Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃC...."
This is all from a UK grad student's thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC...."
They didn't do a very good job programming the sims that ran on those Beowulf clusters. The AE911truth press conference addresses the so-called sims too.
I'm afraid you have gotten all this quite in reverse. The science is not backing us the "official" conspiracy theory. The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.
"Gamezebo is your home and community for casual games on the Internet.
Every day, we feature reviews, tips, news, and videos of the latest and greatest in casual games. Our mantra is simple: if a casual game is released online, youâ(TM)ll hear it first on Gamezebo.
We also provide you with the social tools to rate, share, and connect with people who are just as passionate about casual gamers as you are.
Founded by industry veteran Joel Brodie, former head of business development at Yahoo! Games, Gamezebo is a Webby Nominee for Best-Games Related Site of 2008 and our content is translated and viewed by millions online through our Web site and syndication partners...."
"EVE Online Scandal [February 07, 2007, 3:04 pm ET] This EVE Online Forum Thread, currently at 621 posts and rising, details a brewing brouhaha in CCP's outer-space MMORPG that centers around alleged improprieties by CCP staff. The original post by EVE Online community manager kieron mentions that the identities of CCP employees participating in the game have become public, and that the compromised accounts have been deleted, and goes on to refer to the possibility that information about a coming story arc had been leaked by employee/players. They describe a tightening of the audit measures whereby accounts of employees are monitored for malfeasance to protect against employee misconduct. The fuel for the thread's rapid growth are allegations that the scandal runs deeper than what is being addressed, and that employees of CCP have been able to steer valuable in-game items to the groups in which they participate, with many expressing the opinion that allowing employees to play the game represents a conflict of interest. Here's a bit from the originating post:
Last summer, CCP implemented stricter monitoring procedures and audits on all CCP employeesâ(TM) EVE accounts. We are confident that our rigid procedures and protocol will prevent any misconduct or, at least, allow us to quickly discover it, should such an unfortunate scenario arise.
As the community knows well, we at CCP enjoy not only playing EVE Online, but improving EVE and interacting with our playerbase. We feel EVE benefits from the developers playing EVE as any other members of the community do, and to impose artificial limitations -- such as no access to Tranquility or special flagging on a developerâ(TM)s player character -- would greatly hinder the development of EVE.
CCP is very passionate about EVE Online and is committed to its continued growth. We hope that this statement will put this issue behind us once and for all and allow us to continue moving forward with the support of our community.
This reply from a user (Borgholio) sums up some of the outcry that follows:
The concern being talked about by the vast majority of players is not the identity of certain Dev or GM players, nor is it an in-game event that occured many months ago. The concern is that Band of Brothers (and possibly other large alliances) have received ill-gotten assistance from the Developers or GMs in the form of blueprints, ships, etc. That was the biggest concern, and you made absolutely no mention of it at all. Nobody really cares about the identity of CCP players in player alliances. Nobody really cares about an event that took place months ago. People care about rampant cheating by those whose job it is to STOP cheating. By conveniently ignoring this issue, you are only reinforcing the belief that CCP has something to hide.
Were you to come out and say "Yes, some of our Devs and GMs were cheating. We cannot release their names for privacy reasons, but we can tell you that they've been fired, and all ill-gotten assets have been removed from the game.", then the community would be happy. It would suck that CCP employees have (yet again) been caught cheating, but at least we would know that you're doing something about it. Or you could have said "In regards to the cheating issue, we can't find any evidence of this whatsoever.". That wouldn't make people as happy, but at least you would acknowledge it. Instead, you whitewash it. You really screwed up, CCP. We want clear, straightforward answers, and we want them now...."
Most designers only see each additional player as additional $$ and they will only ban griefers from games in the most extreme circumstance, because it's taking money out of their pockets to exclude griefers.
That's going to have to change. There will have to much more serious attempts to get the griefers off the game servers.
I didn't miss the fact that you're fine with fascists on the Supreme Court at all.
