Collosus is often regarded as the first programmable electronic computer. The Z series computers were all mechanical, so it seems the claim is still true.
The Sedition Act was very enforceable; there were 10,000 convictions associated with it. Meanwhile, we haven't heard of a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act (besides a Law and Order episode). Honestly, many of the tennats of the PATRIOT Act make sense: take the tools currently available to combat organized crime and drug dealers and make them available to combat terrorism, such as roving wiretaps or those warrants granted by those secret courts you mentioned. Those tactics have been in the system for decades, passing constitutional muster as far as the Judicial branch is concerned, yet suddenly it's trampling our civil liberties because Bush wants it?
The comparison to the Sedition Act is not an argument against the PATRIOT Act at all. I could easily compare the seatbelt laws to the Sedition Act if we had the same hysteria surrounding them. "You think needing to harness yourself into a car is bad..." I'm simply providing some much needed perspective.
Anyway, that was not the point. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921. The point was to illustrate that laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, are nothing new. Any time the US has knowingly (collectively) faced the imminent threat of attack Federal powers have been expanded to deal with them.
Recent? I know I posted this furthur up, but if you think something as mild as the PATRIOT Act is going to change the US to the Fourth Reich, you missed out on the Sedition Act of 1918, or even the Sedition Act of 1798. Both of these had far more likelyhood of turning the US into a totalitarian regime than the PATRIOT Act, and yet it didn't happen. So please, save the hyperbole.
Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
Except that people (the masses) vote for programs which benifit them, few individuals vote out of some altruistic desire to do the right thing. Example: Who, in general, votes based on medicare policy? Answer: people who are either dependant upon government medicare or people who currently have no coverage. So how can socialized medicare be considered "generous" when the majority of people who vote positively on that issue have a vested interest in its passage?
Can you really interpret support for a candidate to be support for even the majority of that candidate's views. As a common example in the US, there are many single-issue voters on abortion in the US, some 80% of which go to pro-life candidates, which means in this election they go to Bush. Does their vote for Bush constitute support for, say, the war in Iraq? Not at all.
If it wasn't for candidates standing for a plethora of views many socialist programs would never be implemented. People aren't being generous when they cast a vote that leads to social programs as it is impossible for the overwhelming majority of the population to find a candidate they agree near 100% with. Thus, creeping socialism is an almost unavoidable sideffect of the democratic process.
I had no idea I was being "generous" or "kind" when I paid my taxes. I thought that in order for an action to be classified as such it needed to be done on one's own initiative, by one's own free will. Mandatory funding of works "for the common good" is not generosity, so describing socialism as such is foolish.
Do me a favor: Hit your head on the wall several hundred times. You tried to cite Al Franken as a credible source, which means many of the facts that you've heard probably are not facts at all. Also, the fact that you can't even get the title of the memo right (Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S) indicates that, despite it being available publicly, you haven't read it.
Only where that law is open to interpretation. For instance, interpreting "no" to mean "some" or "all" to mean "most" or "Congress" to mean "Federal and State governments" (as "Congress" is actually specifically defined in the Consistution) is not a valid function of the judicial system. Meanwhile, interpreting the extent to which something is "unreasonable" is a valid function. To do otherwise reduces the Constitution to the meaningless document it has become.
If which case I would direct your concerns to the Multivac. Acording to Isaac Asimov, hundreds of years from computers would still be using bulky vacuum tubes too the point of taking up entire cities, yet that didn't prevent him from exploring the impact of powerful computers on humanity. Moral: The "how" is unimportant. If your story is any good you could have your time dialation ship run on coal for all it mattered. Chances are whatever technical solution you come up with will be considerd quiant in the none-too-distant future anyway.
Except, of course, that it was the policies of the Clinton and early Bush administration, which weren't all that different from each other, that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. I fail to see how a return to those polices will have a different result. At least Bush is now making completely different mistakes rather than repeating the old. Keep in mind that not only did countries hate us, they also thought we would roll over and play dead if they attacked us. Plus, when you look at history, the PATRIOT Act is completely benign compared to what has come before in times of war, and don't fool yourself into thinking that Kerry would repeal it. He will move to strengthen it. I don't see Kerry as the lesser of two evils, I see him as offering the worst of both worlds.
They can make that claim, but it wouldn't be true, as the first computer predated Da Vinci by about 1500 years. It's called the Antikythera Device which could calculate the positions of the sun, moon and planets.
Slashdot Mirror
Collosus is often regarded as the first programmable electronic computer. The Z series computers were all mechanical, so it seems the claim is still true.
Ahem, that's first programmable computer. The greek's still beat him to the first (known) computer millenia ago.
Apple is one of the few companies that actually treats computers like a home appliance.
Which is why you can use the G5 as a cheese grater.
There are the secret courts from the Foriegn Intellegence Surveillance Act and secret evidence in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida has been known to hold them.
No, I didn't. I remember him saying something about the end of major combat operations, but nothing about an end to the war.
