Discounting alcohol, a majority are/not/ current users of illegal drugs based on surveys I've seen.
In fact, according to the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, a full 61% of Americans 12 and older/never/ used an illicit drug, and only 11% reported use within the year preceding the survey. Among those employed full-time, 7.7% used illicit drugs in 1997. Even among the "obvious" combination of high school seniors and booze, over 25% reported not drinking alcohol for all of 2001, and 50% reported not drinking for a month before the survey...
Beer (well, one form of it) precedes bread, and will probably last at least as long. Other drugs aren't nearly as entrenched in society, aside from prisons and gangs.
You estimate it from the data. Like it or not, their are trends, such as the fact that air terrorism tends to be the domain of Middle Eastern Arab Islamist terrorist groups, in contrast to "standard" suicide bombings (which are also used by the LTTE, for instance), whereas lynchings, mutilated bedsheets and cross burnings tend to be indicative of Klan activity.
It may not be nice to say it, but it's true that a Yemeni fundamentalist Moslem is more likely to be a member of al-Qaeda and its member groups than, say, a Bavarian beer brewer.
But the militia have gone downhill since then, to the point where largish Aryan groups have been smacked around by lawyers and getting their lands confiscated. Odinists, Hitlerites, WCC, and their ilk, et al, haven't seemed to accomplish much lately. The fact that these buggers generally seem to mind dying also reduces what they can achieve.
The assorted Islamist groups have a decent amount of money, including support / blackmail from governments; more martyr wannabes than they can use, c/o the unholy combination of assholes-in-power on all sides in the Middle East; and a willingness to target just about anybody, instead of, say, just government institutions.
_Europa Universalis 2_ would probably be better, if slower, for European history.
But "Balance of Power", the/really/ old empire-management games like "Hammurabi" (which was all about budgeting), "Lemonade Stand" and so forth might be better.
And/well-written/ (that is, not "guess the verb" or "try everything because we left you no clues so you're just supposed to do things completely randomly") text adventures, in general, might be helpful for reading comprehension and problem solving.
If all they've got on you is evidence regarding activities permitted by the First Amendment, the changes to Sec. 501 (which would appear to be what the librarians are most likely whining about, as they cover the subpoena of records. There are other sections covering financial libraries, but they don't apply here.) do not apply.
Go ahead and keep burning flags and writing anti-AmeriKKKa screeds to the NY Times if you like.
(Note: thomas.loc.gov gives temporary links. Those looking for the bill text should do a search for HR 3162).
Relevant sections might be
Sec. 213, on when notice of a warrant can be delayed. Note that this requires "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result", and does not include tangible property seizure or wire interception.
Section 214, where it amends Title V of FISA, regarding the subpoena of records. FBI higher-ups (no lower than assistant SAIC) may apply for orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."
Apparently, a FISA judge or a US Magistrate Judge must approve. In addition, the records must be sought for such an authorized investigation. In addition, you can also find the non-disclosure requirements there.
Libraries aren't special, no matter how much library associations would like to pretend they are. OTOH, they can't subpoena your library records just 'coz you hang out with a street gang called the "Bin Laden Boys" (freedom of association) or you write editorials demanding the destruction of America (speech) unless they have additional non-First-Amendment evidence.
Drop service to one or both states, and let them know that you'll do so while they're still arguing over the laws and regulations, and that you'll be happy to come back if they'll only be reasonable and forge compatible policies.
Or, perhaps, play games with forming local subsidiaries.
Well, of course it depends on what you do with it.
For instance, at home I've got a PII 450MHz w/ 384 MB RAM (bought just over four years ago), with the occasional upgrade (e.g. GF2MX400/64MB instead of the OEM STB nVidia Riva TNT card it came with). For writing, it's fine. For coding, it's fine. For work... since I do a lot of number crunching, faster would be better, but it's not my work box. For gaming, for/my/ tastes (mostly turn-based strategy, e.g. _Dominions_) it's OK, although CM:BB is going to push it (because it does a lot of math, I'd suspect, to compute those 60-second turns out in the steppes with long LOS and numerous vehicles). Shogun:TW was a bit dodgy on it (and massive musket battles were an absolute no-no), 'tho, and for an action gamer it'd be a really lousy system.