(but only as long as all 9 justices aren't fascists, right?)
Scalia Defends Torture: It's 'Absurd' To Say The Gov't Can.t 'Smack' A Suspect 'In The Face'
Today in an interview with BBC Radio's Law in Action, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended torture, claiming that it is not necessarily barred by the Constitution:
Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You canâ(TM)t go around smacking people about.
Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.
The BBC interviewer, however, objected to Scalia's use of the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify government torture. "It's a bizarre scenario," he said. "Because the fact is, it's very unlikely you're going to have the one person who can give you that information. So if you use that as an excuse to commit torture, perhaps that's a dangerous thing." Scalia responded:
Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can't stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that."
On the left hand side of the page, you'll see a column that says media and technical resources. the 3rd panel down is a video of a presentation called...
How the Towers Fell
(9/11: Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction)
You have absolutely nothing you can say to defend the actions of right wingers on this, so you go back to old standby tactics... distract the conversation and/or change the subject.
An armed revolt of thousands just means the gatling gun in the front of the AH-64 Apache gunship fires for a few seconds longer.
Have you forgotten there is no Posse Comitatus act anymore? What are you going to do with your hunting rifle and your Glock when a detatchment of Rangers drops on your head, dumbass?
Better learn some non-violent resistance tactics, because the chance of armed resistance succeeding is now ZERO.
The correct response was, Republicans are trying to control video game content, and most blogs are progressive, consistently 70%+ of Americans support the progressive positions on issues, and the reason talk radio is so heavily weighted towards conservatives is because mass media corporations bought almost all the radio broadcast licenses in the country and refuse to play anything but right wing extremists on their networks.
Dude, I talking 4th amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, not ex-post-facto law. FISA trashes the 4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
--------
"...Unfortunately, even with such a safeguard, the proposed legislation would still grant both retroactive and future legal immunity to telecom companies that help government conduct its surveillance activities. Not only does H.R. 6304 grant immunity from civil action to telecoms that participated in the presidentâ(TM)s surveillance program during the period beginning on September 11, 2001 and ending on January 17, 2007.
It also unconditionally releases these companies from any future liability (presumably both civil and criminal). For it unqualifiedly states, "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)." So, if American citizens cannot file suit against these companies for past or future violations of their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, then it has to be questioned how this Act preserves this constitutional right..."
"The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an electronic communication service provider to a) "immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary . . . b) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished. . .."
And hereâ(TM)s the kicker: "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider" for providing this information.
Thus we have the Congress granting to the Executive Branch and the private sector enormous new powers to violate our privacy.
In essence, the government can now conscript the private sector to do its dirty work. But donâ(TM)t pity the companies; the government will pay them for coughing up our secrets, the bill says. âoeThe government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, an electronic communication service provider for providing information, facilities, or assistance...."
Ya' think making corporations completely immune from prosecution of any kind for any legal or illegal work it does to spy on people for the government in the past PRESENT AND FUTURE might be a just a wee bit of a violation for the 4th Amendment?
You don't know your economics too well. The US has not been an Adam Smith style capitalist economy since the US courts gave Corporation a legal identity.
Capitalism required the personal responsibility of those in the economy for any/all actions for a free market to operate properly. Capitalism and Corporations with separate legal identities cannot co-exist.
Until this summer when the FISA bill came up for voting, I didn't know they taught future Constitutional Law professors the proper techniques to be used when throwing the US Constitution out a window.
Got to have proper form when you are in your Constitution throwing motion. Don't forget to keep your eyes on the Constitution as it flies through the open window. Your follow through on the throwing motion is critical.
So you claim in the middle of the night, you claim you are some other anonymous individual who just happened to find and start reading a 2 week old 1000 post thread and further you read this many posts into idlemachines ranting, too, huh?
Damn idlemachine, that's sinks to a new low around here. Someone has to be just sick with desperation to try to create fake agreement posts.
