I'm not sure what your point is there. Not acting against the Taliban is not supporting it or endorsing them. And stating that something that is somewhat better then the previous situation is a posative step is not supporting or endorsing it either.
Further more, dealing with bad people to gain access to even worse people for criminal prosecution when those bad people have yet to violate a law in your jurisdiction is not an endorsement or support of those people in any significant way. The closest thing listed that could be considered support or an endorsement would be the deal offered which never came to fruition so at best, the claim of a conditional endorsement could be made but the conditions were never satisfied.
That unless you want to interpret all those people who discover their nice model neighbor is actually a serial rapist is endorsing that behavior when the say comments about how he seemed like a nice quiet guy or because they paid him to do some yard work or something around their property.
I'm not sure what your point is. Or is it possible that even after you posted part of your link, you either didn't read it or do not comprehend what is actually says. Perhaps I can explain it to you. Let me know if you get lost.
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan,
First, this fails to address anything I said because it's after the decision had already been made to remove the Taliban from power for protecting Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden. Second, the decision to remove the Taliban from power was made before this statement was made and it was made because Taliban refused to go after either OBL or AQ. The Taliban also prevented us from going in after them. Third, we didn't just want Osama, we wanted the entire organization called Al Qeada which Osama was the leader of. Handing us the leader and allowing the terrorist organization to remain simply isn't acceptable. Fourth, they didn't want to turn Osama over to the US, they would only turn him over to a disinterested third party country and that isn't acceptable. Finally, there is no reason to believe the statement had any merit behind it as it was a ploy to avoid being dethroned from the seat of government, an ultimatum already presented to them with the Taliban clearly choosing to protect Osama and Al Qeada.
Your second link is a non-issue too. More and more evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 comes in all the time. There is already a solid indictment against him so there is no need to mess with another and possibly give up sources of information until he is in custody. Furthermore, it's pointless to even bring that up as it's not just Bin Laden that we were after.
I guess the next time Cuba or Venezuela tries to extradite terrorists who've blown up Cuban airliners who are living in Miami, you won't mind if they drop some ordinance around Palm Beach until we capitulate.
Perhaps you should go back to third grade reading and work on your comprehension skills a bit. Everyone involved was captured and trialed except for Posada who escaped after being acquitted in a military tribunal. Posada ended up gaining asylum because of the threat of torture if he was extradited which is consistent with international law (read treaties that the US, Venezuela and Cuba are part of). There is no parallel there because neither Bin Laden or Al Qeada faced such a threat if prosecuted in the US in 2001.
And yes, I do happen to mind if Cuba or Venezuela drops ordinance in Miami. If you somehow see a parallel between that and 9/11, then you are more fucked then I thought. If they do, I fully expect war just like what happened in Afghanistan and I fully expect Cuba or Venezuela to lose. I also expect that should this ever happen, that the US government go all out and instead of redeveloping the territory and giving it back, that we keep it and rape the resources in the lands.
I find a few things in your post somewhat disturbing. Namely that you actually believe what you are posting as well as people moderating you up for it.
Democracy can only work if people have access to -all- the information available to make an informed decision
Actually, no- you do not need all the information for a democracy to work. I hasn't been until recently in history that even half of the people could read, let alone read well enough to know and understand the policy problems and purposed solutions. And even today in most democracies, America included if you want to count the republic as a democracy, most people don't give near enough time to understanding the political problems within a nation. In most well off countries that do not have mandatory voting, turn out is either low considering the number of eligible voters and more often or not, elections are decided on a single issue rather then all the information.
How do you know what the Taliban does? We are fed propaganda every day.
The same way we know our history. Someone writes it down, it get circulated by print, voice or a number of other methods, then if it's wrong, people object to it. If it's not wrong, it stands uncontested. This is the same method that was used to know a hurricane hit the gulf coast, that the English lost the revolutionary war, that the Indians lost to the Americans, that Napoleon lost to the English and so on. And yes, there was a lot of propaganda in there too, but it was objected to, and we have a pretty accurate accounting of history.
No, I'm not saying that the Taliban are nice people, that we should support them (though we did) or that the conventional view is wrong, but think about where you get your information from and you will find that you really could have been fed pure lies. Without information, how do you make that decision?
No, we didn't support the Taliban outside of humanitarian aid and a few million dollar to get them to stop producing drugs. It's not like we ever endorsed them or anything which is what it appears that you are attempting to make out.
It is important to end imperialistic wars because it -always- bites us in the ass later on. These ever so evil Taliban fighters? Oh wait we supported them against the "evil" USSR. Saddam Hussein? Oh wait we helped him too...