My work (a lot of statistics -- number crunching) could obviously use more CPU speed, and, depending on task, RAM (but I reduce the need by using online approximate quantile algorithms to "sample" the data, so that processing occurs on a mere subset). That's where I can/really/ use faster CPUs, disks and memory -- running tests which take multiple days of computation ain't pleasant.
No. There's a whole body of law on what constitutes deceptive marketing. Mere puffery, for instance, is not.
Guaranteeing $10K a week for working from one's home selling brochures that talk about making money for selling brochures, however, generally is. So are the herbal viagra scams, 419s, pamphlets on "clearing" your credit history by fraudulently creating a new identity, et al.
Popularity and happiness criteria would often approve injustice. For instance, a/lot/ of people would probably be happy if Bill Gates had his assets confiscated and redistributed to the country. A/lot/ of people would probably be happy if OJ Simpson were summarily imprisoned, despite being acquitted. A/lot/ of people would probably not have minded Richard Jewell being imprisoned on mere suspicion of the Olympic park bombing. And so forth.
When people get angry, they're often inclined to support retribution and forget about due process, or burden of proof.
Why the hell should the money go to them? Judging from the article, this has absolutely nothing to do with the "Open Source movement".
If you want to the state to fund Open Source, for whatever reason, then just like any other special interest group with a pet political agenda you should go talk to your politicians and ask for a law, and be prepared to say why. Or, in states with binding referendums, a public referendum.
Because it's considerably more dangerous to after somebody who/already/ has nuclear weapons, than it is to go after somebody who's merely working towards them?
That, plus GWB probably doesn't relish the thought of trying to collapse a regime governing over one billion people, and which is currently sufficiently pragmatic so as to most likely avoid radically destabilizing the region.
Here's an idea that was mentioned on rec.digital.photo a while back:
Take a 1/4", 20TPI eye screw. This is the standard for the tripod mount, if memory serves (a short one, if possible, as the mount normally is rather shallow).
Tie a strong, thin cord to it -- something long enough that you can step on the "free" end and hold it in place while the screw fits in the tripod mount. Pull it taut. Alternately, tie the free end to some convenient fixed object.
While it's not going to be nearly as good as a tripod or monopod, it may help stabilize the camera by giving you something to pull against, and it'll be far less bulky, so it'll be easier to bring on a casual basis.
Or people who want longer-range shots without carrying heavy, expensive telephoto lenses, and don't mind cropping.
For instance, take your average "prosumer" non-SLR digital camera. They've got, what, 3-4MP, and usually not much better than a 175mm (35mm equiv) optical zoom -- often 105-140mm (35 mm equiv) when down in the sub-$600 range or so, with the 2100UZ and 720UZ from Olympus being the major exceptions. 140mm is rarely sufficient if, say, you'd like to photograph small, wild birds, or squirrels in trees, or other even not-terribly-far-but-small subjects.
11 MP / 4 MP = 2.75. Take the square root -- that's 1.658. That is, if you're perfectly happy with a 4 MP image right now, you could get 4 MP from an 11 MP monster CCD and essentially multiply the zoom by 1.658, without needing a teleconverter or a higher-end lens.
...as long as it's entirely their own code. If they licensed anything from somebody else, under incompatible terms (e.g. "go ahead and build it into your compiled software, but don't redistribute the source") then obviously there would be problems.
I don't have any Epson devices or software, 'tho, so I don't know whether this would be a problem for them.
Three air raids on Iraqi air defense installations in/one/ week? Including an unusually large one that, reportedly, involved over twenty American and British airplanes? The stockpiling of munitions in the region has also been noted.
If I were Saddam, I would probably have at least a twitching in my eye at this point, and would probably be looking for ways to stall.