"How To Encourage a Young Teen To Learn Programming?"
I am the one who's been on point and in proper context the whole discussion... what is or isn't a good language for young programmers to learn right now. The subject these various aspect of the Python language you keep on trying to change the subject to, and it never was. It's whether or not the upheaval surrounding a language (Python) that has chosen to make itself obsolete in a couple of months is an appropriate choice to learn right now.
You, on the other hand, are exactly the type of hypersensitive Pythonista fanbois who prove part of my argument that Python is not a good language for young learners. Nobody is going to learn anything from hypersensitive argumentative assholes like idlemachine. The only thing a pythonista fanboi like idlemachine is going to do to a young programming student is make them quit programming before they even get started.
Anyone that dares try to raise a question about the one true faith of the Pythonista gets treated just like I have here... with a level of outrage normal human beings only display when they find out one of their siblings have been murdered or their mother was gang-raped.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
link...
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Not witch doctors for 9/11 truth. Not Pentecostal Ministers for 9/11 tongues.
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS for 9/11 Truth.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals
Here's a link to their website
http://www.ae911truth.org/
All you are going to find there is real science.
This is all from a UK grad student's thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 [ae911truth.org]
They didn't do a very good job programming the sims that ran on those Beowulf clusters. The AE911truth press conference addresses the so-called sims too.
Garbage in, Garbage Out.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3
I'm afraid you have gotten all this quite in reverse. The science is not backing us the "official" conspiracy theory. The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.
"Gamezebo is your home and community for casual games on the Internet.
Every day, we feature reviews, tips, news, and videos of the latest and greatest in casual games. Our mantra is simple: if a casual game is released online, youâ(TM)ll hear it first on Gamezebo.
We also provide you with the social tools to rate, share, and connect with people who are just as passionate about casual gamers as you are.
Founded by industry veteran Joel Brodie, former head of business development at Yahoo! Games, Gamezebo is a Webby Nominee for Best-Games Related Site of 2008 and our content is translated and viewed by millions online through our Web site and syndication partners...."
http://www.gamezebo.com/
"EVE Online Scandal [February 07, 2007, 3:04 pm ET]
This EVE Online Forum Thread, currently at 621 posts and rising, details a brewing brouhaha in CCP's outer-space MMORPG that centers around alleged improprieties by CCP staff. The original post by EVE Online community manager kieron mentions that the identities of CCP employees participating in the game have become public, and that the compromised accounts have been deleted, and goes on to refer to the possibility that information about a coming story arc had been leaked by employee/players. They describe a tightening of the audit measures whereby accounts of employees are monitored for malfeasance to protect against employee misconduct. The fuel for the thread's rapid growth are allegations that the scandal runs deeper than what is being addressed, and that employees of CCP have been able to steer valuable in-game items to the groups in which they participate, with many expressing the opinion that allowing employees to play the game represents a conflict of interest. Here's a bit from the originating post:
Last summer, CCP implemented stricter monitoring procedures and audits on all CCP employeesâ(TM) EVE accounts. We are confident that our rigid procedures and protocol will prevent any misconduct or, at least, allow us to quickly discover it, should such an unfortunate scenario arise.
As the community knows well, we at CCP enjoy not only playing EVE Online, but improving EVE and interacting with our playerbase. We feel EVE benefits from the developers playing EVE as any other members of the community do, and to impose artificial limitations -- such as no access to Tranquility or special flagging on a developerâ(TM)s player character -- would greatly hinder the development of EVE.
CCP is very passionate about EVE Online and is committed to its continued growth. We hope that this statement will put this issue behind us once and for all and allow us to continue moving forward with the support of our community.
