Actually, if scramjet technology eventually finds it's way into commercial aviation, it will probably already be in Surface-to-Air missile technology.
As a result, your "to target" interception times and ranges will probably improve considerably. The only real issue would probably be concerning how far the wreckage would travel after it is blown-up while travelling at 5000 MPH (ie having to expand your "no fly" range so that potentual wreckage falls in non-populated areas).
"An 'effective response' would have been to give the Taliban a deadline to hand bin Laden over, then, if that failed, to get him at all costs. Not to throw up your hands after a short while and go invade a completely unrelated country to steal their oil."
First, the Taliban was given an ultimatum, and they told the US to sit and spin. Secondly, you do realize that there are still actually thousands of US troops in Afganistan currently looking for OBL right? How is that the throwing up of hands?
And believing that Iraq was an "unrelated" country marks you as a political zealot with his head in the sand. Its like saying that terrorism for the US in general isn't related to Isreal simply because Isreali citizens didn't directly participate in a direct attack against the US.
All these countries are part of the problem. And intelligence accepted by the UN Security Counsel agreed that intelligence pointed to a specific plot by Iraqi intelligence operatives against the US. And then there is that pesky topic of the 10 year old ceasefire...
[Start quote] Kerry voted for the Patriot Act--and against some proprivacy amendments proposed by Russ Feingold, D-Wis., during the floor debate.
In last week's convention speech, Kerry talked about restoring the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but it's hardly clear what he meant. His campaign says that "John Kerry stands by his vote for the Patriot Act. He even wants to strengthen some aspects of it relating to terrorism, such as improving intelligence information sharing." [End Quote] Seeing as how both Bush and Kerry voted the same way on all of this, I don't see how someone could say there is a logical difference. Unless you are as one of the others said, just a mouthpiece for MoveOn.org........
Exactly. Without legal (read: governmental law) recourse, individuals with diverse and conflicting interests are forced to resolve their differences through any means available.
Which is why contracts for illicate materials for example often result in the use of violance as a means of resolving differences between their individual interests.
Something tells me that RIAA distributed "Surplus CDs" based on which CDs might have a chance of causing a diversionary reaction with state and local elected government officials.
That argument is also predicated on China using the latest and greatest technology for burning coal... which I doubt is the case. Especially when considering that China doesn't have much in the way of industrial emmission laws. Agrigate unites of pollution per person could be alot more equal than you think.
But this is irrelevant. These e-bike are simply not "green" devices when compared to what they replaced.... biologically (read: human) powered bicycles.
Sure the bike doesn't produce much in the way of pollutants, but how about the electricity source used to charge the bike's batteries? This type of "green" transportation is nothing more than passing the buck due to most power stations burning fossil fuels.
Unless you tell me they are ALL using portable solar power generators to do it.
He sends agents out to talk to your friends, business associates, employer, etc. to ask about "suspicious activities" and the next thing you know you are friendless and unemployed.
Does your theoretical victim live in a vacume or something? If a visit from the FBI is enough to end one of his friendships or employment, I would have to start questioning whether these were real friends or just people he met. Not to mention the fact that firing someone under these conditions would be illegal. I would conclude that after a lawsuit lasting a few months, this victim would end up as part owner of the company or independantly wealthy.
Any time you deal with "profiles" you run the chance of having false positives. This is why we ask our law enforcement agencies to investigate people instead of simply just arrest anyone who looks suspicious.
The alternative is to ignore suspicious behavior, and continue to allow the FBI to function as a reactive agency... one that is doomed ultimately to failing again and again...
Your statement, possible inadvertantly, indicates that investigations which are not directly linked to some known criminal action (probable cause) are inherantly unfair.
Since you leave it at that, most of us assume that you don't want the FBI treating people unfairly. Thus we interpret that you are against the FBI investigating incidents in which they do not have probable cause (example: suspicious behavior).
This might not be the message you wanted to provide us with, but Richard has a valid interpretation of what you posted.
But if the previous post is ment to indicate rather that you DO want the FBI investigating suspicious behavior, then I agree with you. This is their proper role, even if it is one they aren't very good at.
Now, in the cases where they have used this category, so far, I have agreed. But I get nervous when our government can change a name (criminal -> enemy combatant) and have unlimited power to take and hold an American citizen.
I think you have a right to be nervous, because there is one thing that seperates the US from many of other countries - we fiercely protect our freedoms.
