Yes. It's a better theory because it makes less complicated initial assumptions. (You can't get a much more complicated initial assumption than a god.)
Well, no. The intial assumptions are the same, something was magically there and energy magically became part of it. As for the complications of a god, well, I would think that something doing something is less complicated then a process that we don't know exactly how works, have never been able to recreate in a lab or observed in nature (abiogensis) nor have seen the mechanism working in real life without ignoring major components of the definition of species. Please tell me what these complications might be, as far as I can see, it's just a matter of faith on both sides.
Are you beginning to get a slight idea of how complex an assumption a god is?
Here is more to the point. We just don't know. Your comment about the possibilities of a god can show this but even science goes back to the I don't know or it was somehow magically there point. The same complications exist in either case. The interesting thing is that the shear amount of faith needed given the lack of empirical evidence or testable experiments to prove either started this story off with more or less, "My religion is better then your". Now, I'm not accusing you of this, but you can clearly see how it has become a matter of religion to some by the first posts being, this proves your god doesn't exist or somehow is wrong. Frankly, science doesn't address religius aspects of a god and I'm not exactly sure why people want to be quick to associate it other then it's their new and improved religion.
Dude, it gets more complicated then that. Two golden retrievers separate by an ocean, one in Boston USA and one in Queensland AU appearing different in visual appearance could be classified as a separate species according to the rules of speciation and the separation clauses.
It all depends on how agenda driven and intellectually honest people are. They could be species or races or breeds.
But I like that approach to some degree. Now all those hot Asian girls will have to fuck to prove they aren't a different species from me. Seriously though, it gets a little ridiculous when looking at it from far away.
No, I think that what they mean is that the hard facts are interpreted and not absolute and anyone interpreting them differently can be honest in what they are seeing even if it reaches a different conclusion.
This is a basic principle of science by the way. It's the only way to allow new discoveries concerning what is thought to have been known and to improve our base of knowledge.
And the theory behind science is better? That theory comes about to at some point in time, stuff was just there and with no explanation, energy became part of the mix, a big bang happened that magically create the universe and all that we know but for some reason, Earth is magically the only planet to create life through a spark of energy and a mud puddle, and that unrepeatable process somehow created all of the hundreds of thousand millions different species of life as we know it or ever will. And we can even ignore the definition distinction between breeds and species to claim that a new breed is a speciation event and rule out all other miracles of faith.
Do they sound somewhat the same? Of course they do, some just except one interpretation over the other.
Forgot to mention that advocating wholesale spying on all traffic between the US and Afghanistan/Pakistan is clearly unconstitutional. But according to Yoo the president in order to fulfill his constitutional requirement to protect us is supposed to violate the constitution in spying on all traffic.
No it does not violate the constitution. Here is a prime example of where you have no fucking clue. First of all, the constitution never applied to phone conversations until 1968. And in the ruling that made it apply, the court specifically stated that it was ruling on domestic us phone tapping and assumed that for basis of national security, the administration had the right to tap phones. There was even a later case where the national security allowance was upheld where two American's conspired to dynamite a federal building in Michigan and the courts said the national security part was valid but not applicable because it was a matter of domestic law enforcement instead of national security.
Just because a political body, congress, refuses to proescute doesn't mean nothing wrong happened. It's in their political interest to drop it because there is no public outrage. Many have suggested this is the specific reason why Obama decided not to release the torture pictures after all, because there hasn't been enough outrage over the torture to justify the political flack from the right that he would take over releasing the pics.
Yes it does. When the DOJ and congress refuses to take action when a crime has been accused, it's significantly indicates that no evidence of a crime happened. It is in their political interest to drop it because they knew there was legitimacy to the claims and that those claims would remove a large amount of perceived powers over the administration. Furthermore, congress in turn made into law, the ability to do the same damn warrantless wiretaps knowing of the importance of the program. Obama is not acting because he was right in the middle of congress when this happened and he knows this too.
In any case politicians are motivated by political forces and their action or inaction has little to do with what is right (like prosecuting people for crimes).
Lol.. You are a little wrong there. Besides, in what crazy world are you living in where congress is the only government branch that can make a prosecution? The DOJ, which can act independently of the administration but is under an entirely new administration is refusing to act. It's because they don't think they will get a conviction. And no, plausible deniability doesn't absolve people of a crime, it limits their punishment. That is a political image concept in which politicians attempt to look innocent by being decieved and to not lose their support.
Again, quit imposing your word view onto everything and you will see things for what they really are. Then and only then, if you have an opinion, state it as such and not as some absolute as if you are a fucking magical mind reader and know everything despite being so wrong when spouting it.