Wow, just Wow, I guess the easiest way to get propaganda out there is to just cater to the pissed off idiots. First, we never supported the Taliban against the USSR. That is nothing but a complete fabrication pass on by idiots who think it sounds good or something but never bothered to do the slightest bit of research on it. The Taliban did not even exist until several years after the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin is what we supported against the USSR and they became the Northern alliance in which the Taliban threw out of power. Second, we did not help Saddam Hussein much at all. We supplied Iraq with a few dozen trucks and relaxed weapons restrictions against them at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for defense. The relaxation of the weapons restrictions allowed them to purchase weapons from US suppliers but Iraq favored Russian arms.
If you think the US supports human rights you are sadly mistaken, imperialistic wars like the wars in the middle east and Vietnam have -always- ended up in a net loss for human rights and a net loss for the world.
I'm pretty sure by now that you have no clue what imperial or imperialistic means. Neither of the two words apply to the wars you have mentioned.
Now, I know you are reading from an "I hate America" hand book you obtained from your friend somewhere on the internet. For this reason, I will challenge you to find the definition of imperialism, imperialistic, imperial, and then attempt to make an h
The problem is, the source that leaked the information only told a few people about it. That's still bad, but then taking that information and endangering the lives of innocent people and telling crap loads more people just to get your names in the paper/news, is enough reason to be angry at Assange too.
You are right though, we shouldn't be angry at just him, but currently, he is the only one not being punished for his part. There is nothing stopping us from being angry at the entire lot responsible and wanting them to pay. I mean sure, the people who leaked the information should be executed for treason, the people who allowed it to happen by not enforcing existing policy or somehow letting that policy break down should be punished to a lesser extent, and by all means Assange should by trialed, convicted, and shot dead (or at least imprisoned for the rest of his natural life), for his role in making the problem so much more worse.
There is simply no reason why Assange should go unprosecuted.
Yea, and why we are dumb enough to fall for that, lets also forget that after 9/11 we knew where Al Qeada was and we asked for either the ability to go after them or to have the Afghan government deliver them to justice and were told no, they were going to protect them. But hey, lets not let verifiable history get in the way of your rant. I mean according to you, we should have ignored the physical location of Al Qeada, the physical location of their training camps and recruitment centers, we should have ignored the Taliban government not only offering but giving them safe haven, and instead attacked some location that we seemed to have traced supporters from.
Here is a hint for the mentally challenged. Just because someone from a country does something, it does not mean that country supports the act or that the act was done on their behalf. I have personally attempted (in a drunken stupor) to piss all over Buckingham palace but that doesn't mean the US was behind it. The fact is that we knew where Al Qeada was, there was a government protecting them, and we rightfully displaced that government. Saudi Arabia did not fight us on finding the culprits, in fact, they helped locate them as a government. I'm sorry that you can't see a difference there, but the rest of the sane world does.
His pictures did have geolocation data attached on them which is why I found his tin foil hat and his high dollar camera which was sitting right next to it. BTW, who uses a VCR anymore. I guess I should have looked at more of the pictures before going over. And that car he claims is his, he must have sold it to the neighbor because that's the driveway it was sitting in when I stopped by at 4 am last night.
Silly, everyone knows what cookies are. Grandma makes them every Christmas and sends them to the family.
It doesn't help that the name "Cookie" is something they already know about that sort of turns on the "I hear what you are saying but not paying attention because I already know" switch. Of course then you have the problem of unique words making a simple statement like "defragmenting or chkdsk'ing your root drive" sound like a foreign language.
This doesn't invalidate your point, it's meant to reinforce it by showing why coworkers do not know what a cookie is or what to do with them let alone purging meta data they can't see from a document.
Well, to be fair, this portion of the thread branched off of someone claiming it happened at lan parties. So your right, there was no business, but it's a little difficult to get people to tell you what a MAC address is let alone what their MAC address is before connecting.
And the biggest offender I have seen in this regard is the MS internet connection sharing BS where someone connects to the same port they would have connected to at home.
I'm not aware of any glob or map still in use or considered accurate that lists north and south America as a single continent. If you are, by all means post a link.
you are right in that it's semantics anyways. But whether or not the north south and central Americas are all one continent is pointless as it's been named for three separate ones. this should cause no more confusion then your brother looking like you but having a different name.
Well, as someone else put it before losing sign in some insane rambling, "Except... It isn't. At least not on any globe I've ever seen. Not anymore than "Dakota" or "Carolina" is a state."
You see, it's North America or South America, not America. Also, when you combine them, it's the Americas as in plural America. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc.. are North American or South American, not American. And when you attempt to claim the US equals united states, you have to take the context of language into play. In English, the description comes before the noun or verb typically. In most other languages, the description comes after. Taking this into consideration, a literal English translation of Mexico's full name would go from Estados Unidos Mexicanos to United Mexican States. Every other country that I know of that has United States in it do so similarly. So even then, there is no comparison to US as it would be SU if anything.
