If he can't read it then he can't read it. Of course he might report the procedure incomplete because of file encryption and the judge might look at it with skepticism.
However, I have seen several replies about obfuscating the files in some way and your suggesting encryption. The problem is that having the files in the computer in and of itself isn't against the law or against what the lawsuit is about. what is at question is whether or not the files were being offered to anyone else and whether or not anyone else got them (distribution and copying outside of fair use). Your not really going to be able to share files that are encrypted unless you decrypt them or the partition they are on first. No one looking for Britney Spears latest hits will be looking for.doc or.ffm or.whatever files, they will be looking for a known file type by extention so they can use it.
Now here is where the problem with these overly complex schemes come up. If your using true crypt to hide a sharing folder/partition, there will be markers in the file sharing software pointing to the directory and flags will be raised when everything is encrypted and the forensics software can't access it. If you download to a specific folder and then move it to another or change the file extension, there is/could be a good chance that a deleted file will remain in either meta data on the file system or it's actual content would remain as the file is rewritten from memory. I would hope that people know by now that a deleted file isn't actually deleted and secure erasing becomes more difficult with large drives and Logical Block addressing where the firmware on the drive controller interprets the file positions and acts as a middleman to the operating system (some of which has been addressed with native 48bit addressing in the IDE controllers). Most modern multiuser file system will also load a file into memory from the dive and instead of appending the existing information,>/a> it actually rewrite the file to another location and mark the old file as deleted.
But to make obfuscating the files more complex, when you down load something to your encrypted location, the file doesn't directly go there. it goes to a temporary location to be reassembled first then copied over to the correct location. This could leave remnants of the files on the disk directly and/or possibly in the swap file that could be seen later with the correct tools. There for a while, people were able to pull credit card information entered into web browsers for online shopping from swap files on computers even after a couple of reboots. Also, the code for the true crypt could be stored in the swap file too and with the right tools, access and used to decode your super secrete partitions.
Here is a brief article describing some of the places you should look to cover your ass with if your that concerned. Keep in mind that many applications keep their own cache which can expose information on it's own outside of the ones mentioned. Most P2P software will have a cache of torrents being served, it may also keep a history of them that can come back to bite you. Normally people won't have the means to be this thorough but the judge required a forensic examination buy the experts of the RIAA's choice which pretty much assures you that they will go that far considering the other lengths they have went to.
Not really. The forensic expert wouldn't technically be looking at anything the software doesn't pin as a music file.
The software can anonymously (can't think of the word I want but this is close enough) scan through each file and only log or flag the ones labeled as music then after a more thorough check, report only what is music files as to what the case is about. The forensic expert will by the very nature of the game need to look at files other then what is ordered in order to make his report. What he can't do is list any files not in the order nor disclose any information about them.
Imagine if I told you to pick me out of a crowd. You would have to look at other people to find me. Not even if you used facial recognition software, you would still have to look at other people to find me. It's the same in the forensic world, however, you wouldn't be allowed to identify or report the identity of anyone else in the crowd if the judge made a similar order to your searching just for me. The order won't defeat the technical aspects of the search, just limit the disclosure and discovery of anything not outlined in the order.
Remember, the RIAA may be saying that downloading is illegal, but they're prosecuting based on unauthorized distribution laws (uploading).
There is nothing in the copyright laws to date making downloading illegal. It all pertains to unauthorized copying and distribution outside of fair use (fair dealings in other countries).
This is something that has extremely irritated me about the **ia's for a long time. Now when you download something, you might be causing something to be copied but technically speaking, it's the distributor's system making the copy on demand.
I have a ten acre lot which is about 250 yards by 200 yards next to my bean field. It is about 250 yards from where we launch with a motor cross track in the middle of it. It's five acres across if you look at it in 100 yard wide residential plots which is pretty much the norm for my area. If you ask my neighbor or anyone in the area how much 5 acres was, they would just tell you your yard at 250 yards long.
I understand that not everyone everywhere will be as familiar with this so that's why I included the 250 yards.
I don't know. I have a gun, an M-40 like riffle (I have some British version 7.62 x 51 mm but it's the same design minus the scope) left over from Korea or something like that which is accurate with an effective range out to about 1000 meters (1076 yards). This is just under two thirds of a mile for perspective.