And long before this report was generated people within the DoJ expressed concerns about the legality of the program (remember that originally Yoo, Ashcroft (maybe), and James Baker were the only DoJ staff to know of the program (out of around a dozen people in total ) which basically means they had concerns with the memo's that Yoo wrote (in fact this is usually what they had problems with) ). It's no small coincidence that Yoo is the guy that gave the Bush admin legal memos for both spying and torture, both of which have turned out to be not exactly legal.
No, it doesn't. It means that it is a secret program and a way to keep programs secret are by keeping them fucking secret. Christ, half the NSA and CIA actions are secret to all but a handful of people, many of which work with others who have absolutely no clue of the project. And I already laid out the very plausible situation in which Yoo would have been the guy they went to because he handled other projects and keep them secret. Your doing your best to ignore easily seen pasterns here and destroying all concepts of Hanlon's Razor as well as Occam's razor just to place your bias onto it and come out with something that satisfies your world view.
Of course when you make a memo defining out of existence basically all forms of torture you can claim that no one was tortured.
Again, you are subjecting your mental wills to the picture. First, torture is subjective- Amnesty International cited loud music, lack of sleep, exposure to extreme cold and hot weather temps, irregular meal patterns and so on as torture. Never mind that this mirrors a college student's life at a northern university because it also mirrored the life of people in the middle east deserts. But hey, when you are looking to assign malice, I guess their own lifestyles would be torture when repeated by the US government right?
You might want to learn the facts about how basically everything this guy authorized was later rescinded and called into question.
God damn, are you just fucking stupid or what? Anything that happens later is irrelevent to this conversation because you are assigning intent. Intent is something that has to be looked at only when it happens. Being right or wrong does not change intent. Fuck, we just spent the better part of a week discussing that with you claiming you had no fucking insight into their mindset outside of your politicking worldview in which you wanted to look at them in a pessimistic value to satisfy your own ego. You start losing the battle on the wire taps and now you have to bring in a totally unrelated subject of torture. Get a grip man.
Also, other people's opinions are just that, fucking opinions. The only opinions that matter of the trier of facts, or in terms you can understand, the court's. Congress never impeached Bush or Cheney even though articles were introduced several times because they knew that there was necessity in it and that there was some legitimacy to the claim. Necessity provides a legal defense to all charges if they actually are wrong (even though it is still happening today), and congress feared that of Yoo was correct in his interpretation of the constitutional powers of the president, that they would then lose a lot of power and control they exert over the office currently.
Your right, you are no expert. The first Bush president was in office between 1988=1992. It was clinton from 1992 to 2008.
Something similar but not relevant is that Clinton was not only president at the time this law in another country was passed, but his party- the democrats, were the ones who came up with the free speech zones in the US too.
I'm glad that his legal theory was supported by his colleagues/NOT:(
And your point is what? I never said his particular theory was right or wrong, just that the concept is well established and in practice today.
And that ultimately is why the administrations story is unbelievable. They just happened to ask the one lawyer who has a crackpot theory about FISA not applying. It just happened to be a coincidence!
Actually, no, it is not a crack pot theory. In fact, there is so much support for the theory that congress refused to impeach bush and they are refusing to prosecute the administration after they are out of office. This suggests that they know the relevance is somewhat logical and outside of politicking to fool you into voting for specific candidate affiliates, they made absolutely nothing more of it.
Unfortunately John Yoo was much more biased than you allege that I am:( According to him the constitutional role of the government ("protect" us) is to violate the constitution (spy on all traffic):(
What the hell are you talking about? No one violated the constitution unless you are using some abstract interpretation that doesn't fit with established case law or reality in general. You need to spend more time looking at the facts and less time drawing lines between what little you know and your bias.
No, laws that were designed for one thing don't apply when the situation has change and that one thing is now something different and conflict with the constitutional role of a branch of government. That is what Woo said. Now quit putting your own damn bias on it, only paying attention to what you think supports your ideals, and effectivly coming up with something else.
The interesting thing is that there is no requirement for a lawyer to do anything pro-bono. They pretty much have to volunteer for it. So I'm not sure why we would be worried about someone not representing their clients when pro bono operations are more or less either some sort of ego stroking "look at me, I helped those who needed it" or are looking for exposure of some sort to further their career (again, look at me, I did a great job helping this person).
I think that some people have this pro bono just as confused with a public defendant as they do RIAA's civil cases with a criminal prosecution.
You mean like Ireland in the 1800's. Much of their potato famine was a direct cause of access to world markets. They sold everything else to the British.
Or should we go with something like Mexico and some south American countries who were griping just a few years ago that the poorest people couldn't afford to eat because the open market grain prices were so high that their food was being sold over seas instead of at home driving the costs up even more.
But it gets even worse if you look at the natural disasters. Australia is taking outside food donations to help deal with the bush fires and recent flooding. Closer to home, we have Columbia which is struggling against a volcanic eruption, landslides and flooding. Sites like webaid will list a lot of what is going on and their relief efforts.