The problem came when we had to face the realization that the threat of substantual terrorist attacks on US soil had become a reality after the 9/11 attacks.
The inherant problem with terrorism is that this class of event is totally different in nature from standard criminal actions. In so far as the public will not accept post-event investigation and procecution as a means of eliminating terrorists. The public doesn't want to go through another 9/11 type event.
But this brings us to another reality. The FBI is organized as an post-event investigative agency, NOT a crime-prevention agency like you see many metro and state policing agencies moving toward with community policing philosophies within the last 5 years. This reality ensured that the only way to protect citizens NOW was to enact more draconian INVESTIGATIVE laws.
I totally share your nervousness about the Patriot act, but until the FBI is reorganized to reflect contemporatry law enforcement philosophies this is probably the only way the FBI can protect us currently. One of the only other ways to handle this would be to create a seperate domestic intelligence and prevention agency. And I think that would make most Americans even more nervous about government direction.
Hopefully this will change in the future. In fact I attended a lecture by Wichita Kansas Chief of Police Norman Williams on the topic of transformative leadership and Community Policing. He indicated that for the first time in his 30 years of law enforcement experience the certain FBI divisions were actually attempting to build partnerships with police agencies specializing in preventive policing.
Maybe there is hope in contemporary law enforcement research. Time will tell.
Such attacks make biotech companies nervous, but they are not abandoning their testing. Oregon farmers hand-picked by Marysville, Ohio-based Scotts are growing nearly 400 acres of biotech grass in Madras, a three-hour's drive from Gervais.
"We've been here since the 1970s. It would be un-American to be scared away," Harriman says. "Why a new use of a safe technology should cause controversy is beyond me."
I think you have totally taken his remark out of context (not that the way the story was written didn't encourage this). I understood his statement to mean it would be un-american to be afraid of eco-terrorism. And that he doesn't understand why an agricultural crop would lead some people to commit crimes in response.
Quite on the contrary, I think it is very AMERICAN to question anything we hear.
> the reason the Justice department is > arguing against co-op broadband systems is then > his big business buddies in the telecom > and cable industry don't get paid....see, he > wants to get a spending bill passed that will > subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but > if co-ops form, that means less money for his > porky friends.
Most anyone that got far enough to read your post, and the sucinctly-stated reply, can see that you chose to transition from an action by a government agency to an attack on someone with "porky friends" whom you define using the word "his". I'm realitively sure most everyone understood that as an unwarrented Bush bash. If thats not what you meant, you need to learn to communicate and/or learn to use pronouns properly.
> For the supression of habeus corpus, Bush deserves to go.
Abraham Lincoln suppressed habeus corpus for hundreds of people in the process of diabling freedom press in a few states during the civil war and suppression of any kind of due process (he also ignored the Supreme Court when they ordered him to show grounds or release them). But most argue today that he did so to protect the Union, and thus for the greater good of the nation these actions were taken.
If you are going to hold that Bush is "evil" for suppressing the rights of some terrorists, logically you would have to conclude that Abraham Lincoln was probably the most evil president we have seen in the United States.
Find a little perspective on the world before you start ripping Bush. Crack open a history book.
I think one of the reasons that geeks usually don't have the same social skill-sets typical of many other individuals is because we have much better access to pr0n....thus the standard patterns of social-engineering social situations into errotic encounters is not a strict requirement.
Unfortunately most geeks will later discover that we need these skills for reasons beyond sexual gratification at some time later in life.
In much of society, Alcohol is the lowest common denominator. It is the great social equalizer!
I think the joke goes: Premise: Only 5% of the population is actually tolerable. Question: Then how is it that so many people hook up and get married? Answer: Alcohol.
Widespread adoption of these types of robots would definitely add a new dimension to disaster planning if a large area has a major power outage like what happened on the east coast a couple years ago.
> Does anyone believe that if this was any > organization besides the local Sheriff he > wanted cash from to keep hosting their site, > that the Sheriff's department would have > arrested him for extortion with the exact same > set of facts? > > I think that's called selective prosecution, > among other things....
You are getting it all wrong. He had, what sounds like, a verbal contract to provide hosting for a local government agency without charge. After three years he decided that he didn't like the contract, so he demanded $300,000 in "expenses". When they refused to pay - FYI there is no way a local sheriff's department would be able to cough that up anyway - he took the site down and refused to give them the hosted data or the domain name back unless they paid him his $300k.