Way 1 -- "negotiate" about weapons inspectors. First, allow reporters, politicians, and other non-experts there, and lead them around on a leash. Then, say that _in principle_ they could be let in, but then there's the sovereignty issue so the palaces should be off-limits, and for logistics reasons the inspectors need to first present a schedule, and then there's the demand for showing good faith via a promise to lift the sanctions and drop the war talk. Then stall further. Mistakes are made, inspectors get denied access at times, renovations block areas...
Way 2 -- Remind Bush that Ariel Sharon is Israel's head of state, that Sharon has nukes despite the official Israeli denials, and that Sharon isn't the type of guy to hold back just because Bush says so. And then Bush can use his imagination as to what that could/possibly/ imply.
Don't forget the Shiites in the south, either. Saddam, if memory serves, as well as much of his government, is a Sunni Muslim and probably a not particularly fundamentalist one at that. The Shiites haven't been treated too well by Baghdad, which isn't surprising given their attempts at rebellion.
As for other countries:
The Russian oil company Lukoil has a major contract with Iraq -- for when the sanctions are lifted. It would not surprise me if Gazprom also has a serious interest there; it is already in the region via Iran. Russian-Iraqi trade is possibly up to $4B/year; Lukoil would like the sanctions to drop so it gets 667M tons of crude from West Qurna, and Russia would like Iraq to pay its $7B debt incurred by Iraqi arms purchases. If the sanctions go away but Saddam stays, Russian businesses stand to make a lot of money. That this issue provides an opportunity to poke a thumb in the eye of the United States is probably an added bonus.
Not that Putin would ever be influenced by the oligarchs, of course. *cough* *cough*
As for France, Total S.A. also has major contracts in Iraq, and that industry (oil) is not the only significant French involvement in Iraq (military and other industries as well). They may also have the thumb-in-the-eye motive, as well.
China, apparently, has sufficiently close relations to have been involved in rebuilding and improving the Iraqi air-defense network (which, incidentally, was hit in at least three major airstrikes this _week_. That's not very subtle...)
Russia, France and China are all permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Oh, and for the rest of the world, it probably doesn't like being reminded that the US/could/ go it largely (Turkey is probably needed in any event, for Incelrik) alone. In addition, for many nations, it's a scary precedent if the US picks up a habit of replacing repressive dictatorships with republics, because there are a fair number of nations whose internal politics aren't terribly pleasing to the US.
Sure. Any historian will tell you that a significant number of people treat Islam as, essentially, a militant religion that rewards fighting the infidel -- and, in particular, martyrdom. If you wish to know more, just watch al-Jazeera interview young children (say, 10 years and younger) on their views about martyrdom, suicide bombers and whether or not they go to Paradise immediately. This philosophy does not exactly lend itself to coexistence with any other philosophy, because of its desire to kill all opposition. And no, the peaceful Muslims (vast bulk) don't matter unless they actually/do/ something about their more violent neighbors (such as opposing the mullahs involved), because otherwise, at best, they're neutral.
Incidentally, it has been suggested that the UK was also a target, but that the aircraft selected were grounded before the hijackers could board. Apparently, the plotters did not synchronize times to maximize surprise. Keep in mind, also, that Islamic terrorists have attacked or threatened attacks all over the world, including their own backyard, such as the Luxor Temple attacks and the insurgency against Sadat (and, after his assassination, Mubarak). Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Algeria, France, Indonesia, Russia, Israel... have all been targeted by radical Islamists as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Discounting alcohol, a majority are /not/ current users of illegal drugs based on surveys I've seen.
/never/ used an illicit drug, and only 11% reported use within the year preceding the survey. Among those employed full-time, 7.7% used illicit drugs in 1997. Even among the "obvious" combination of high school seniors and booze, over 25% reported not drinking alcohol for all of 2001, and 50% reported not drinking for a month before the survey...
In fact, according to the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, a full 61% of Americans 12 and older
Beer (well, one form of it) precedes bread, and will probably last at least as long. Other drugs aren't nearly as entrenched in society, aside from prisons and gangs.
DVD over Avian Carrier, perhaps?
