Well, I've usually heard it called particle physics, but what exactly is wrong with "sub-atomic physics" There are pleanty of things smaller than atoms. Electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, and negatrons;), errm, I mean antiprotons, just to start the list.
There is no such thing as a 99% efficient wood stove. Where did you get those numbers, the manufacturers marketing department? I am honestly not trying to be harsh, but wood combustion, even the pellets, is a lot less than 99% efficient at turning the wood to heat, then a large percentage of the heat goes up the flue. That plus the bernoulli effect at the top of the stack are what makes the toxic exhaust gasses and smoke go up and let in fresh air for continued combustion. Wood stoves are much more efficient that 20 years ago, but no where near 99%.
I know that was meant as a joke, but the logic is flawed. A hovercraft exerts its entire weight on the road surface just like a wheeled vehicle, the difference is that the weight is distributed over the entire area encompased by the ground effect skirt, not just the tire contact patches. Lower PSI over more inches.
To my knowledge, the U.S. didn't reduce them, they just use avoirdupois, not imperial measure. Now, they may have changed over at some point, but they didn't just change the size of their pints.
Well, the kids have to find it first so the dads can just click staight through without all that wasted effort of learning how to use a search engine.;)
Well, a lot of people think a guy in Menlo Park, NJ USA invented the light bulb, or at least the first reliable one. Supposedly some guy that worked for Thomas Edison, but Edison took the credit since it was invented at his facility
No, my facts are correct. They are gathering evidence to use in arguing a case. The fact that their method is a fishing expedition matters not to that fact. It does matter that the court should be slapping the subpoenas down because they are nothing but a series of fishing expeditions, but they do not seem to be doing this.
Because without it there would be nothing but hearsay at almost every trial?
Both sides need to be able to make their case, and they can't do that without subpoeneas. The government is attempting to show that people are able to search for terms that will return materials that minors should not have access to by law. You know, the "You must be at least 18 years of age to..." type of laws. Since childern under 18 are a subset of people it should be up to the ISP and content provider to censor these items based on the age of the consumer, and if the age is unknown, they should err on the side of protection.
Not saying that I agree with them. The SCOTUS slapped it down on constitutional grounds already, and the Government is appealing.
Dude, which ACLU v Gonzales? There are dozens if not hundreds of them. They have them pertaining to LOTS of thing, not just the COPA lawsuit that we are discussing here. My question was meant more in the rhetorical sense of "Who is the counsel for the plaintif, not what entity filed the suite, and why isn't he/she screaming to the Justices about a fishing expedition, or are the Justices alowing a fishing expedition because there are conflicting constitutional protections and they are attempting to see if one of the protections has the weight to bury the other." That spelled out well enough for you?.
p.s. The ACLU files suit aginst the person of the AG in his professinal capacity on an almost weekly basis, if not more often. There are even more "ACLU v Ashcroft" than Gonzales has the honor of being named in. They "really" liked Mr Ashcroft.
At that point, who do they file the suit aginst to get the ability to subpoena the specific data? It would be an even greater fishing expedition at that time. Not only would they still be fishing for evidence because the search terms are not evidence of a crime, they would be fishing for defendants.
Not as far as I know. IAANAL. The lawyers subpoena what they want and who they want. If someone that recieves a subpoena doesn't think it is relevant to the case, or that it is overbroad they can contest it. At that point the judge gets to decide one way or the other whether it is a valid subpoena.
Gonna be a bit pedantic here. The house IS part of congress. Congress is made up of the House and the Senate. This year we will be electing one third of the Senators and all of the Reps. If you like how things are, vote for the incumbents. If you don't like how things are going vote aginst the incumbents.
Unfortunatly, no matter how you vote we will end up with more of the same since there is little differece between the two major parties when it comes to their voting records, as opposed to their rhetoric.
Oh, I'm not arguing that it's not a fishing expidition. But that doesn't negate the DoJ's right to subpoena power. The courts should simply slap them and say "no" to the fishing subpoenas and "yes" to the ones that are specific to the case.
Well, yes. You expect anything less from the U.S. government? Actually, the data is supposed to be scrubbed so they can't identify individuals, so they shouldn't be able to come back after the fact and prosecute. On the other hand, it sis most definatly a fishing expedition. They will ask for millions of pieces of data, throw out every thing that doesn't back their claim, and then present the.1% that does back their claim and scream, "look, tens of thousands of these episodes happened! Think about the children!"
I notice you were grossed out by the image of congress involved in the act, not the horse. Have to agree, government is more obscene than most other deviant behaviors.