He has data whose legal ownership will be decided by a court, but likely was contributed in bulk by the sheriff's office. He was essentually holding this data hostage unless the money was paid. And when he hindered investigators, they seized his servers.
This doesn't seem so unreasonable me. This definitely isn't selective prosecution, this is what I would expect any law enforcement organization to do while investigating an extortion case with similarly existing criteria.
This guy is a bone head, and as post #1 rightly said, he deserves what he gets for his actions.
Instead of just hating police officers out of turn, why don't you research your opinion and present the problems as you see them to your city counsel? They will listen, especially if you do your research. Or better yet, become a policeman and do the job better than the current officers.
We need good police officers and if you are able to develop that ability to see and treat people as individuals you would probably make an effective policeman yourself. However, it sounds like you don't view police officers as individuals though, so you might have a problem in this reguard.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
You will notice that I mentioned "Reasonable Suspician" in my previous post. There is already much legal precedent for this. And this is why these laws are not unconstitutional. Because in most cases, excluding those in which piss poor cops are involved, there is a reason for them to stop you. Otherwise they are wasting not only your time, but their own time.
But I think you missed the gravamen of my arguement. As I attempted to state, none of this has much to do with statutes which require you to provide ID to law enforcement. It eventually becomes an issues of police discretion. Which could be the reason that the Supreme Court is taking the case into review. Additionally, their could a privacy issue involved with "offline" CIC checks, and that could be another reason why the Supreme Court is looking at the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if scramjet technology eventually finds it's way into commercial aviation, it will probably already be in Surface-to-Air missile technology.
As a result, your "to target" interception times and ranges will probably improve considerably. The only real issue would probably be concerning how far the wreckage would travel after it is blown-up while travelling at 5000 MPH (ie having to expand your "no fly" range so that potentual wreckage falls in non-populated areas).
"An 'effective response' would have been to give the Taliban a deadline to hand bin Laden over, then, if that failed, to get him at all costs. Not to throw up your hands after a short while and go invade a completely unrelated country to steal their oil."
First, the Taliban was given an ultimatum, and they told the US to sit and spin. Secondly, you do realize that there are still actually thousands of US troops in Afganistan currently looking for OBL right? How is that the throwing up of hands?
And believing that Iraq was an "unrelated" country marks you as a political zealot with his head in the sand. Its like saying that terrorism for the US in general isn't related to Isreal simply because Isreali citizens didn't directly participate in a direct attack against the US.
All these countries are part of the problem. And intelligence accepted by the UN Security Counsel agreed that intelligence pointed to a specific plot by Iraqi intelligence operatives against the US. And then there is that pesky topic of the 10 year old ceasefire...
http://news.com.com/John+Kerry's+real+tech+agenda/ 2010-1028_3-5291476.html?part=rss&tag=5291476&subj =news.1028.5
[Start quote]
Kerry voted for the Patriot Act--and against some proprivacy amendments proposed by Russ Feingold, D-Wis., during the floor debate.
In last week's convention speech, Kerry talked about restoring the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but it's hardly clear what he meant. His campaign says that "John Kerry stands by his vote for the Patriot Act. He even wants to strengthen some aspects of it relating to terrorism, such as improving intelligence information sharing."
[End Quote]
Seeing as how both Bush and Kerry voted the same way on all of this, I don't see how someone could say there is a logical difference. Unless you are as one of the others said, just a mouthpiece for MoveOn.org........
Down with political zealots.
Making the use of OSS a legislative law is about the worst thing I can think of that could happen to OSS.
OSS needs a free market to flourish, and I don't see how a law regulating its use would facilitate this.
Exactly. Without legal (read: governmental law) recourse, individuals with diverse and conflicting interests are forced to resolve their differences through any means available.
Which is why contracts for illicate materials for example often result in the use of violance as a means of resolving differences between their individual interests.
...AND TO REMOVE...
Of course he didn't factually remove anything either, just stipulated that he wouldn't be the one to ADD it.
You can argue all day that NOT ADDING something should be viewed as REMOVING something, but you will need to redefine it to have a factual argument.
Something tells me that RIAA distributed "Surplus CDs" based on which CDs might have a chance of causing a diversionary reaction with state and local elected government officials.
Well, since we are redefining what censorship means...
I hereby proclaim censorship to mean any ship made of fragrent or otherwise smelly wood.
those are pretty significant increases!