This reply from a user (Borgholio) sums up some of the outcry that follows:
The concern being talked about by the vast majority of players is not the identity of certain Dev or GM players, nor is it an in-game event that occured many months ago. The concern is that Band of Brothers (and possibly other large alliances) have received ill-gotten assistance from the Developers or GMs in the form of blueprints, ships, etc. That was the biggest concern, and you made absolutely no mention of it at all. Nobody really cares about the identity of CCP players in player alliances. Nobody really cares about an event that took place months ago. People care about rampant cheating by those whose job it is to STOP cheating. By conveniently ignoring this issue, you are only reinforcing the belief that CCP has something to hide.
Were you to come out and say "Yes, some of our Devs and GMs were cheating. We cannot release their names for privacy reasons, but we can tell you that they've been fired, and all ill-gotten assets have been removed from the game.", then the community would be happy. It would suck that CCP employees have (yet again) been caught cheating, but at least we would know that you're doing something about it. Or you could have said "In regards to the cheating issue, we can't find any evidence of this whatsoever.". That wouldn't make people as happy, but at least you would acknowledge it. Instead, you whitewash it. You really screwed up, CCP. We want clear, straightforward answers, and we want them now...."
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=75215
Most designers only see each additional player as additional $$ and they will only ban griefers from games in the most extreme circumstance, because it's taking money out of their pockets to exclude griefers.
That's going to have to change. There will have to much more serious attempts to get the griefers off the game servers.
I didn't miss the fact that you're fine with fascists on the Supreme Court at all.
(but only as long as all 9 justices aren't fascists, right?)
Scalia Defends Torture: It's 'Absurd' To Say The Gov't Can.t 'Smack' A Suspect 'In The Face'
Today in an interview with BBC Radio's Law in Action, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended torture, claiming that it is not necessarily barred by the Constitution:
Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You canâ(TM)t go around smacking people about.
Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.
The BBC interviewer, however, objected to Scalia's use of the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify government torture. "It's a bizarre scenario," he said. "Because the fact is, it's very unlikely you're going to have the one person who can give you that information. So if you use that as an excuse to commit torture, perhaps that's a dangerous thing." Scalia responded:
Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can't stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7238665.stm#n
(via Think Progress)
Never voted Bush is right on his facts.
Do you wish to actually see the evidence. I've got the links. Are you going to have the courage to look at concrete evidence? ...or...
Are you going to refuse to look at real concrete evidence based on nothing but your faith that "thinks like that can't happen in America?"
Do you have the courage to open your eyes and look at that evidence?
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
On the left hand side of the page, you'll see a column that says media and technical resources. the 3rd panel down is a video of a presentation called...
How the Towers Fell
(9/11: Blueprint for Truth:
The Architecture of Destruction)
Richard Gage, AIA
Did you know Scalia's father was an active member of the Italian-American fascist movement and a great admirer of Mussolini?
Oh, you missed that one in H.S government class, huh?
You have absolutely nothing you can say to defend the actions of right wingers on this, so you go back to old standby tactics... distract the conversation and/or change the subject.
An armed revolt of thousands just means the gatling gun in the front of the AH-64 Apache gunship fires for a few seconds longer.
Have you forgotten there is no Posse Comitatus act anymore? What are you going to do with your hunting rifle and your Glock when a detatchment of Rangers drops on your head, dumbass?
Better learn some non-violent resistance tactics, because the chance of armed resistance succeeding is now ZERO.
1) Wealthy Mexicans get chipped to either foil kidnappers or buy latest trendy toy.
2) Wealthy Mexicans get cancer from chips
(RFID chips cause cancer, http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/11/rfid-chips-cause-cancer )
3) Wealthy Mexicans die, allowing the Mexican Gov't to tax estates of now deceased wealthy Mexicans
4) Government Profit!
-----
So... when do we get to chip the whole damn Walmart/Walton family?
The correct response was, Republicans are trying to control video game content, and most blogs are progressive, consistently 70%+ of Americans support the progressive positions on issues, and the reason talk radio is so heavily weighted towards conservatives is because mass media corporations bought almost all the radio broadcast licenses in the country and refuse to play anything but right wing extremists on their networks.