American is the proper name for these reasons. US is the proper short abbreviation for these reasons. Insisting on anything else is creating more of an idocy then what is attempting to be claimed and should be stopped.
The rub is, I think driving drunk and swerving over the lines a couple of times should be punished much more heavily than driving sober and swerving over the line a few times. Why? Because I suspect a person who is driving drunk is a far far greater threat to the public than someone who is unimpaired. To me, it is like randomly firing a firearm in the air in a crowded area.
What exactly would make someone who has been drinking more dangerous swerving over the lines then someone who is sober? I mean the head on collision would be caused by the person being over the line, not because he was drinking verses being sober. If they are over the lines unintentionally, they are a threat.
That is a rather extreme position. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? I like the 5th amendment, and think it should be respected in nearly all cases. But not this one. Just like the 1st amendment doesn't apply in all cases, like yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
Actually, that line is misquoted all the time. There is no law making it illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. What the laws are making illegal is the ability to incite a riot or create a public panic. These laws do not specifically target the First amendment, they target the reactions to the use of the first amendment. If your speech created a public panic or causes a riot and was intentionally crafted to do so, then you can receive punishment for it. But there is no specific exception like this to the fifth amendment where the use can be for something specific without violating the first amendment provision itself. The government is required to follow a certain set of rules regardless of anything you think. The laws do not stop you from making the speech, they simply apply punishment when the intent is shown to create unsafe civil unrest.
You can't have an intact fifth amendment with exceptions to it at all. If you are allowed to make exceptions, then it has no effect at all. It is the literal throwing the baby out with the bath water without going through the motions first. This is different from speech as you can make your point without encouraging the harm of others. I guess I could understand more if you were claiming it doesn't apply to non-citizens or illegal ailiensbut you are qualifying the application of the constitution with what you don't like which means sooner or later someone else will too. and they won't like you in the process.
I do not believe that requiring a breathalyzer on demand as a requirement for driving significantly weakens anything.
I guess you simply do not understand the right against self incrimination. And yes, the entire "privilege not a right" thing can be transferable to anything. Making a living is a right just like being able to freely travel, making a living in a specific profession such as a gardener is a privilege just like driving a car, suppose there is a law that mandates in order to buy fertilizer or gardening supplies, you have to allow the cops to search your establishment and all places the fertilizer or tools will be used once a month to make sure you are not growing illegal drugs with it. Now suppose that just like with any other search, anything else illegal that is in plain view, it fair game. Doesn't that seem to violate something?Do you believe it would weaken anything?
Yes, you are correct in that you are being asked to prove that you are innocent, by being asked to cooperate with evidence gathering against yourself. But the reason why it's OK to change this for this situation is not because of the particular crime, but because the requested cooperation is TRIVIAL and does not have any negative effect on the suspect unless, of course, they actually are guilty.
But it is also important to note here that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE BREATHALYZER TEST. My brother-in-law did this, and then got a lawyer to get him s
Anyone thinking it might be a good idea to post the names and addresses or phone numbers of cops on a website might want to check their state laws first. It's illegal in many states to list or expose the personal addresses and phone numbers of cops and in some cases, the personal email addresses too. Here is a copy of the California code citing this, I know Ohio, Kentucky and a couple other states have laws very similar.
Just posting this because while it sounds like a good idea, it might actually be illegal to do it. Head of the trouble before it starts.
Well, that would be the doctrine of necessity but there are other situations that may apply that could be considered a technicality.
If for instance, the officer claims the reason for the stop was because of excess speed measured by a radar gun and the officer wasn't trained or certified to accurately use the radar gun or the radar gun was tested to be inaccurate an hour later or so, then the reason for the stop and any evidence collected afterward could be tossed out. Similarly, if the breathalyzer machine wasn't calibrated properly or some other problem existed like the calibration solutions were outdated or improperly handled (stored at room temp or whatever), then those results can be tossed allowing someone to escape prosecution.
I picked those examples because they seem to be the most common reasons people claim to have beaten a DUI rap from what I hear. I seemed to have beaten a DUI on a technicality where the cops claimed to have pulled me over for not displaying a front license plate properly but couldn't answer how they knew that from behind me. I was.001 over the legal limit and they agreed to drop everything if I plead guilty to the license plate charge just to make the stop legit. I also know of a case in which a guy ran his car into a ditch while drinking, walked home, stopped at a convenience store and purchased a 12 pack, drank about 6 of them before getting home where the cops happened to be waiting on him some 4 hours later, then when the cops tested his blood alcohol level and charged him, his lawyer got everything dismissed because no one could prove his BAC was over the limit when he was actually driving. Of course he refused to admit that he wrecked the car too, he claimed he pulled over when the car started experiencing engine trouble and couldn't get it to move so he started walking.