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Stop spreading facts around like that, you'll damage the anti-gun rhetoric.
Why the hell is this even on Slashdot? Are we going to start seeing posts about the latest Tabloid news now? ...
Martha Stewart gives birth to alien invertibrate! I'm not sure, but this could be the first time this has happened to a public figure!
That argument is also predicated on China using the latest and greatest technology for burning coal... which I doubt is the case. Especially when considering that China doesn't have much in the way of industrial emmission laws. Agrigate unites of pollution per person could be alot more equal than you think.
But this is irrelevant. These e-bike are simply not "green" devices when compared to what they replaced.... biologically (read: human) powered bicycles.
Sure the bike doesn't produce much in the way of pollutants, but how about the electricity source used to charge the bike's batteries? This type of "green" transportation is nothing more than passing the buck due to most power stations burning fossil fuels.
Unless you tell me they are ALL using portable solar power generators to do it.
He sends agents out to talk to your friends, business associates, employer, etc. to ask about "suspicious activities" and the next thing you know you are friendless and unemployed.
Does your theoretical victim live in a vacume or something? If a visit from the FBI is enough to end one of his friendships or employment, I would have to start questioning whether these were real friends or just people he met. Not to mention the fact that firing someone under these conditions would be illegal. I would conclude that after a lawsuit lasting a few months, this victim would end up as part owner of the company or independantly wealthy.
Any time you deal with "profiles" you run the chance of having false positives. This is why we ask our law enforcement agencies to investigate people instead of simply just arrest anyone who looks suspicious.
The alternative is to ignore suspicious behavior, and continue to allow the FBI to function as a reactive agency... one that is doomed ultimately to failing again and again...
Actually I agree with Richard.
Your statement, possible inadvertantly, indicates that investigations which are not directly linked to some known criminal action (probable cause) are inherantly unfair.
Since you leave it at that, most of us assume that you don't want the FBI treating people unfairly. Thus we interpret that you are against the FBI investigating incidents in which they do not have probable cause (example: suspicious behavior).
This might not be the message you wanted to provide us with, but Richard has a valid interpretation of what you posted.
But if the previous post is ment to indicate rather that you DO want the FBI investigating suspicious behavior, then I agree with you. This is their proper role, even if it is one they aren't very good at.
Now, in the cases where they have used this category, so far, I have agreed. But I get nervous when our government can change a name (criminal -> enemy combatant) and have unlimited power to take and hold an American citizen.
I think you have a right to be nervous, because there is one thing that seperates the US from many of other countries - we fiercely protect our freedoms.
The problem came when we had to face the realization that the threat of substantual terrorist attacks on US soil had become a reality after the 9/11 attacks.
The inherant problem with terrorism is that this class of event is totally different in nature from standard criminal actions. In so far as the public will not accept post-event investigation and procecution as a means of eliminating terrorists. The public doesn't want to go through another 9/11 type event.
But this brings us to another reality. The FBI is organized as an post-event investigative agency, NOT a crime-prevention agency like you see many metro and state policing agencies moving toward with community policing philosophies within the last 5 years. This reality ensured that the only way to protect citizens NOW was to enact more draconian INVESTIGATIVE laws.
I totally share your nervousness about the Patriot act, but until the FBI is reorganized to reflect contemporatry law enforcement philosophies this is probably the only way the FBI can protect us currently. One of the only other ways to handle this would be to create a seperate domestic intelligence and prevention agency. And I think that would make most Americans even more nervous about government direction.
Hopefully this will change in the future. In fact I attended a lecture by Wichita Kansas Chief of Police Norman Williams on the topic of transformative leadership and Community Policing. He indicated that for the first time in his 30 years of law enforcement experience the certain FBI divisions were actually attempting to build partnerships with police agencies specializing in preventive policing.
Maybe there is hope in contemporary law enforcement research. Time will tell.
Such attacks make biotech companies nervous, but they are not abandoning their testing. Oregon farmers hand-picked by Marysville, Ohio-based Scotts are growing nearly 400 acres of biotech grass in Madras, a three-hour's drive from Gervais.
"We've been here since the 1970s. It would be un-American to be scared away," Harriman says. "Why a new use of a safe technology should cause controversy is beyond me."
I think you have totally taken his remark out of context (not that the way the story was written didn't encourage this). I understood his statement to mean it would be un-american to be afraid of eco-terrorism. And that he doesn't understand why an agricultural crop would lead some people to commit crimes in response.