My friend has a BMG 50 caliber riffle that a range of over a mile (2000+ yards or 1.1 miles). I have a potato cannon that's accurate enough from 50-100 yards away but also works like a mortar launcher that we can peg a bush roughly 5 acres away (about 250 yards).
The reason I pointed that out is that the google cameras, at least on the street view pics I have seen, seem to be focused really close to the unit. From half the distance I mentioned, someone would be little more then a blur if not just a dot. Of course all that changes if the the cameras pick up everything and software focuses the images for the applications. But from what we see, the images barely make it down a full street block before getting blurry at least in perspective. That means no too much usable evidence for the cops if done at a distance or from behind some structure.
I'm not sure what your attempting to claim here but a lack of breathing Co2 us just as dangerous to humans and animals as too much Co2. If you look at the requirements for the OSHA confined space entry, there is a minimum and a maximum Co2 level required before you can enter without self contained or supplied breathing equipment.
Don't confuse the overdose of something for the regular effects. Acetaminophen can cause liver failure but not in the normal dosages. Alcohol poisoning can kill a person but no one things one or two glasses of wine a week is a bad thing, in fact, some studies show it is beneficial. So lets put our critical thinking hats on and remain without reason when discussing crap like this.
I hate to break this to you but the first two on your list were deist not atheist. Jefferson and Franklin both believed in a higher power, they just weren't convinced to the role it played in everyone's lives or that the concept of Jesus was accurate.
He is right, there is no proof of evolution on the scale needed for the speciation in the theory of evolution to be accurate. There is evidence that supports it but to date, we have not seen any animal turn into an existing or new species unless the definition of species is relaxed.
Now the evidence is strong to support evolution but there will always be a doubt about it. Well, there will unless your throwing the scientific method out the window and creating yet another religion based around what someone thinks the truth is.
Keep in mind, proof is a direct observation or a direct fact recovered from the observation. Evidence proves the likelihood but wouldn't be proof because it's still interpreted.
Don't forget the if's associated here too. Some of them might be,
If any data can be pulled off the drive, If they still have the software to restore the hard drive, if they can still find all the installation keys, if the install media isn't one of those anal restore CDs built into a hidden partition on the drive and you were supposed to make a copy of it using some program that keep popping up and anoying you until you uninstalled it or disabled it while failing to make the required back up medium. If the backup/restore medium you created actually works because no one tests these things after the make them until a problem arises. If..
Well, there are a lot of ifs involved with a bad hard drive that could make it more reasonable to go the new route too.
When I had my shop open, I made a wall mounted board with all that stuff. It was all used and broken parts but it allowed the user to see what the assembled computer looks like without the case and had each part pulled to the side with a brief explanation of it's function.
They could learn all they wanted just by browsing the sales area but we also brought them to the bench to show them what was up with their specific computer. And with new technology coming around all the time, it wasn't hard to get new parts when someone's rocket scientist neighbor or super smark 7 year old grandson helps fix something before they bring it in for you to fix right. Usually we could get new CPUs for display in about 4 months from them coming to market. I loved looking at the waves in the rows of pins where they realized too late that the new CPU either doesn't fit into the old socket or it fits only one way and you shouldn't need to use force to get it to seat.
What do you suppose they check the email or URL out on when their hard drive is crashed?
That's something that always puzzled me. Our local electric coop decided to discontinue the 800 number to see if your power outage was already reported. Instead, they went to a website so that you can conveniently turn on your computer without electricity, navigate through your dark as night router to enter your address in a website to see if your power outage needs to be reported or not. At least with the 800 number, it used your phone number from caller ID (or enter it manu8aly) to check your billing records for your address coverage and if it wasn't reported, you could just press numbers on the keypad at the prompts and automatically report the outage. Now you conveniently need to not need power at your house to report an outage.
If the Hard driver is mirrored why would they need to reinstall office/antivirus?!
The correct answer is they wouldn't need it reinstalled. MS office will sometimes complain it needs the install disk after mirroring a drive because the serial number on the drive changed and it does some stupid checks when it accesses install when required features. Antivirus software sometimes complains about the boot sector being different and you have accept the changes too.