This is all without acknowledging the fact that the Current US aid incorporates an abundance of US crops to automagicaly assist these foreign countries after a disaster. We recently expanded our operations by almost 800 million dollars. Your question would be obvious in the answer if the US didn't do the things we do.
Think of food as a utility and not a commodity. You cannot live without food, you can live without an Xbox or an Iphone. Remember when food prices jumped 60% 2 years ago when the Mississippi flooded and most of the corn in the Midwest was wiped out? If course you don't. That's because of the food source being protected. IF we didn't do that and all those corrective measured disappeared, then when 20% of the food supply disappears, the only alternative is for prices to go up in so that it self rations the supply. That has a devastating effect on the population that I don't think either of us want to see.
I'm normally for heavy regulation of corporations so long as it is GOOD regulation; corporations NEVER have the public welfare or public good in mind.
First off, you need to change never to rarely or often. Any good ran corporation knows that if it's product sucks, it's competitor will take them over. Any good corporation knows that if it's product is too expensive, their competitors will take them over because people will either look for the value or the cheapest. GM is proof of this, so is walmart compared to other retailers.
Second, I don't necessarily disagree with your statement over the regulation except that I think it should be as minimal as possible and the regulation needs to be as effective as possible as well as enforced. All regulation raises the bar for entry and the ability for smaller operations to remain in business. This is probably why you have your attitude towards corporations, if there isn't sufficient competition, and the likelihood of the competition arriving seems low, then there is no incentive to worry about who if purchasing your products and services.
People say the electricity problems in California were from overragulation, but rather than overragulation they stemmed from BAD regulation.
I agree. But wrong or bad regulation is almost the same as over regulation so we are somewhat splitting hairs.
In the US, there is a lot of BAD regulation regarding farming. Small family farms are dying, big megacorporation food factories are taking over. And the food sucks. I'm glad I have a back yard I can grow a garden in, too bad the city won't let me keep livestock.
This isn't as bad as you might think. Something like 92% of farms in America are considered small farms (making less then $250,000 in annual sales) and this accounts for about 67% of the land currently being farmed. Now don't get confused when small farms are incorporated- That's just a way to insure losses don't crop over to other income.
As for the garden, I have one too, I also do farm and raise cattle. Here is a secrete that might help you with your livestock problem though. Farm land currently rents in my area for around 50-80 dollars per acre per year. All you need is someone with some pasture land who isn't using it, find a couple of friends to go in with you and rent 5-10 acres of scrub land with a water source. With that, you can place some Dexter cattle on it (2 times as many normal cattle), put up a couple of those canvas lean to's or pop-up garages for the shelter, depending on the amount of cattle, feed round bales once a day or every other day (you shouldn't go much longer the 2 days without looking at all your live stock on a small farm and Dexters will eat about 1/3 as much as a full grown cow). You can also use a small 150'x25' section to put a couple of hogs in, and make a chicken coop out of bamboo and chicken wire so you can easily pick it up and move it around.
For the chickens, I don't know how much feed they will need but the pigs will need about 9-10 bushel of corn and half a bushel of soybean (in the first 75 lbs of growth and both cracked) per pig if that gives you an idea of how much they need if you want to get more land and attempt to grow your own feed. An acre, depending on if you use fertilizers and pesticides and all should give between 100-200 bushels of corn. Scrub land will probably be less unless you can make a shit load of compost to put on it before drilling the crop. One ton of soil will cover an acre about the thickness of a dime so you would need roughly 10-20 tons to have a decent effect per acre. You can usually find a close by farmer who will work the ground and drill a couple acres of corn cheap. Of course then you will need a means to store it. And remember, when looking at feed corn, protein content is what is important, not sugar content as if you were growing sweet corn for human consumption.
hahahahhahaha, so John Yoo is just a normal lawyer, even though he believes the executive can disregard FISA because it's obsolete,
I don't believe I said that and I don't believe John Woo said that either. OF course if he has access to the administration and high level officials in the act of doing his daily job, he is not just another lawyer. And as for the obsolete, I believe his full comment was about fighting a war with enemies not traditionally defined, it becomes obsolete and not applicable.
and that we should just spy on all phone calls, text and email between here and Afghanistan + Pakistan? ROFLMAO
You can role around laughing all you want, they were attempting to do their job however misguided that was. People expected some level of action for their protection and that is what you got.
Yeah he's not painfully obviously biased at all. I mean go ask your business lawyer if the constitution doesn't prevent both of those things. You = the pot.
I have never ever said he wasn't biased or that he was innocent or that the administration was. I am saying which is still true today, that ignorance could be just as much or totally to blame rather then malice and your assignment of malice is completely arbitrary, without merit, and of your own bias. You already admitted as much when you said you had no insight other then your pessimistic outlook.