Quite on the contrary, I think it is very AMERICAN to question anything we hear.
That's exactly how nature usually protects diversity. Massive range and forest fires.
> the reason the Justice department is
> arguing against co-op broadband systems is then
> his big business buddies in the telecom
> and cable industry don't get paid....see, he
> wants to get a spending bill passed that will
> subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but
> if co-ops form, that means less money for his
> porky friends.
Most anyone that got far enough to read your post, and the sucinctly-stated reply, can see that you chose to transition from an action by a government agency to an attack on someone with "porky friends" whom you define using the word "his". I'm realitively sure most everyone understood that as an unwarrented Bush bash. If thats not what you meant, you need to learn to communicate and/or learn to use pronouns properly.
> Shall we drag out this occupation until the
> number dead == deaths in Vietnam?
We have already had enough "100 year" wars, thanks though.
> For the supression of habeus corpus, Bush deserves to go.
Abraham Lincoln suppressed habeus corpus for hundreds of people in the process of diabling freedom press in a few states during the civil war and suppression of any kind of due process (he also ignored the Supreme Court when they ordered him to show grounds or release them). But most argue today that he did so to protect the Union, and thus for the greater good of the nation these actions were taken.
If you are going to hold that Bush is "evil" for suppressing the rights of some terrorists, logically you would have to conclude that Abraham Lincoln was probably the most evil president we have seen in the United States.
Find a little perspective on the world before you start ripping Bush. Crack open a history book.
I think one of the reasons that geeks usually don't have the same social skill-sets typical of many other individuals is because we have much better access to pr0n. ...thus the standard patterns of social-engineering social situations into errotic encounters is not a strict requirement.
Unfortunately most geeks will later discover that we need these skills for reasons beyond sexual gratification at some time later in life.
In much of society, Alcohol is the lowest common denominator. It is the great social equalizer!
I think the joke goes:
Premise: Only 5% of the population is actually tolerable.
Question: Then how is it that so many people hook up and get married?
Answer: Alcohol.
Widespread adoption of these types of robots would definitely add a new dimension to disaster planning if a large area has a major power outage like what happened on the east coast a couple years ago.
I know there is a joke here somewhere, heh.
> Does anyone believe that if this was any
> organization besides the local Sheriff he
> wanted cash from to keep hosting their site,
> that the Sheriff's department would have
> arrested him for extortion with the exact same
> set of facts?
>
> I think that's called selective prosecution,
> among other things....
You are getting it all wrong. He had, what sounds like, a verbal contract to provide hosting for a local government agency without charge. After three years he decided that he didn't like the contract, so he demanded $300,000 in "expenses". When they refused to pay - FYI there is no way a local sheriff's department would be able to cough that up anyway - he took the site down and refused to give them the hosted data or the domain name back unless they paid him his $300k.
He has data whose legal ownership will be decided by a court, but likely was contributed in bulk by the sheriff's office. He was essentually holding this data hostage unless the money was paid. And when he hindered investigators, they seized his servers.
This doesn't seem so unreasonable me. This definitely isn't selective prosecution, this is what I would expect any law enforcement organization to do while investigating an extortion case with similarly existing criteria.
This guy is a bone head, and as post #1 rightly said, he deserves what he gets for his actions.
Instead of just hating police officers out of turn, why don't you research your opinion and present the problems as you see them to your city counsel? They will listen, especially if you do your research. Or better yet, become a policeman and do the job better than the current officers.
We need good police officers and if you are able to develop that ability to see and treat people as individuals you would probably make an effective policeman yourself. However, it sounds like you don't view police officers as individuals though, so you might have a problem in this reguard.
Thanks for the spelling corrections, but...
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
You will notice that I mentioned "Reasonable Suspician" in my previous post. There is already much legal precedent for this. And this is why these laws are not unconstitutional. Because in most cases, excluding those in which piss poor cops are involved, there is a reason for them to stop you. Otherwise they are wasting not only your time, but their own time.
But I think you missed the gravamen of my arguement. As I attempted to state, none of this has much to do with statutes which require you to provide ID to law enforcement. It eventually becomes an issues of police discretion. Which could be the reason that the Supreme Court is taking the case into review. Additionally, their could a privacy issue involved with "offline" CIC checks, and that could be another reason why the Supreme Court is looking at the issue.