But you have to question the ethics of companies like the "geek squad" and outfits like them. They may all act differently in different locations but we have seen the reports of "secure destruction" of older upgraded drives ending up being selling them at flea markets instead of drilling holes in it or baking it in an oven like they claim. I actually had to send a cease and desist letter to the local best buy/geek squad back in 2003 or so because they were telling potential customers that if they took their computer to my shop, it would void the warranty and that I would take the good parts out and put old parts in to make it break faster. I found this out after sending a customer who needed a working system faster then I could build it to best buy to purchase one of the cheap bulk systems. Turns out they were saying that about any tech shop if it was mentioned during the sales pitch to get the geek squad to "set up" the new computer for $30 or $60.
One day, I sent a customer to bestbuy to pick up a US robotics hardware modem for a Linux server because I was out a job site in another town and wouldn't be able to swing buy to get one and fix his system before everyone closed. When I showed up at midnight, I found that he returned with a wintel modem and an XP home CD because after the sales droid got stumped on the difference between a hardware modem and a software modem, they asked the geek squad which told him that XP was the better OS and he should be running it so he could use the cheap wintel modem instead of the then $90 US robotics modem. Of course XP, especially XP home, can't run hylafax, nor does it have the ability to control the robotic tape library attached to the Linux box (at least not without buying some expensive software). Then best buy was refusing to take the XP home retail software back until I went down with him and explained how the only reason it was purchased was because of the incompetence of their sales staff and repair team and I would be more then happy to have that splashed all over the news papers when I filed the lawsuit that was going to be the only alternative acceptable to us outside a full refund.
What a customer needs isn't important and places like the geek squad. It's what they can sell and how gullible the people are. How about that extended warranty they sell you that mirrors the manufacturers warranty but costs $100 more then the sticker price of whatever you buy?
I think we covered a though d pretty well and while we might not be in total or complete agreement, I think we are at the same conclusions in principle which is why I thought the last question was deserving and connected. After all, we are talking about what the courts have allowed the cops to do, how our rights have been intertwined into it, and whether or not the courts interpretations are limited to the specific scope of a specific situation or not. It would appear that if the questions were answered by the highest court, the type of the court's makeup and how strict they follow the document giving government authority as well as restricting it's actions, would be detrimental to estimating the outcome of the decision.
(* question D should read more like, In general, can a police officer effect an arrest based on a second hand complaint _that doesn't suggest the breaking of any law_ and refusal of the suspect to cooperate.)
I think if you're a constructionist you always think strict constructionism should be followed, and if you think the constitution evolves with society, you always think social realities need to be taken into account
I guess you would consider me a constructionist because I see the means to amend the constitution in all but two specific ways that could create an unconstitutional amendment in order to reflect the people of the time. If it can't be amended because there isn't enough support then it's obvious that the interpretation of society and social realities aren't really there. Well, at least they aren't there in enough force to warrant the population or it's elected officials to do anything about it. Imagine if the living document was taken to the detriment of society and it was used to justify the "war om terror" actions as constitutional and proper and society needed the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to not apply. It's not out of reach when it's a "living document".
If you're asking me personally, I think the people on the court right now who call themselves constructionists/textualists/originalists have their heads up their collective asses. I think of the three philosophies, originalism is the only one with any merit, but all to often originalists ignore clearly articulated positions of the founders. This is especially obvious when we talk about things like school prayer and whether the US is a "christian nation." Many (most?) of the founders were clearly either atheists or deists, notably Jefferson, Madison, and Washington, and surely would have bristled at the notion of public institutions tacitly endorsing one religion over another. So-called-originalists, however, seem more interested in what the think the constitution should have originally been.
Well, I agree with you to a point. School prayer should be outside the reach of the federal government however. It should be in the realm of the state or local communities so Jefferson and all probably shouldn't be included in their interpretations of anything outside the 1st amendment. So if a school and local community determines that prayer in school is appropriate, it should be left to them to do as long as the make no law requiring it. In other words, as long as it is voluntary and originated with the students or the student's parents, the government and constitution has no role in it.
This is sort of an issue I have. Making no law has turned into you can't do something your free to do in public. This isn't the case at all in the original intent of the constitution or the founding fathers even if they were atheist or deist.
Now with that rant out of the way, as for the rest of the questions, I think constructionists and living-document-proponents should, in theory come to the same conclusion on questions a-d, in order Yes, No, Yes, No. In reality, I think questions b and d would result in split 5-4 decisions.
I think Time is the bulk of the factor but it isn't just time on it's own. Every war leave dead people on the battlefield. These can be soldiers for either side or collateral damage to civilians. The biggest obstacle is that almost each dead person leaves behind a living dependent who life will be altered by the deprivation of whoever got killed.