You wouldn't want a law like that. Suppose you and 5 of your friends got arrested on DUI in the same night in different parts of the town. Well, lets suppose they aren't your close friends, just friends who support the same causes like Sane laws in the US. Now suppose all five of you were found innocent down the road but now everyone thinks you only want sane laws because you break them all the time.
Getting arrested is somewhat embarrassing for most people and they won't volunteer to talk about it except maybe to their close friends. But seeing their names in the paper is about the only way you are going to know that the police methodically attacked your cause by arresting people for false accusations in order to limit the impact of your political speech.
But you might be thinking, "hey, if they don't put the names in the paper, it won't have that kind of impact". But then you have to think of the story that runs after you go to court that says " 0100010001010011 was acquitted of the charge of driving while intoxicated today in court, the arresting Officer claims 0100010001010011 is involved in a group that is attempting to rewrite laws to make it easier for this to happen." And because your attorney is ignorant of the five other people's cases and they way the scheduling changed, this can happen over the course of a couple months with no one really taking notice if it wasn't for a listing of Tom, Dick, Harry, and 0100010001010011 getting popped all in the same night.
So yea, it's a way to keep tabs on the police too.
Well traditionally, you didn't get a photo with your fish wrapper unless it was a crime so serious that warning the public warranted it (Ie murder, larceny or being) or you were a public official of some sort. To get one of those, you would have needed to either wait until they were convicted or request the record which requires someone to be identified in the process.
What this stops or limits to some degree is vigilantism. If your picture is out there, it's easier for people to identify you because not only is it easier to remember a face then a name, you do not need to ask someone their name to assume you have identified them (if you already know them, well that another story). And contrary to some people's belief, the system is supposed to be about justice not punishment- that is to say punish the people known to be guilty not the ones with accusations or not enough evidence to determine their guilt.
So what has happened is that the police have placed these people's lives in possible danger without any substantial benefit to public safety. And they have done this on a third party website which raises the question of monetary compensation and if this violates any other existing laws pertaining to paying for special treatment or records protected like how it's now against federal to sell certain information from your drivers licenses.
Nearly nothing, lets make that next to nothing, or completely negligable seeing how more fuel is used annually to run to the store for a newspaper or a soda or single under $10 items that aren't even close to being a necessity then the total passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles over the course of 42 years.
There was a study a while back which said that if people could purchase junk food when they purchased their groceries or gas or whatever other reason they needed to be at a store, we could cut something like 15% of our annual fuel usage. Of course I can't find a link to the article on it, but it was about consolidating trips to the store to save on fuel expenses.
Umm.. You forgot that treaties made between other nations which is what is commonly refereed to as international law, which also becomes US law once ratified by the congress, fully support our war in Afghanistan too.
I just wanted to point that out when more "people who don't know what they're talking about" bring up international law for a rebuttal as if it somehow trumps an sovereign nation's right of sovereignty.
Any of it really, especially the face book part though. I don't particularly care for Julian Assange who appears to be motivated primarily by his desire to get in the news- even if it's because his actions got someone killed. I don't condone torture but I wouldn't be heart broken if it happened in that situation.
I mean, if we as a nation aren't livid over watching a video of outright condoned and covered-up murder in our name and on our dime, then what are we ever going to be upset by?
Basically confess? He actually did confess. The first line of the article starts of with, "A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving.
It doesn't really matter how much evidence there is or how shaky it is, if he plead guilty, he is saying Yea, I did it.
It isn't supposed to protect someone from bad legal advice, it's supposed to protect them from unqualified individuals passing themselves off as a lawyer.
There is a difference between advice on a law and legal advice, The state doesn't really care if you are both a moron and a lawyer as long as you can pass the bar and do not take too much of the courts time up when being an idiot, They do care if you pretend to be someone's lawyer. And this is pretty much true for about any country or political subdivision within to some extent.
There was an article a while back stating that because it was cheaper in these rural third world or out of the way areas to build out cell coverage instead of rolling out and maintaining copper, that most governments were working towards that instead of building traditional pots lines.
This is why you probably had such good coverage. However, had you strayed from a village very far on a minor road, you probably would have seen quite a few outages.
As for setting up these networks for military ops, while not getting into the need to monitor or restrict communications in the field, we have the problem of the Taliban destroying the existing cell towers. This was covered in the article as why something like this would be useful in Afghanistan.
1: The battery compartment can be attacked with thumb screws that tighten down a compressed rubberized seal when attaching it. That would give it similar properties to being hermetically sealed once the battery is in place. You could also make the entire battery compartment modular in so that it can be easily swapped out if something does get broken with normal filed tools a soldier would have at his disposal.
Of course this would require making a special phone which is what the purpose of using existing phones were supposed to avoid. However, there are enough situation that a civilian market for the same robust phones could be profitable.