Why would the DoJ not have subpoena powers in this case? They are gathering evidence to argue a case before a court, why in the world would they NOT have the ability to subpoena the information they need to argue their case? What I want to know is, who is arguing the other side, and what are they doing for discovery to counter the DoJ, or is this a case of the justices having a threshold that must be exceeded to show a constitutional need that outweighs other constitutional concerns, and the DoJ is simply fishing for enough to hoist it over the threshold.
Because this type of action is expensive, and they knew that it was a total slam dunk to get this passed on the emotional baggage alone regardless of it's constitutional merits.
No. The onus is on Diebold to follow the certification process and bring the functionality to market. Diebold can no more claim that they have a product than GM can claim that the concept car they built is a production car when it hasn't passed federal safety testing. The thing is, Diebold hasn't made that claim because they know they do not have a saleable product yet. Diebold is working on getting a product to market, they don't have a product yet. They understand that distinction. I'm betting the day the product begins getting it's certs from the different bodies, they will have that on their web page in a heartbeat.
Well, according to the article you pointed out, it seems they DON'T have an individual reciept/audit trail. They have some software that can print out reciepts/audi trails, but it has not been certified and it can not be deployed to the field. Anywhere. They are WORKING on it. I knew that already.
See, there's your problem. You're thinking like a citizen, and not a corporate shill or political party sheeple. Shame on you for not simply wanting the nanny state to take care of you. After all, they know best, so they know who can represent you best.
Gee, I would think that with all of the bitching and griping about individual external audit trails for electronic voting machines that Diebold would be trumpeting it from the front page of their voting machine home page if it was available. Can you point me at some documentation about their individual voter reciepts?
- Have a permanent, voter verifiable, auditable, and recountable paper trail (a feature Diebold and ES&S both offer)
Sorry, but according to Diebolds web site...
All ballots cast using the AccuVote-TSX are immediately encrypted and stored in multiple locations within the voting station to provide secure system redundancy. Non-volatile memory is used to ensure election results are securely protected. At the end of the voting period, the integral thermal printer within each AccuVote-TSX can print election totals for the specific voting station.
Notice the At the end of the voting period? They do not offer individual paper audits/confirmations of the votes cast.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if they didn't have to design a Camry to survive an impact with a Navigator it wouldn't need to be so heavy.
Well, I've usually heard it called particle physics, but what exactly is wrong with "sub-atomic physics" There are pleanty of things smaller than atoms. Electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons, and negatrons ;), errm, I mean antiprotons, just to start the list.
There is no such thing as a 99% efficient wood stove. Where did you get those numbers, the manufacturers marketing department? I am honestly not trying to be harsh, but wood combustion, even the pellets, is a lot less than 99% efficient at turning the wood to heat, then a large percentage of the heat goes up the flue. That plus the bernoulli effect at the top of the stack are what makes the toxic exhaust gasses and smoke go up and let in fresh air for continued combustion. Wood stoves are much more efficient that 20 years ago, but no where near 99%.
I know that was meant as a joke, but the logic is flawed. A hovercraft exerts its entire weight on the road surface just like a wheeled vehicle, the difference is that the weight is distributed over the entire area encompased by the ground effect skirt, not just the tire contact patches. Lower PSI over more inches.
To my knowledge, the U.S. didn't reduce them, they just use avoirdupois, not imperial measure. Now, they may have changed over at some point, but they didn't just change the size of their pints.
Well, the kids have to find it first so the dads can just click staight through without all that wasted effort of learning how to use a search engine. ;)
The light bulb is another non-American invention.
Well, a lot of people think a guy in Menlo Park, NJ USA invented the light bulb, or at least the first reliable one. Supposedly some guy that worked for Thomas Edison, but Edison took the credit since it was invented at his facility
No, my facts are correct. They are gathering evidence to use in arguing a case. The fact that their method is a fishing expedition matters not to that fact. It does matter that the court should be slapping the subpoenas down because they are nothing but a series of fishing expeditions, but they do not seem to be doing this.
Because without it there would be nothing but hearsay at almost every trial?
Both sides need to be able to make their case, and they can't do that without subpoeneas. The government is attempting to show that people are able to search for terms that will return materials that minors should not have access to by law. You know, the "You must be at least 18 years of age to..." type of laws. Since childern under 18 are a subset of people it should be up to the ISP and content provider to censor these items based on the age of the consumer, and if the age is unknown, they should err on the side of protection.
Not saying that I agree with them. The SCOTUS slapped it down on constitutional grounds already, and the Government is appealing.