The food price stability argument is bullshit. If the government were really concerned about food shortages in times of crisis they would set up emergency food supply stores across the country. You would only need to store things like grains, which last for a very long time and provide enough nutrition to live on until the crisis has passed. This would cost the US citizen significantly less per year than the farm subsidies do.
Lol... You must be a special kind of ignorant. This is already done and has been since the mid 1930's. That's what most of the subsidies do. OF course instead of letting the grain rot, we give it away as foreign aid when we rotate it out. But then again, if all the farms went under, we couldn't even do that now could we? Maybe you should look at the USDA site a little better. Pay particular attention to the Commodity Credit Corporation. And don't be thrown off by the words Corporation in there.
The difference is that there is plenty of sources of food outside your employment. Government aid is one of them, private charities are another while friends and family should not be forgotten.
If you lose your job, there will be something you can eat in order to stay alive. Homeless people with absolutely no jobs at all are able to live. It happens all the time.
I never said ignorance of the law was an excuse. What I said is given the option of being legal or not, the same decisions would have been made. It's a matter of only knowing what they knew then and not knowing what we know now. If Bush thought he was acting legally, then saying he should have did it legally would have resulted in the same exact actions happening given what he claims to of known at the time.
As I said in the previous post, in the context of the op and not the law or morals or anything, the actions would have been the same because the knowledge that is present now would still have been missing.
1. The free market cannot be trusted to maintain price stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the price of food, then people might not be able to afford it, or in the reverse, that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish. When it comes to basic needs things like food, electricity, water, stability often sought after.
You would be surprised at how unobvious that is to so many people. I recently spent the better part of 5 or 6 posts talking to a guy over subsidies and their intent while all along he couldn't distinguish between protecting a food source (starvation) compared to protecting manufacturing jobs and so on.
I think you are missing his point. If there are X people that downloaded the file, then it would be X-1 (the last person) who uploaded it and X-1 (the first person) who downloaded it. So if X is 10 people in the group with the file, 9 downloaded and 9 uploaded if it distributed normally.
Now, no matter what tech is behind this, you have 9 uploads and 9 downloads if that was true. You can say that is the max uploads (distributions) that happened from computer A or B or whatever because there are X copies. This is important for several reasons. If you claim computer A distributed 8 copies and computer B distributed 10 copies, obviously there is a problem because we know only 10 copies exist and because the first person doesn't download and the last person doesn't upload, only 9 possible distributions happened and we have an accounting for twice as much distributions. You can also take the type of connection, the speed, the time connected and calculate a maximum transmission rate which can show the maximum amount of distributions possible. Suppose computer B has a dial up connection and A has a 1 meg dsl (786 down 256 up). Now during the time the person was on the network, They can only do so much as they are limited by the technology driving their connections (and their computers and routers of anything else that shares the connection). But I think the ops point is that you can accurately claim that if there is only 10 copies on the network, only 9 distributions happens so you can't create a total of more then that.
Also to note, that part of hte firearm will also have the serial numbers on it and must be a part not availible by another manufacturer unless it is also serialized and subject to the same classification.
I remember hearing of a guy who had a stripped down frame for a revolver sitting on his workbench when a fire broke out in the kitchen of his home (right next to the room where he was working). He was actually charged with some anal local firearms violation because it was left unattended without a trigger lock on it and the frame constituted the gun itself. I guess one of the fire fighters saw it during the what happened investigation. The attempted to get him on a Federal Fire Arms license violation (he was a dealer and gun smith) but the BATF didn't want anything to do with it. He eventually got out of it but it costs him some money to do so.
Probably because glasses with screens in them do two things. First they give people headaches after prolonged use of them unless you can see through the images or the images are peripheral instead of the focal point. The second thing is that you wouldn't be able to see the keyboard or other things on the desk when using the glasses like a normal web cam. It might make a fun toy but would severely limit the applications.
I wonder what happens when you ask John Yoo about whether or not your wire tapping program is legal? Lets look at his latest opinion piece (today) in the wall street Journal:
Well then ask him and quit speculating and assigning malice with nothing more then your biased opinion. Fuck, the entire thread is about what they claimed they thought, not about what you want to think they thought. Get over yourself.
The best way to find an al-Qaida operative is to look at all e-mail, text and phone traffic between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the U.S. This might involve the filtering of innocent traffic, just as roadblocks and airport screenings do.
Guess what he authorizes your program, and later all of his memos are critized by other lawyers, who say that he only worried about the 4th amendment, and not FISA....because guess what:
t is absurd to think that a law like FISA should restrict live military operations against potential attacks on the United States.... In FISA, President Bush and his advisers faced an obsolete law not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind.