On the other hand, if battery recharging is the objective of a removable battery, then a rapid charger could probably be build into batteries or a pack to hold the batteries in which it could be attached to the phone for a couple of minutes and transfer a full charge. Lets assume a soldier would carry 4 batteries plus the one in the phone into battle or on patrol to last three or four days without access to anything to recharge with. Instead of placing them into a zip lock bag, simply create a cradle that holds the batteries and protects the phone while it's not in use, then have it constantly transferring power to the phone so it always have a full charge when needed. It might even be possible to use the cradle as a signal booster in the case of an emergency too. (by emergency, I mean calling the wife after being shot, of course they would use the real equipment for getting help unless this replaces some of the bulkier radios).
Actually, that should have been three fifths of the popular vote going to other candidates. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote which is about 2 fifths. Bush Sr got 37% and Perot got 19%.
I must have fat fingered the keyboard and seriously failed to preview before posting.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what your point is there. Not acting against the Taliban is not supporting it or endorsing them. And stating that something that is somewhat better then the previous situation is a posative step is not supporting or endorsing it either.
Further more, dealing with bad people to gain access to even worse people for criminal prosecution when those bad people have yet to violate a law in your jurisdiction is not an endorsement or support of those people in any significant way. The closest thing listed that could be considered support or an endorsement would be the deal offered which never came to fruition so at best, the claim of a conditional endorsement could be made but the conditions were never satisfied.
That unless you want to interpret all those people who discover their nice model neighbor is actually a serial rapist is endorsing that behavior when the say comments about how he seemed like a nice quiet guy or because they paid him to do some yard work or something around their property.
I'm not sure what your point is. Or is it possible that even after you posted part of your link, you either didn't read it or do not comprehend what is actually says. Perhaps I can explain it to you. Let me know if you get lost.
First, this fails to address anything I said because it's after the decision had already been made to remove the Taliban from power for protecting Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden. Second, the decision to remove the Taliban from power was made before this statement was made and it was made because Taliban refused to go after either OBL or AQ. The Taliban also prevented us from going in after them. Third, we didn't just want Osama, we wanted the entire organization called Al Qeada which Osama was the leader of. Handing us the leader and allowing the terrorist organization to remain simply isn't acceptable. Fourth, they didn't want to turn Osama over to the US, they would only turn him over to a disinterested third party country and that isn't acceptable. Finally, there is no reason to believe the statement had any merit behind it as it was a ploy to avoid being dethroned from the seat of government, an ultimatum already presented to them with the Taliban clearly choosing to protect Osama and Al Qeada.
Your second link is a non-issue too. More and more evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 comes in all the time. There is already a solid indictment against him so there is no need to mess with another and possibly give up sources of information until he is in custody. Furthermore, it's pointless to even bring that up as it's not just Bin Laden that we were after.
Perhaps you should go back to third grade reading and work on your comprehension skills a bit. Everyone involved was captured and trialed except for Posada who escaped after being acquitted in a military tribunal. Posada ended up gaining asylum because of the threat of torture if he was extradited which is consistent with international law (read treaties that the US, Venezuela and Cuba are part of). There is no parallel there because neither Bin Laden or Al Qeada faced such a threat if prosecuted in the US in 2001.
And yes, I do happen to mind if Cuba or Venezuela drops ordinance in Miami. If you somehow see a parallel between that and 9/11, then you are more fucked then I thought. If they do, I fully expect war just like what happened in Afghanistan and I fully expect Cuba or Venezuela to lose. I also expect that should this ever happen, that the US government go all out and instead of redeveloping the territory and giving it back, that we keep it and rape the resources in the lands.
I find a few things in your post somewhat disturbing. Namely that you actually believe what you are posting as well as people moderating you up for it.
Actually, no- you do not need all the information for a democracy to work. I hasn't been until recently in history that even half of the people could read, let alone read well enough to know and understand the policy problems and purposed solutions. And even today in most democracies, America included if you want to count the republic as a democracy, most people don't give near enough time to understanding the political problems within a nation. In most well off countries that do not have mandatory voting, turn out is either low considering the number of eligible voters and more often or not, elections are decided on a single issue rather then all the information.
The same way we know our history. Someone writes it down, it get circulated by print, voice or a number of other methods, then if it's wrong, people object to it. If it's not wrong, it stands uncontested. This is the same method that was used to know a hurricane hit the gulf coast, that the English lost the revolutionary war, that the Indians lost to the Americans, that Napoleon lost to the English and so on. And yes, there was a lot of propaganda in there too, but it was objected to, and we have a pretty accurate accounting of history.
No, we didn't support the Taliban outside of humanitarian aid and a few million dollar to get them to stop producing drugs. It's not like we ever endorsed them or anything which is what it appears that you are attempting to make out.