You estimate it from the data. Like it or not, their are trends, such as the fact that air terrorism tends to be the domain of Middle Eastern Arab Islamist terrorist groups, in contrast to "standard" suicide bombings (which are also used by the LTTE, for instance), whereas lynchings, mutilated bedsheets and cross burnings tend to be indicative of Klan activity.
It may not be nice to say it, but it's true that a Yemeni fundamentalist Moslem is more likely to be a member of al-Qaeda and its member groups than, say, a Bavarian beer brewer.
During the 80's, yes.
But the militia have gone downhill since then, to the point where largish Aryan groups have been smacked around by lawyers and getting their lands confiscated. Odinists, Hitlerites, WCC, and their ilk, et al, haven't seemed to accomplish much lately. The fact that these buggers generally seem to mind dying also reduces what they can achieve.
The assorted Islamist groups have a decent amount of money, including support / blackmail from governments; more martyr wannabes than they can use, c/o the unholy combination of assholes-in-power on all sides in the Middle East; and a willingness to target just about anybody, instead of, say, just government institutions.
_Europa Universalis 2_ would probably be better, if slower, for European history.
/really/ old empire-management games like "Hammurabi" (which was all about budgeting), "Lemonade Stand" and so forth might be better.
/well-written/ (that is, not "guess the verb" or "try everything because we left you no clues so you're just supposed to do things completely randomly") text adventures, in general, might be helpful for reading comprehension and problem solving.
But "Balance of Power", the
And
1) Limited resources for design and implementation, and
2) Detailed stories are much harder to combine with flexibility and a truly responsive world instead of one with a fixed, linear story arc.
Read the act again.
If all they've got on you is evidence regarding activities permitted by the First Amendment, the changes to Sec. 501 (which would appear to be what the librarians are most likely whining about, as they cover the subpoena of records. There are other sections covering financial libraries, but they don't apply here.) do not apply.
Go ahead and keep burning flags and writing anti-AmeriKKKa screeds to the NY Times if you like.
Read it more carefully.
(Note: thomas.loc.gov gives temporary links. Those looking for the bill text should do a search for HR 3162).
Relevant sections might be
Sec. 213, on when notice of a warrant can be delayed. Note that this requires "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result", and does not include
tangible property seizure or wire interception.
Section 214, where it amends Title V of FISA, regarding the subpoena of records. FBI higher-ups (no lower than assistant SAIC) may apply for orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."
Apparently, a FISA judge or a US Magistrate Judge must approve. In addition, the records must be sought for such an authorized investigation. In addition, you can also find the non-disclosure requirements there.
Libraries aren't special, no matter how much library associations would like to pretend they are. OTOH, they can't subpoena your library records just 'coz you hang out with a street gang called the "Bin Laden Boys" (freedom of association) or you write editorials demanding the destruction of America (speech) unless they have additional non-First-Amendment evidence.
Well, the records could be used to identify serial book mutilators, but I doubt that happens very often...
Drop service to one or both states, and let them know that you'll do so while they're still arguing over the laws and regulations, and that you'll be happy to come back if they'll only be reasonable and forge compatible policies.
Or, perhaps, play games with forming local subsidiaries.
Pennsylvania has the right to set regulations for those who do business in Pennsylvania, on how they do so.
If UUnet has a way to block those sites just for Pennsylvania, then that's fine from the AG's POV -- that's the most he can ask for.
Well, of course it depends on what you do with it.
/my/ tastes (mostly turn-based strategy, e.g. _Dominions_) it's OK, although CM:BB is going to push it (because it does a lot of math, I'd suspect, to compute those 60-second turns out in the steppes with long LOS and numerous vehicles). Shogun:TW was a bit dodgy on it (and massive musket battles were an absolute no-no), 'tho, and for an action gamer it'd be a really lousy system.
/really/ use faster CPUs, disks and memory -- running tests which take multiple days of computation ain't pleasant.