The courts have already ruled that projects like Echelon and magic lantern were legal because computers do the searching and filtering and discard matched that don't fit the string ensuring privacy. Now it is absurd to think that congress or any other branch of government can impead the constitutional obligations and roles of other branched of government. I don't find fault in that statement. You would be likely find it just as absurd if the congress passed a law that said you have no free speech rights and the courts cannot review the law ever. The courts would be breaking the law by reviewing it but they wouldn't have to ever worry about that law because it couldn't ever apply. This is true just as the president cannot through executive order declare that all presidents after him cannot sign any global warming treaty or reverse the executive order. There is absurd reaches of other branches of government into certain branches and even though the law may be rash and applicable in one instance, it may be totally irrelevant in another while working over the same mechanics of similar situations.
Take for instance a law that says you cannot kill another person. But even though that is the law, in the defense of yourself or others, it becomes irrelevant when you are not the aggressor. In most states, this is 100% the case even though there is no self defense exception in law nor anything in the murder laws allowing it. Why, because the right to self preservation and the preservation of life in general when you are innocent of the aggression trumps the laws in place and it isn't aplicable.
Maybe they thought this guy was legit, but its not hard to see why someone would ask THIS guy (of all attorneys) about a domestic wire tapping program. And it's even less hard to see why this calls into question the assertion that "well we asked for legal advice and the advice told us it was ok" when the advice is coming form this guy.
It's highly likely, given the Woo's involvement here that he was privilege to aspects of the secrete program already. It's really not much different then asking your cardiologist about spots breaking out on your back when your already there to see him for whatever other reason. IF Woo was around, was close to knowing about the program, it is a logical step to ask that person standing there taking care of similar and related material.
Even from a legal aspect, I have asked my business attorney questions about a probate case while I was with him changing an owner's name on a LLC holding. Of course he referred me to an in house specialist on the subject but it is entirely possible that he could have handled the probate claims also. People, especially those who are ignorant of the legalities, ask th
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. The intial assumptions are the same, something was magically there and energy magically became part of it. As for the complications of a god, well, I would think that something doing something is less complicated then a process that we don't know exactly how works, have never been able to recreate in a lab or observed in nature (abiogensis) nor have seen the mechanism working in real life without ignoring major components of the definition of species. Please tell me what these complications might be, as far as I can see, it's just a matter of faith on both sides.
Here is more to the point. We just don't know. Your comment about the possibilities of a god can show this but even science goes back to the I don't know or it was somehow magically there point. The same complications exist in either case. The interesting thing is that the shear amount of faith needed given the lack of empirical evidence or testable experiments to prove either started this story off with more or less, "My religion is better then your". Now, I'm not accusing you of this, but you can clearly see how it has become a matter of religion to some by the first posts being, this proves your god doesn't exist or somehow is wrong. Frankly, science doesn't address religius aspects of a god and I'm not exactly sure why people want to be quick to associate it other then it's their new and improved religion.
Dude, it gets more complicated then that. Two golden retrievers separate by an ocean, one in Boston USA and one in Queensland AU appearing different in visual appearance could be classified as a separate species according to the rules of speciation and the separation clauses.
It all depends on how agenda driven and intellectually honest people are. They could be species or races or breeds.
But I like that approach to some degree. Now all those hot Asian girls will have to fuck to prove they aren't a different species from me. Seriously though, it gets a little ridiculous when looking at it from far away.
No, I think that what they mean is that the hard facts are interpreted and not absolute and anyone interpreting them differently can be honest in what they are seeing even if it reaches a different conclusion.
This is a basic principle of science by the way. It's the only way to allow new discoveries concerning what is thought to have been known and to improve our base of knowledge.
And the theory behind science is better? That theory comes about to at some point in time, stuff was just there and with no explanation, energy became part of the mix, a big bang happened that magically create the universe and all that we know but for some reason, Earth is magically the only planet to create life through a spark of energy and a mud puddle, and that unrepeatable process somehow created all of the hundreds of thousand millions different species of life as we know it or ever will. And we can even ignore the definition distinction between breeds and species to claim that a new breed is a speciation event and rule out all other miracles of faith.
Do they sound somewhat the same? Of course they do, some just except one interpretation over the other.
No it does not violate the constitution. Here is a prime example of where you have no fucking clue. First of all, the constitution never applied to phone conversations until 1968. And in the ruling that made it apply, the court specifically stated that it was ruling on domestic us phone tapping and assumed that for basis of national security, the administration had the right to tap phones. There was even a later case where the national security allowance was upheld where two American's conspired to dynamite a federal building in Michigan and the courts said the national security part was valid but not applicable because it was a matter of domestic law enforcement instead of national security.