Dude, I talking 4th amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, not ex-post-facto law. FISA trashes the 4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
--------
"...Unfortunately, even with such a safeguard, the proposed legislation would still grant both retroactive and future legal immunity to telecom companies that help government conduct its surveillance activities. Not only does H.R. 6304 grant immunity from civil action to telecoms that participated in the presidentâ(TM)s surveillance program during the period beginning on September 11, 2001 and ending on January 17, 2007.
It also unconditionally releases these companies from any future liability (presumably both civil and criminal). For it unqualifiedly states, "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)." So, if American citizens cannot file suit against these companies for past or future violations of their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, then it has to be questioned how this Act preserves this constitutional right..."
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/2008/07/fisa_amendment_just_time_steal_election
"The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an electronic communication service provider to a) "immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary . . . b) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished. . . ."
And hereâ(TM)s the kicker: "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider" for providing this information.
Thus we have the Congress granting to the Executive Branch and the private sector enormous new powers to violate our privacy.
In essence, the government can now conscript the private sector to do its dirty work. But donâ(TM)t pity the companies; the government will pay them for coughing up our secrets, the bill says. âoeThe government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, an electronic communication service provider for providing information, facilities, or assistance...."
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx071008.html
Ya' think making corporations completely immune from prosecution of any kind for any legal or illegal work it does to spy on people for the government in the past PRESENT AND FUTURE might be a just a wee bit of a violation for the 4th Amendment?
I'm only interested if Cindy is sobered up first. I'm not interested in Cindy in her normal Percocet / Vicodin induced stupor.
What nonsense are you rambling about?
There's a mountain of case law and legal precedent that says once immunity is granted, it's almost impossible to revoke.
You don't know your economics too well. The US has not been an Adam Smith style capitalist economy since the US courts gave Corporation a legal identity.
Capitalism required the personal responsibility of those in the economy for any/all actions for a free market to operate properly. Capitalism and Corporations with separate legal identities cannot co-exist.
A Dubya supporter dares to whine about the qualifications of Obama?!?
Compared to when you voted for Dubya in 2000, Obama's a crusty veteran.
Until this summer when the FISA bill came up for voting, I didn't know they taught future Constitutional Law professors the proper techniques to be used when throwing the US Constitution out a window.
Got to have proper form when you are in your Constitution throwing motion. Don't forget to keep your eyes on the Constitution as it flies through the open window. Your follow through on the throwing motion is critical.
So you claim in the middle of the night, you claim you are some other anonymous individual who just happened to find and start reading a 2 week old 1000 post thread and further you read this many posts into idlemachines ranting, too, huh?
Damn idlemachine, that's sinks to a new low around here. Someone has to be just sick with desperation to try to create fake agreement posts.
Really fucking desperate. Hillariosly so! ROFLMAO!
idlemachine, who a few posts before this said...
"Did Python murder your parents before your eyes at a young age or something?" ...dares to call someone else "hyperbolic?"
LMAO!
Look at the title of the thread, dumbass.
"How To Encourage a Young Teen To Learn Programming?"
I am the one who's been on point and in proper context the whole discussion... what is or isn't a good language for young programmers to learn right now. The subject these various aspect of the Python language you keep on trying to change the subject to, and it never was. It's whether or not the upheaval surrounding a language (Python) that has chosen to make itself obsolete in a couple of months is an appropriate choice to learn right now.
You, on the other hand, are exactly the type of hypersensitive Pythonista fanbois who prove part of my argument that Python is not a good language for young learners. Nobody is going to learn anything from hypersensitive argumentative assholes like idlemachine. The only thing a pythonista fanboi like idlemachine is going to do to a young programming student is make them quit programming before they even get started.
Anyone that dares try to raise a question about the one true faith of the Pythonista gets treated just like I have here... with a level of outrage normal human beings only display when they find out one of their siblings have been murdered or their mother was gang-raped.