Dude, which ACLU v Gonzales? There are dozens if not hundreds of them. They have them pertaining to LOTS of thing, not just the COPA lawsuit that we are discussing here. My question was meant more in the rhetorical sense of "Who is the counsel for the plaintif, not what entity filed the suite, and why isn't he/she screaming to the Justices about a fishing expedition, or are the Justices alowing a fishing expedition because there are conflicting constitutional protections and they are attempting to see if one of the protections has the weight to bury the other." That spelled out well enough for you?.
p.s. The ACLU files suit aginst the person of the AG in his professinal capacity on an almost weekly basis, if not more often. There are even more "ACLU v Ashcroft" than Gonzales has the honor of being named in. They "really" liked Mr Ashcroft.
At that point, who do they file the suit aginst to get the ability to subpoena the specific data? It would be an even greater fishing expedition at that time. Not only would they still be fishing for evidence because the search terms are not evidence of a crime, they would be fishing for defendants.
Not as far as I know. IAANAL. The lawyers subpoena what they want and who they want. If someone that recieves a subpoena doesn't think it is relevant to the case, or that it is overbroad they can contest it. At that point the judge gets to decide one way or the other whether it is a valid subpoena.
Gonna be a bit pedantic here. The house IS part of congress. Congress is made up of the House and the Senate. This year we will be electing one third of the Senators and all of the Reps. If you like how things are, vote for the incumbents. If you don't like how things are going vote aginst the incumbents.
Unfortunatly, no matter how you vote we will end up with more of the same since there is little differece between the two major parties when it comes to their voting records, as opposed to their rhetoric.
Oh, I'm not arguing that it's not a fishing expidition. But that doesn't negate the DoJ's right to subpoena power. The courts should simply slap them and say "no" to the fishing subpoenas and "yes" to the ones that are specific to the case.
Well, yes. You expect anything less from the U.S. government? Actually, the data is supposed to be scrubbed so they can't identify individuals, so they shouldn't be able to come back after the fact and prosecute. On the other hand, it sis most definatly a fishing expedition. They will ask for millions of pieces of data, throw out every thing that doesn't back their claim, and then present the .1% that does back their claim and scream, "look, tens of thousands of these episodes happened! Think about the children!"
I notice you were grossed out by the image of congress involved in the act, not the horse. Have to agree, government is more obscene than most other deviant behaviors.
Why would the DoJ not have subpoena powers in this case? They are gathering evidence to argue a case before a court, why in the world would they NOT have the ability to subpoena the information they need to argue their case? What I want to know is, who is arguing the other side, and what are they doing for discovery to counter the DoJ, or is this a case of the justices having a threshold that must be exceeded to show a constitutional need that outweighs other constitutional concerns, and the DoJ is simply fishing for enough to hoist it over the threshold.
Because this type of action is expensive, and they knew that it was a total slam dunk to get this passed on the emotional baggage alone regardless of it's constitutional merits.
And apparently you've never worked for a company that became a Wal-mart vendor. For many small companies it can be the kiss of death.
No. The onus is on Diebold to follow the certification process and bring the functionality to market. Diebold can no more claim that they have a product than GM can claim that the concept car they built is a production car when it hasn't passed federal safety testing. The thing is, Diebold hasn't made that claim because they know they do not have a saleable product yet. Diebold is working on getting a product to market, they don't have a product yet. They understand that distinction. I'm betting the day the product begins getting it's certs from the different bodies, they will have that on their web page in a heartbeat.
Well, according to the article you pointed out, it seems they DON'T have an individual reciept/audit trail. They have some software that can print out reciepts/audi trails, but it has not been certified and it can not be deployed to the field. Anywhere. They are WORKING on it. I knew that already.
See, there's your problem. You're thinking like a citizen, and not a corporate shill or political party sheeple. Shame on you for not simply wanting the nanny state to take care of you. After all, they know best, so they know who can represent you best.
Gee, I would think that with all of the bitching and griping about individual external audit trails for electronic voting machines that Diebold would be trumpeting it from the front page of their voting machine home page if it was available. Can you point me at some documentation about their individual voter reciepts?
- Have a permanent, voter verifiable, auditable, and recountable paper trail (a feature Diebold and ES&S both offer)
Sorry, but according to Diebolds web site...
All ballots cast using the AccuVote-TSX are immediately encrypted and stored in multiple locations within the voting station to provide secure system redundancy. Non-volatile memory is used to ensure election results are securely protected. At the end of the voting period, the integral thermal printer within each AccuVote-TSX can print election totals for the specific voting station.
Notice the At the end of the voting period? They do not offer individual paper audits/confirmations of the votes cast.
WAIT... Steve Ballmer has human children?!?
Well, thta's his story and he's sticking to it.