Wow, just Wow, I guess the easiest way to get propaganda out there is to just cater to the pissed off idiots. First, we never supported the Taliban against the USSR. That is nothing but a complete fabrication pass on by idiots who think it sounds good or something but never bothered to do the slightest bit of research on it. The Taliban did not even exist until several years after the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan. The Mujaheddin is what we supported against the USSR and they became the Northern alliance in which the Taliban threw out of power. Second, we did not help Saddam Hussein much at all. We supplied Iraq with a few dozen trucks and relaxed weapons restrictions against them at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for defense. The relaxation of the weapons restrictions allowed them to purchase weapons from US suppliers but Iraq favored Russian arms.
I'm pretty sure by now that you have no clue what imperial or imperialistic means. Neither of the two words apply to the wars you have mentioned.
Now, I know you are reading from an "I hate America" hand book you obtained from your friend somewhere on the internet. For this reason, I will challenge you to find the definition of imperialism, imperialistic, imperial, and then attempt to make an h
The problem is, the source that leaked the information only told a few people about it. That's still bad, but then taking that information and endangering the lives of innocent people and telling crap loads more people just to get your names in the paper/news, is enough reason to be angry at Assange too.
You are right though, we shouldn't be angry at just him, but currently, he is the only one not being punished for his part. There is nothing stopping us from being angry at the entire lot responsible and wanting them to pay. I mean sure, the people who leaked the information should be executed for treason, the people who allowed it to happen by not enforcing existing policy or somehow letting that policy break down should be punished to a lesser extent, and by all means Assange should by trialed, convicted, and shot dead (or at least imprisoned for the rest of his natural life), for his role in making the problem so much more worse.
There is simply no reason why Assange should go unprosecuted.
Yea, and why we are dumb enough to fall for that, lets also forget that after 9/11 we knew where Al Qeada was and we asked for either the ability to go after them or to have the Afghan government deliver them to justice and were told no, they were going to protect them. But hey, lets not let verifiable history get in the way of your rant. I mean according to you, we should have ignored the physical location of Al Qeada, the physical location of their training camps and recruitment centers, we should have ignored the Taliban government not only offering but giving them safe haven, and instead attacked some location that we seemed to have traced supporters from.
Here is a hint for the mentally challenged. Just because someone from a country does something, it does not mean that country supports the act or that the act was done on their behalf. I have personally attempted (in a drunken stupor) to piss all over Buckingham palace but that doesn't mean the US was behind it. The fact is that we knew where Al Qeada was, there was a government protecting them, and we rightfully displaced that government. Saudi Arabia did not fight us on finding the culprits, in fact, they helped locate them as a government. I'm sorry that you can't see a difference there, but the rest of the sane world does.
His pictures did have geolocation data attached on them which is why I found his tin foil hat and his high dollar camera which was sitting right next to it. BTW, who uses a VCR anymore. I guess I should have looked at more of the pictures before going over. And that car he claims is his, he must have sold it to the neighbor because that's the driveway it was sitting in when I stopped by at 4 am last night.
Silly, everyone knows what cookies are. Grandma makes them every Christmas and sends them to the family.
It doesn't help that the name "Cookie" is something they already know about that sort of turns on the "I hear what you are saying but not paying attention because I already know" switch. Of course then you have the problem of unique words making a simple statement like "defragmenting or chkdsk'ing your root drive" sound like a foreign language.
This doesn't invalidate your point, it's meant to reinforce it by showing why coworkers do not know what a cookie is or what to do with them let alone purging meta data they can't see from a document.
Well, to be fair, this portion of the thread branched off of someone claiming it happened at lan parties. So your right, there was no business, but it's a little difficult to get people to tell you what a MAC address is let alone what their MAC address is before connecting.
And the biggest offender I have seen in this regard is the MS internet connection sharing BS where someone connects to the same port they would have connected to at home.
I'm not aware of any glob or map still in use or considered accurate that lists north and south America as a single continent. If you are, by all means post a link.
you are right in that it's semantics anyways. But whether or not the north south and central Americas are all one continent is pointless as it's been named for three separate ones. this should cause no more confusion then your brother looking like you but having a different name.
Well, as someone else put it before losing sign in some insane rambling, "Except... It isn't. At least not on any globe I've ever seen. Not anymore than "Dakota" or "Carolina" is a state."
You see, it's North America or South America, not America. Also, when you combine them, it's the Americas as in plural America. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc.. are North American or South American, not American. And when you attempt to claim the US equals united states, you have to take the context of language into play. In English, the description comes before the noun or verb typically. In most other languages, the description comes after. Taking this into consideration, a literal English translation of Mexico's full name would go from Estados Unidos Mexicanos to United Mexican States. Every other country that I know of that has United States in it do so similarly. So even then, there is no comparison to US as it would be SU if anything.