Yes it does. When the DOJ and congress refuses to take action when a crime has been accused, it's significantly indicates that no evidence of a crime happened. It is in their political interest to drop it because they knew there was legitimacy to the claims and that those claims would remove a large amount of perceived powers over the administration. Furthermore, congress in turn made into law, the ability to do the same damn warrantless wiretaps knowing of the importance of the program. Obama is not acting because he was right in the middle of congress when this happened and he knows this too.
Lol.. You are a little wrong there. Besides, in what crazy world are you living in where congress is the only government branch that can make a prosecution? The DOJ, which can act independently of the administration but is under an entirely new administration is refusing to act. It's because they don't think they will get a conviction. And no, plausible deniability doesn't absolve people of a crime, it limits their punishment. That is a political image concept in which politicians attempt to look innocent by being decieved and to not lose their support.
Again, quit imposing your word view onto everything and you will see things for what they really are. Then and only then, if you have an opinion, state it as such and not as some absolute as if you are a fucking magical mind reader and know everything despite being so wrong when spouting it.
No, it doesn't. It means that it is a secret program and a way to keep programs secret are by keeping them fucking secret. Christ, half the NSA and CIA actions are secret to all but a handful of people, many of which work with others who have absolutely no clue of the project. And I already laid out the very plausible situation in which Yoo would have been the guy they went to because he handled other projects and keep them secret. Your doing your best to ignore easily seen pasterns here and destroying all concepts of Hanlon's Razor as well as Occam's razor just to place your bias onto it and come out with something that satisfies your world view.
Again, you are subjecting your mental wills to the picture. First, torture is subjective- Amnesty International cited loud music, lack of sleep, exposure to extreme cold and hot weather temps, irregular meal patterns and so on as torture. Never mind that this mirrors a college student's life at a northern university because it also mirrored the life of people in the middle east deserts. But hey, when you are looking to assign malice, I guess their own lifestyles would be torture when repeated by the US government right?
God damn, are you just fucking stupid or what? Anything that happens later is irrelevent to this conversation because you are assigning intent. Intent is something that has to be looked at only when it happens. Being right or wrong does not change intent. Fuck, we just spent the better part of a week discussing that with you claiming you had no fucking insight into their mindset outside of your politicking worldview in which you wanted to look at them in a pessimistic value to satisfy your own ego. You start losing the battle on the wire taps and now you have to bring in a totally unrelated subject of torture. Get a grip man.
Also, other people's opinions are just that, fucking opinions. The only opinions that matter of the trier of facts, or in terms you can understand, the court's. Congress never impeached Bush or Cheney even though articles were introduced several times because they knew that there was necessity in it and that there was some legitimacy to the claim. Necessity provides a legal defense to all charges if they actually are wrong (even though it is still happening today), and congress feared that of Yoo was correct in his interpretation of the constitutional powers of the president, that they would then lose a lot of power and control they exert over the office currently.
Your right, you are no expert. The first Bush president was in office between 1988=1992. It was clinton from 1992 to 2008.
Something similar but not relevant is that Clinton was not only president at the time this law in another country was passed, but his party- the democrats, were the ones who came up with the free speech zones in the US too.
And your point is what? I never said his particular theory was right or wrong, just that the concept is well established and in practice today.
Actually, no, it is not a crack pot theory. In fact, there is so much support for the theory that congress refused to impeach bush and they are refusing to prosecute the administration after they are out of office. This suggests that they know the relevance is somewhat logical and outside of politicking to fool you into voting for specific candidate affiliates, they made absolutely nothing more of it.
What the hell are you talking about? No one violated the constitution unless you are using some abstract interpretation that doesn't fit with established case law or reality in general. You need to spend more time looking at the facts and less time drawing lines between what little you know and your bias.
Unless your trespassing. Assuming that's not happening, rock on.
Isn't that going to get kind of expensive having all your parties shut down by the cops?
No, laws that were designed for one thing don't apply when the situation has change and that one thing is now something different and conflict with the constitutional role of a branch of government. That is what Woo said. Now quit putting your own damn bias on it, only paying attention to what you think supports your ideals, and effectivly coming up with something else.
Exactly!
The interesting thing is that there is no requirement for a lawyer to do anything pro-bono. They pretty much have to volunteer for it. So I'm not sure why we would be worried about someone not representing their clients when pro bono operations are more or less either some sort of ego stroking "look at me, I helped those who needed it" or are looking for exposure of some sort to further their career (again, look at me, I did a great job helping this person).
I think that some people have this pro bono just as confused with a public defendant as they do RIAA's civil cases with a criminal prosecution.
You mean like Ireland in the 1800's. Much of their potato famine was a direct cause of access to world markets. They sold everything else to the British.
Or should we go with something like Mexico and some south American countries who were griping just a few years ago that the poorest people couldn't afford to eat because the open market grain prices were so high that their food was being sold over seas instead of at home driving the costs up even more.