For instance, at home I've got a PII 450MHz w/ 384 MB RAM (bought just over four years ago), with the occasional upgrade (e.g. GF2MX400/64MB instead of the OEM STB nVidia Riva TNT card it came with). For writing, it's fine. For coding, it's fine. For work... since I do a lot of number crunching, faster would be better, but it's not my work box. For gaming, for
My work (a lot of statistics -- number crunching) could obviously use more CPU speed, and, depending on task, RAM (but I reduce the need by using online approximate quantile algorithms to "sample" the data, so that processing occurs on a mere subset). That's where I can
It's not new. If neither side can seriously contest the self-evident facts of the case, then there's no need for a trial.
No. There's a whole body of law on what constitutes deceptive marketing. Mere puffery, for instance, is not.
Guaranteeing $10K a week for working from one's home selling brochures that talk about making money for selling brochures, however, generally is. So are the herbal viagra scams, 419s, pamphlets on "clearing" your credit history by fraudulently creating a new identity, et al.
Popularity and happiness criteria would often approve injustice. For instance, a /lot/ of people would probably be happy if Bill Gates had his assets confiscated and redistributed to the country. A /lot/ of people would probably be happy if OJ Simpson were summarily imprisoned, despite being acquitted. A /lot/ of people would probably not have minded Richard Jewell being imprisoned on mere suspicion of the Olympic park bombing. And so forth.
When people get angry, they're often inclined to support retribution and forget about due process, or burden of proof.
Why the hell should the money go to them? Judging from the article, this has absolutely nothing to do with the "Open Source movement".
If you want to the state to fund Open Source, for whatever reason, then just like any other special interest group with a pet political agenda you should go talk to your politicians and ask for a law, and be prepared to say why. Or, in states with binding referendums, a public referendum.
Because it's considerably more dangerous to after somebody who /already/ has nuclear weapons, than it is to go after somebody who's merely working towards them?
That, plus GWB probably doesn't relish the thought of trying to collapse a regime governing over one billion people, and which is currently sufficiently pragmatic so as to most likely avoid radically destabilizing the region.
I think he meant AHRA -- Audio Home Recording Act.
Here's an idea that was mentioned on rec.digital.photo a while back:
Take a 1/4", 20TPI eye screw. This is the standard for the tripod mount, if memory serves (a short one, if possible, as the mount normally is rather shallow).
Tie a strong, thin cord to it -- something long enough that you can step on the "free" end and hold it in place while the screw fits in the tripod mount. Pull it taut. Alternately, tie the free end to some convenient fixed object.
While it's not going to be nearly as good as a tripod or monopod, it may help stabilize the camera by giving you something to pull against, and it'll be far less bulky, so it'll be easier to bring on a casual basis.
Or people who want longer-range shots without carrying heavy, expensive telephoto lenses, and don't mind cropping.
For instance, take your average "prosumer" non-SLR digital camera. They've got, what, 3-4MP, and usually not much better than a 175mm (35mm equiv) optical zoom -- often 105-140mm (35 mm equiv) when down in the sub-$600 range or so, with the 2100UZ and 720UZ from Olympus being the major exceptions. 140mm is rarely sufficient if, say, you'd like to photograph small, wild birds, or squirrels in trees, or other even not-terribly-far-but-small subjects.
11 MP / 4 MP = 2.75. Take the square root -- that's 1.658. That is, if you're perfectly happy with a 4 MP image right now, you could get 4 MP from an 11 MP monster CCD and essentially multiply the zoom by 1.658, without needing a teleconverter or a higher-end lens.
...as long as it's entirely their own code. If they licensed anything from somebody else, under incompatible terms (e.g. "go ahead and build it into your compiled software, but don't redistribute the source") then obviously there would be problems.
I don't have any Epson devices or software, 'tho, so I don't know whether this would be a problem for them.
Here are some statistics for you.
Total imminent fatalties, Hiroshima:
Est. 75,000.
Total imminent fatalities, Nagasaki:
Est. 40,000.
Total imminent fatalities, US/UK Dresden firebombing:
Est. 135,000.
Total Chinese civillians killed in the Rape of Nanking:
Est. 200-300K.