American is the proper name for these reasons. US is the proper short abbreviation for these reasons. Insisting on anything else is creating more of an idocy then what is attempting to be claimed and should be stopped.
What exactly would make someone who has been drinking more dangerous swerving over the lines then someone who is sober? I mean the head on collision would be caused by the person being over the line, not because he was drinking verses being sober. If they are over the lines unintentionally, they are a threat.
Actually, that line is misquoted all the time. There is no law making it illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. What the laws are making illegal is the ability to incite a riot or create a public panic. These laws do not specifically target the First amendment, they target the reactions to the use of the first amendment. If your speech created a public panic or causes a riot and was intentionally crafted to do so, then you can receive punishment for it. But there is no specific exception like this to the fifth amendment where the use can be for something specific without violating the first amendment provision itself. The government is required to follow a certain set of rules regardless of anything you think. The laws do not stop you from making the speech, they simply apply punishment when the intent is shown to create unsafe civil unrest.
You can't have an intact fifth amendment with exceptions to it at all. If you are allowed to make exceptions, then it has no effect at all. It is the literal throwing the baby out with the bath water without going through the motions first. This is different from speech as you can make your point without encouraging the harm of others. I guess I could understand more if you were claiming it doesn't apply to non-citizens or illegal ailiensbut you are qualifying the application of the constitution with what you don't like which means sooner or later someone else will too. and they won't like you in the process.
I guess you simply do not understand the right against self incrimination. And yes, the entire "privilege not a right" thing can be transferable to anything. Making a living is a right just like being able to freely travel, making a living in a specific profession such as a gardener is a privilege just like driving a car, suppose there is a law that mandates in order to buy fertilizer or gardening supplies, you have to allow the cops to search your establishment and all places the fertilizer or tools will be used once a month to make sure you are not growing illegal drugs with it. Now suppose that just like with any other search, anything else illegal that is in plain view, it fair game. Doesn't that seem to violate something?Do you believe it would weaken anything?
Anyone thinking it might be a good idea to post the names and addresses or phone numbers of cops on a website might want to check their state laws first. It's illegal in many states to list or expose the personal addresses and phone numbers of cops and in some cases, the personal email addresses too. Here is a copy of the California code citing this, I know Ohio, Kentucky and a couple other states have laws very similar.
Just posting this because while it sounds like a good idea, it might actually be illegal to do it. Head of the trouble before it starts.
Well, that would be the doctrine of necessity but there are other situations that may apply that could be considered a technicality.
If for instance, the officer claims the reason for the stop was because of excess speed measured by a radar gun and the officer wasn't trained or certified to accurately use the radar gun or the radar gun was tested to be inaccurate an hour later or so, then the reason for the stop and any evidence collected afterward could be tossed out. Similarly, if the breathalyzer machine wasn't calibrated properly or some other problem existed like the calibration solutions were outdated or improperly handled (stored at room temp or whatever), then those results can be tossed allowing someone to escape prosecution.
I picked those examples because they seem to be the most common reasons people claim to have beaten a DUI rap from what I hear. I seemed to have beaten a DUI on a technicality where the cops claimed to have pulled me over for not displaying a front license plate properly but couldn't answer how they knew that from behind me. I was .001 over the legal limit and they agreed to drop everything if I plead guilty to the license plate charge just to make the stop legit. I also know of a case in which a guy ran his car into a ditch while drinking, walked home, stopped at a convenience store and purchased a 12 pack, drank about 6 of them before getting home where the cops happened to be waiting on him some 4 hours later, then when the cops tested his blood alcohol level and charged him, his lawyer got everything dismissed because no one could prove his BAC was over the limit when he was actually driving. Of course he refused to admit that he wrecked the car too, he claimed he pulled over when the car started experiencing engine trouble and couldn't get it to move so he started walking.
You wouldn't want a law like that. Suppose you and 5 of your friends got arrested on DUI in the same night in different parts of the town. Well, lets suppose they aren't your close friends, just friends who support the same causes like Sane laws in the US. Now suppose all five of you were found innocent down the road but now everyone thinks you only want sane laws because you break them all the time.
Getting arrested is somewhat embarrassing for most people and they won't volunteer to talk about it except maybe to their close friends. But seeing their names in the paper is about the only way you are going to know that the police methodically attacked your cause by arresting people for false accusations in order to limit the impact of your political speech.
But you might be thinking, "hey, if they don't put the names in the paper, it won't have that kind of impact". But then you have to think of the story that runs after you go to court that says " 0100010001010011 was acquitted of the charge of driving while intoxicated today in court, the arresting Officer claims 0100010001010011 is involved in a group that is attempting to rewrite laws to make it easier for this to happen." And because your attorney is ignorant of the five other people's cases and they way the scheduling changed, this can happen over the course of a couple months with no one really taking notice if it wasn't for a listing of Tom, Dick, Harry, and 0100010001010011 getting popped all in the same night.