But it gets even worse if you look at the natural disasters. Australia is taking outside food donations to help deal with the bush fires and recent flooding. Closer to home, we have Columbia which is struggling against a volcanic eruption, landslides and flooding. Sites like webaid will list a lot of what is going on and their relief efforts.
This is all without acknowledging the fact that the Current US aid incorporates an abundance of US crops to automagicaly assist these foreign countries after a disaster. We recently expanded our operations by almost 800 million dollars. Your question would be obvious in the answer if the US didn't do the things we do.
Think of food as a utility and not a commodity. You cannot live without food, you can live without an Xbox or an Iphone. Remember when food prices jumped 60% 2 years ago when the Mississippi flooded and most of the corn in the Midwest was wiped out? If course you don't. That's because of the food source being protected. IF we didn't do that and all those corrective measured disappeared, then when 20% of the food supply disappears, the only alternative is for prices to go up in so that it self rations the supply. That has a devastating effect on the population that I don't think either of us want to see.
First off, you need to change never to rarely or often. Any good ran corporation knows that if it's product sucks, it's competitor will take them over. Any good corporation knows that if it's product is too expensive, their competitors will take them over because people will either look for the value or the cheapest. GM is proof of this, so is walmart compared to other retailers.
Second, I don't necessarily disagree with your statement over the regulation except that I think it should be as minimal as possible and the regulation needs to be as effective as possible as well as enforced. All regulation raises the bar for entry and the ability for smaller operations to remain in business. This is probably why you have your attitude towards corporations, if there isn't sufficient competition, and the likelihood of the competition arriving seems low, then there is no incentive to worry about who if purchasing your products and services.
I agree. But wrong or bad regulation is almost the same as over regulation so we are somewhat splitting hairs.
This isn't as bad as you might think. Something like 92% of farms in America are considered small farms (making less then $250,000 in annual sales) and this accounts for about 67% of the land currently being farmed. Now don't get confused when small farms are incorporated- That's just a way to insure losses don't crop over to other income.
As for the garden, I have one too, I also do farm and raise cattle. Here is a secrete that might help you with your livestock problem though. Farm land currently rents in my area for around 50-80 dollars per acre per year. All you need is someone with some pasture land who isn't using it, find a couple of friends to go in with you and rent 5-10 acres of scrub land with a water source. With that, you can place some Dexter cattle on it (2 times as many normal cattle), put up a couple of those canvas lean to's or pop-up garages for the shelter, depending on the amount of cattle, feed round bales once a day or every other day (you shouldn't go much longer the 2 days without looking at all your live stock on a small farm and Dexters will eat about 1/3 as much as a full grown cow). You can also use a small 150'x25' section to put a couple of hogs in, and make a chicken coop out of bamboo and chicken wire so you can easily pick it up and move it around.
For the chickens, I don't know how much feed they will need but the pigs will need about 9-10 bushel of corn and half a bushel of soybean (in the first 75 lbs of growth and both cracked) per pig if that gives you an idea of how much they need if you want to get more land and attempt to grow your own feed. An acre, depending on if you use fertilizers and pesticides and all should give between 100-200 bushels of corn. Scrub land will probably be less unless you can make a shit load of compost to put on it before drilling the crop. One ton of soil will cover an acre about the thickness of a dime so you would need roughly 10-20 tons to have a decent effect per acre. You can usually find a close by farmer who will work the ground and drill a couple acres of corn cheap. Of course then you will need a means to store it. And remember, when looking at feed corn, protein content is what is important, not sugar content as if you were growing sweet corn for human consumption.
Anyways,
I don't believe I said that and I don't believe John Woo said that either. OF course if he has access to the administration and high level officials in the act of doing his daily job, he is not just another lawyer. And as for the obsolete, I believe his full comment was about fighting a war with enemies not traditionally defined, it becomes obsolete and not applicable.
You can role around laughing all you want, they were attempting to do their job however misguided that was. People expected some level of action for their protection and that is what you got.
I have never ever said he wasn't biased or that he was innocent or that the administration was. I am saying which is still true today, that ignorance could be just as much or totally to blame rather then malice and your assignment of malice is completely arbitrary, without merit, and of your own bias. You already admitted as much when you said you had no insight other then your pessimistic outlook.
Lol... You must be a special kind of ignorant. This is already done and has been since the mid 1930's. That's what most of the subsidies do. OF course instead of letting the grain rot, we give it away as foreign aid when we rotate it out. But then again, if all the farms went under, we couldn't even do that now could we? Maybe you should look at the USDA site a little better. Pay particular attention to the Commodity Credit Corporation. And don't be thrown off by the words Corporation in there.
The difference is that there is plenty of sources of food outside your employment. Government aid is one of them, private charities are another while friends and family should not be forgotten.