Total number of rapes committed there by the Japanese occupation:
Est. 20K.
Total number of Chinese civillians killed by the Japanese, 1931-1945:
Est. 30M.
Total number of wars of aggression or war crimes that Japan has committed since 1945:
Zero.
Three air raids on Iraqi air defense installations in /one/ week? Including an unusually large one that, reportedly, involved over twenty American and British airplanes? The stockpiling of munitions in the region has also been noted.
/possibly/ imply.
If I were Saddam, I would probably have at least a twitching in my eye at this point, and would probably be looking for ways to stall.
Way 1 -- "negotiate" about weapons inspectors. First, allow reporters, politicians, and other non-experts there, and lead them around on a leash. Then, say that _in principle_ they could be let in, but then there's the sovereignty issue so the palaces should be off-limits, and for logistics reasons the inspectors need to first present a schedule, and then there's the demand for showing good faith via a promise to lift the sanctions and drop the war talk. Then stall further. Mistakes are made, inspectors get denied access at times, renovations block areas...
Way 2 -- Remind Bush that Ariel Sharon is Israel's head of state, that Sharon has nukes despite the official Israeli denials, and that Sharon isn't the type of guy to hold back just because Bush says so. And then Bush can use his imagination as to what that could
Don't forget the Shiites in the south, either. Saddam, if memory serves, as well as much of his government, is a Sunni Muslim and probably a not particularly fundamentalist one at that. The Shiites haven't been treated too well by Baghdad, which isn't surprising given their attempts at rebellion.
/could/ go it largely (Turkey is probably needed in any event, for Incelrik) alone. In addition, for many nations, it's a scary precedent if the US picks up a habit of replacing repressive dictatorships with republics, because there are a fair number of nations whose internal politics aren't terribly pleasing to the US.
As for other countries:
The Russian oil company Lukoil has a major
contract with Iraq -- for when the sanctions are lifted. It would not surprise me if Gazprom also has a serious interest there; it is already in the region via Iran. Russian-Iraqi trade is possibly up to $4B/year; Lukoil would like the sanctions to drop so it gets 667M tons of crude from West Qurna, and Russia would like Iraq to pay its $7B debt incurred by Iraqi arms purchases. If the sanctions go away but Saddam stays, Russian businesses stand to make a lot of money. That this issue provides an opportunity to poke a thumb in the eye of the United States is probably an added bonus.
Not that Putin would ever be influenced by the oligarchs, of course. *cough* *cough*
As for France, Total S.A. also has major contracts in Iraq, and that industry (oil) is not the only significant French involvement in Iraq (military and other industries as well). They may also have the thumb-in-the-eye motive, as well.
China, apparently, has sufficiently close relations to have been involved in rebuilding and improving the Iraqi air-defense network (which, incidentally, was hit in at least three major airstrikes this _week_. That's not very subtle...)
Russia, France and China are all permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Oh, and for the rest of the world, it probably doesn't like being reminded that the US
Sure. Any historian will tell you that a significant number of people treat Islam as, essentially, a militant religion that rewards fighting the infidel -- and, in particular, martyrdom. If you wish to know more, just watch al-Jazeera interview young children (say, 10 years and younger) on their views about martyrdom, suicide bombers and whether or not they go to Paradise immediately. This philosophy does not exactly lend itself to coexistence with any other philosophy, because of its desire to kill all opposition. And no, the peaceful Muslims (vast bulk) don't matter unless they actually /do/ something about their more violent neighbors (such as opposing the mullahs involved), because otherwise, at best, they're neutral.
Incidentally, it has been suggested that the UK was also a target, but that the aircraft selected were grounded before the hijackers could board. Apparently, the plotters did not synchronize times to maximize surprise. Keep in mind, also, that Islamic terrorists have attacked or threatened attacks all over the world, including their own backyard, such as the Luxor Temple attacks and the insurgency against Sadat (and, after his assassination, Mubarak). Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Algeria, France, Indonesia, Russia, Israel... have all been targeted by radical Islamists as well.
So there's your reason.