something you don't agree with you call them liars or dumb and their ideas uninteresting.
Please cite where I called him or anyone else a "liar" or "dumb". The only person engaging in name calling is you, and while I find it amusing that you attribute my "request" to the parent for citation as an ad hominem laden argument it serves no purpose whatsoever to informing this debate.
Apparently you did not get it that I was calling you on your sarcastic ad hominem style of attacking the person and not his ideas. I said that if you didn't agree with his ideas YOU should do the citation search to prove him wrong, not put the work back on the person you just insulted.
I have indeed cited specific sections of the act and the code that that act modified in discenting from his opinion. Which you would know if you had bothered to read them. Unfortunately you seem bent on name calling instead. If you really want to contribute read our replies to eachother and join a useful conversation. I'd be glad to hear your opinions on a useful matter.
The definitions in USAPA 814 apply to USC 1030, which is the principle anti-hacker statute for federal law enforcement.
The definition you cite 1030(d)(11) which was changed by 814(d)(5) is where your "economic loss" reference actually comes from.
It has nothing to do with certifying companies as terrorist simply because they cause economic damage. Specifically because this definition is ONLY used if you have committed one of the offenses listed under 1030(a-b), which again only include cybercrime and are to some degree pretty limited in scope.
Economic loss was a big change to this section (previously economic loss could not be calculated into damages used to determine the level of the felony or the damages awarded in a civil suit), but the reality is that Congress only included in a form statute what the courts had already determined in Middleton v. US. So this really didn't change anything. It only codified that congress agreed with the 10th circuit court of appeals (ignore for the moment that hackers typically don't have deep pockets).
I don't how you came to the conclusion that a definition of economic loss can be extrapalated into defining you as a terrorist simply because your company succeeds in competing against a US company. You couldn't have gotten it from reading 814 and USC 1030 which it modifies because it simply isn't there.
You should reread my post a couple times, and then you might figure out I was asking him to cite which part of the USAPA he got that from (pay close attention to the ":p", as you will note from his reply, the parent actually understood what I was saying where as you didn't.
Title 8 of the USAPA contains numerous legal definitions, but some of the sections which modify multiple parts of the USC contain seperate definitions only applicable to that specific part of the code. Clarity my friend is paramount in any discusson of law.
Have you honestly read the entire USAPA? If so I'd like to know your name. You are probably only the second person on earth to do so. :p
If not it might be more useful to cite for us which subsections you derive your conclusions from. I promise the ensuing discussion would be much more interesting.
Do a search on LexisNexis on NSLs. The FBI has never actually had to use USAPA provisions to obtain information from a library. NSLs have been used for years successfully for this purpose, including the more recent anti-terrorism investigations following 9/11 and the inception of the USAPA.
...everytime I pushed the button, my voting terminal would blue screen
In Longhorn the BSOD has been replaced by a RSOD to correctly reflect the party colors of the your corrected voting choice as determined by the system.