If you lose your job, there will be something you can eat in order to stay alive. Homeless people with absolutely no jobs at all are able to live. It happens all the time.
I never said ignorance of the law was an excuse. What I said is given the option of being legal or not, the same decisions would have been made. It's a matter of only knowing what they knew then and not knowing what we know now. If Bush thought he was acting legally, then saying he should have did it legally would have resulted in the same exact actions happening given what he claims to of known at the time.
As I said in the previous post, in the context of the op and not the law or morals or anything, the actions would have been the same because the knowledge that is present now would still have been missing.
You would be surprised at how unobvious that is to so many people. I recently spent the better part of 5 or 6 posts talking to a guy over subsidies and their intent while all along he couldn't distinguish between protecting a food source (starvation) compared to protecting manufacturing jobs and so on.
Don't be surprised.
I think you are missing his point. If there are X people that downloaded the file, then it would be X-1 (the last person) who uploaded it and X-1 (the first person) who downloaded it. So if X is 10 people in the group with the file, 9 downloaded and 9 uploaded if it distributed normally.
Now, no matter what tech is behind this, you have 9 uploads and 9 downloads if that was true. You can say that is the max uploads (distributions) that happened from computer A or B or whatever because there are X copies. This is important for several reasons. If you claim computer A distributed 8 copies and computer B distributed 10 copies, obviously there is a problem because we know only 10 copies exist and because the first person doesn't download and the last person doesn't upload, only 9 possible distributions happened and we have an accounting for twice as much distributions. You can also take the type of connection, the speed, the time connected and calculate a maximum transmission rate which can show the maximum amount of distributions possible. Suppose computer B has a dial up connection and A has a 1 meg dsl (786 down 256 up). Now during the time the person was on the network, They can only do so much as they are limited by the technology driving their connections (and their computers and routers of anything else that shares the connection). But I think the ops point is that you can accurately claim that if there is only 10 copies on the network, only 9 distributions happens so you can't create a total of more then that.
Also to note, that part of hte firearm will also have the serial numbers on it and must be a part not availible by another manufacturer unless it is also serialized and subject to the same classification.
I remember hearing of a guy who had a stripped down frame for a revolver sitting on his workbench when a fire broke out in the kitchen of his home (right next to the room where he was working). He was actually charged with some anal local firearms violation because it was left unattended without a trigger lock on it and the frame constituted the gun itself. I guess one of the fire fighters saw it during the what happened investigation. The attempted to get him on a Federal Fire Arms license violation (he was a dealer and gun smith) but the BATF didn't want anything to do with it. He eventually got out of it but it costs him some money to do so.
Probably because glasses with screens in them do two things. First they give people headaches after prolonged use of them unless you can see through the images or the images are peripheral instead of the focal point. The second thing is that you wouldn't be able to see the keyboard or other things on the desk when using the glasses like a normal web cam. It might make a fun toy but would severely limit the applications.
Well then ask him and quit speculating and assigning malice with nothing more then your biased opinion. Fuck, the entire thread is about what they claimed they thought, not about what you want to think they thought. Get over yourself.
The courts have already ruled that projects like Echelon and magic lantern were legal because computers do the searching and filtering and discard matched that don't fit the string ensuring privacy. Now it is absurd to think that congress or any other branch of government can impead the constitutional obligations and roles of other branched of government. I don't find fault in that statement. You would be likely find it just as absurd if the congress passed a law that said you have no free speech rights and the courts cannot review the law ever. The courts would be breaking the law by reviewing it but they wouldn't have to ever worry about that law because it couldn't ever apply. This is true just as the president cannot through executive order declare that all presidents after him cannot sign any global warming treaty or reverse the executive order. There is absurd reaches of other branches of government into certain branches and even though the law may be rash and applicable in one instance, it may be totally irrelevant in another while working over the same mechanics of similar situations.
Take for instance a law that says you cannot kill another person. But even though that is the law, in the defense of yourself or others, it becomes irrelevant when you are not the aggressor. In most states, this is 100% the case even though there is no self defense exception in law nor anything in the murder laws allowing it. Why, because the right to self preservation and the preservation of life in general when you are innocent of the aggression trumps the laws in place and it isn't aplicable.
It's highly likely, given the Woo's involvement here that he was privilege to aspects of the secrete program already. It's really not much different then asking your cardiologist about spots breaking out on your back when your already there to see him for whatever other reason. IF Woo was around, was close to knowing about the program, it is a logical step to ask that person standing there taking care of similar and related material.
Even from a legal aspect, I have asked my business attorney questions about a probate case while I was with him changing an owner's name on a LLC holding. Of course he referred me to an in house specialist on the subject but it is entirely possible that he could have handled the probate claims also. People, especially those who are ignorant of the legalities, ask th