The Sedition Act was very enforceable; there were 10,000 convictions associated with it. Meanwhile, we haven't heard of a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act (besides a Law and Order episode). Honestly, many of the tennats of the PATRIOT Act make sense: take the tools currently available to combat organized crime and drug dealers and make them available to combat terrorism, such as roving wiretaps or those warrants granted by those secret courts you mentioned. Those tactics have been in the system for decades, passing constitutional muster as far as the Judicial branch is concerned, yet suddenly it's trampling our civil liberties because Bush wants it?
The comparison to the Sedition Act is not an argument against the PATRIOT Act at all. I could easily compare the seatbelt laws to the Sedition Act if we had the same hysteria surrounding them. "You think needing to harness yourself into a car is bad..." I'm simply providing some much needed perspective.
President Dumbass... don't believe I know of that one. Must have held office during the 1800's, right? I was never very good with that time period.
Not at war, huh?
Anyway, that was not the point. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921. The point was to illustrate that laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, are nothing new. Any time the US has knowingly (collectively) faced the imminent threat of attack Federal powers have been expanded to deal with them.
Recent? I know I posted this furthur up, but if you think something as mild as the PATRIOT Act is going to change the US to the Fourth Reich, you missed out on the Sedition Act of 1918, or even the Sedition Act of 1798. Both of these had far more likelyhood of turning the US into a totalitarian regime than the PATRIOT Act, and yet it didn't happen. So please, save the hyperbole.
Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
US Sedition Act, May 16, 1918
Worse than the PATRIOT Act ever dreamed.
My last PC was only $700 and it smokes. The $750 model comes with a heat sink and so doesn't have that problem.
Except that people (the masses) vote for programs which benifit them, few individuals vote out of some altruistic desire to do the right thing. Example: Who, in general, votes based on medicare policy? Answer: people who are either dependant upon government medicare or people who currently have no coverage. So how can socialized medicare be considered "generous" when the majority of people who vote positively on that issue have a vested interest in its passage?
Can you really interpret support for a candidate to be support for even the majority of that candidate's views. As a common example in the US, there are many single-issue voters on abortion in the US, some 80% of which go to pro-life candidates, which means in this election they go to Bush. Does their vote for Bush constitute support for, say, the war in Iraq? Not at all.
If it wasn't for candidates standing for a plethora of views many socialist programs would never be implemented. People aren't being generous when they cast a vote that leads to social programs as it is impossible for the overwhelming majority of the population to find a candidate they agree near 100% with. Thus, creeping socialism is an almost unavoidable sideffect of the democratic process.
I had no idea I was being "generous" or "kind" when I paid my taxes. I thought that in order for an action to be classified as such it needed to be done on one's own initiative, by one's own free will. Mandatory funding of works "for the common good" is not generosity, so describing socialism as such is foolish.
Do me a favor: Hit your head on the wall several hundred times. You tried to cite Al Franken as a credible source, which means many of the facts that you've heard probably are not facts at all. Also, the fact that you can't even get the title of the memo right (Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S) indicates that, despite it being available publicly, you haven't read it.
They do NOT have the right to lie and/or give misleading information to support their claims of piracy. That's called "fraud." It's illegal.
I so wish this was true, as I have a list of politicians I'd like to charge...
No, that was a previous project.
Only where that law is open to interpretation. For instance, interpreting "no" to mean "some" or "all" to mean "most" or "Congress" to mean "Federal and State governments" (as "Congress" is actually specifically defined in the Consistution) is not a valid function of the judicial system. Meanwhile, interpreting the extent to which something is "unreasonable" is a valid function. To do otherwise reduces the Constitution to the meaningless document it has become.
Look around Canada today and ask yourself that question again. The crime and murder rates are independant of gun ownership rates.
If which case I would direct your concerns to the Multivac. Acording to Isaac Asimov, hundreds of years from computers would still be using bulky vacuum tubes too the point of taking up entire cities, yet that didn't prevent him from exploring the impact of powerful computers on humanity. Moral: The "how" is unimportant. If your story is any good you could have your time dialation ship run on coal for all it mattered. Chances are whatever technical solution you come up with will be considerd quiant in the none-too-distant future anyway.
Actually, if they didn't start planning that far into the future there definately would be no funding later.
Why do you have to? Is your story about the engines or about the crew?
But what's really impressive here is that they were able to spell Microsoft without the "$". No wonder he was fooled!
Except, of course, that it was the policies of the Clinton and early Bush administration, which weren't all that different from each other, that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. I fail to see how a return to those polices will have a different result. At least Bush is now making completely different mistakes rather than repeating the old. Keep in mind that not only did countries hate us, they also thought we would roll over and play dead if they attacked us. Plus, when you look at history, the PATRIOT Act is completely benign compared to what has come before in times of war, and don't fool yourself into thinking that Kerry would repeal it. He will move to strengthen it. I don't see Kerry as the lesser of two evils, I see him as offering the worst of both worlds.
Let's get Kerry in office and make sure our leaders respect the constitution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one! Kerry respecting the Constitution... Very funny.
Well, they would if IE would impliment "display:" beyond "inline," "block" and "none" as we could display divs as tables
Once displayed as a table you get 100% of the functionality of a table. With this working multi-column layouts would be a breeze in CSS. Damn you IE!
They can make that claim, but it wouldn't be true, as the first computer predated Da Vinci by about 1500 years. It's called the Antikythera Device which could calculate the positions of the sun, moon and planets.