So yea, it's a way to keep tabs on the police too.
Well traditionally, you didn't get a photo with your fish wrapper unless it was a crime so serious that warning the public warranted it (Ie murder, larceny or being) or you were a public official of some sort. To get one of those, you would have needed to either wait until they were convicted or request the record which requires someone to be identified in the process.
What this stops or limits to some degree is vigilantism. If your picture is out there, it's easier for people to identify you because not only is it easier to remember a face then a name, you do not need to ask someone their name to assume you have identified them (if you already know them, well that another story). And contrary to some people's belief, the system is supposed to be about justice not punishment- that is to say punish the people known to be guilty not the ones with accusations or not enough evidence to determine their guilt.
So what has happened is that the police have placed these people's lives in possible danger without any substantial benefit to public safety. And they have done this on a third party website which raises the question of monetary compensation and if this violates any other existing laws pertaining to paying for special treatment or records protected like how it's now against federal to sell certain information from your drivers licenses.
Nearly nothing, lets make that next to nothing, or completely negligable seeing how more fuel is used annually to run to the store for a newspaper or a soda or single under $10 items that aren't even close to being a necessity then the total passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles over the course of 42 years.
There was a study a while back which said that if people could purchase junk food when they purchased their groceries or gas or whatever other reason they needed to be at a store, we could cut something like 15% of our annual fuel usage. Of course I can't find a link to the article on it, but it was about consolidating trips to the store to save on fuel expenses.
Umm.. You forgot that treaties made between other nations which is what is commonly refereed to as international law, which also becomes US law once ratified by the congress, fully support our war in Afghanistan too.
I just wanted to point that out when more "people who don't know what they're talking about" bring up international law for a rebuttal as if it somehow trumps an sovereign nation's right of sovereignty.
Any of it really, especially the face book part though. I don't particularly care for Julian Assange who appears to be motivated primarily by his desire to get in the news- even if it's because his actions got someone killed. I don't condone torture but I wouldn't be heart broken if it happened in that situation.
What video was that?
And you see that as a bad thing?
Basically confess? He actually did confess. The first line of the article starts of with, "A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving.
It doesn't really matter how much evidence there is or how shaky it is, if he plead guilty, he is saying Yea, I did it.
It isn't supposed to protect someone from bad legal advice, it's supposed to protect them from unqualified individuals passing themselves off as a lawyer.
There is a difference between advice on a law and legal advice, The state doesn't really care if you are both a moron and a lawyer as long as you can pass the bar and do not take too much of the courts time up when being an idiot, They do care if you pretend to be someone's lawyer. And this is pretty much true for about any country or political subdivision within to some extent.
There was an article a while back stating that because it was cheaper in these rural third world or out of the way areas to build out cell coverage instead of rolling out and maintaining copper, that most governments were working towards that instead of building traditional pots lines.
This is why you probably had such good coverage. However, had you strayed from a village very far on a minor road, you probably would have seen quite a few outages.
As for setting up these networks for military ops, while not getting into the need to monitor or restrict communications in the field, we have the problem of the Taliban destroying the existing cell towers. This was covered in the article as why something like this would be useful in Afghanistan.
1: The battery compartment can be attacked with thumb screws that tighten down a compressed rubberized seal when attaching it. That would give it similar properties to being hermetically sealed once the battery is in place. You could also make the entire battery compartment modular in so that it can be easily swapped out if something does get broken with normal filed tools a soldier would have at his disposal.
Of course this would require making a special phone which is what the purpose of using existing phones were supposed to avoid. However, there are enough situation that a civilian market for the same robust phones could be profitable.
On the other hand, if battery recharging is the objective of a removable battery, then a rapid charger could probably be build into batteries or a pack to hold the batteries in which it could be attached to the phone for a couple of minutes and transfer a full charge. Lets assume a soldier would carry 4 batteries plus the one in the phone into battle or on patrol to last three or four days without access to anything to recharge with. Instead of placing them into a zip lock bag, simply create a cradle that holds the batteries and protects the phone while it's not in use, then have it constantly transferring power to the phone so it always have a full charge when needed. It might even be possible to use the cradle as a signal booster in the case of an emergency too. (by emergency, I mean calling the wife after being shot, of course they would use the real equipment for getting help unless this replaces some of the bulkier radios).
Actually, that should have been three fifths of the popular vote going to other candidates. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote which is about 2 fifths. Bush Sr got 37% and Perot got 19%.
I must have fat fingered the keyboard and seriously failed to preview before posting.