Now given enough time, everyone will get past the disadvantages of the loss of the soldier or civilian and at some point, they are in control of their own life. This is true even if they haven't mentally gotten over the loss, but not having a father or mother would have transformed from determining your life to you having control over your life. The popularity of the war only increases the amount of casualties which increase the number of people directly or indirectly effected. WWII and Vietnam were both long enough ago that everyone effected by losses in them have taken the reigns of their life and control their own destiny. So it is about time, the time it take to remove the fun at their expense and simply apply fun to it.
Lol.. Your trying really hard to protect the status quo but it isn't working. The finding doesn't challenge anything, it invalidate understood principles that other things were built around.
It means that if you build a building on what you thought was a stable foundation to find it's not as you originally thought, you need to go back and recheck the foundation, make changes if necessary, examine the structure of the building to ensure it's strength, and you need to be prepared to tear the building down and start over if neccesary.
Now, replace building with the current anthropogenic global warming model and you will understand the point. And yes, this is as serious as a foundation in a building not only because of the way we interpreted the thermal interactions of the ocean currents has changed but because the entire premise of anthropogenic global warming is being used politically to limit freedoms and manipulate economies. There was a study a year or two back which said all the earth's measured increases in warming could be attributed to variances in ocean temperatures. When we know how much thermal content is in the first 2.6 meters of the ocean, then we can start to see where variances in currents can compound this.
And something to note, I have never seen nor have I had anyone point me to a strict accounting of Co2 increases that can be quantified without making some assumptions. In other words, the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere doesn't match the total amounts emitted by man nor does the amounts of increases nor are they predicable to any certain degree of accuracy. So something else is at play if not in addition to the Co2 effect. The problem in only blaming Co2 is that it may not be enough to effect any difference yet we are about to embark on the process of depriving people of their freedoms and turn their lives into hardships though tax and cap/trade systems and we better be damn sure about it. It would seem that we aren't at present.
I can say with some confidence that no one knows what will happen. But it is unequivocal that we are poisoning the earth. Pollution is destroying our food and water supply. It is giving our children asthma. It's wiping out some species and mutating others. This is something we can see happening now and yet, we still can't get people to change their behavior. what is it going to take to get people to realize that our current lifestyle is not sustainable?
I was with you until this part here. We don't know with any confidence that we are poisoning the earth. We know that we are having effects on it but we simply don't know if any or all of those effects are poisonous.
You see, pollution is only effecting part of our food and water supply and to that extent, only a small portion of it is inedible because of it. I'm not concerned that it isn't completely natural anymore because Cyanide and Strychnine (two seriously potent poisons) are found naturally and found in some of our foods. Not all things natural are good for you and not all things potent are bad for you in limited quantities.
As for giving out children asthma, I have never seen a causation study blaming pollution for the cause of asthma. I have seen studies that show pollution activates predispositions and aggravates asthma but that isn't exactly a cause.
As for wiping out species and mutating others, this is more or less a probability but evolution predicts this so I'm not to concerned with it.
In short, you have a couple of good points until you went the religious route. I share a concern for the environment, I'm an avid hunter and fisher, I donate my time to wetlands restoration projects and I look at the situation from a perspective many wish they were in. So don't take my dismissal of your poisoning complaints as some nonchalant words in passing. I'm just not convicted into the religion of environmentalism and I'm able to see things for how they really are. You may not be a religious environmentalist but your repeating some of the same unsubstantiated claims they have.
You are still a minority, otherwise your elections would look way different.
Which is a pity, really. It would be interesting how a country with truly powerful States and weak centralized government would work out, even purely as a social experiment.
Well, like I said before, that's because of public education and people not taking it seriously (sleeping in class). Every American should know the proper role of the federal government. And yes, sometimes I do feel like I'm in the minority.
Also, while I personally tend to be somewhat left leaning (and that on the European scale, not the right-skewed American one), I still believe that true democracy, and number of people governed, are always inversely proportional. The larger the state, the less representative those elected are of the true will of the people behind them, and the more the state tends to become oligarchy. True democracy only works on smaller scale (in fact, I dare say that quite a few U.S. states are probably too large for it already). From that perspective, strengthening centralized federal power in the 300-million U.S. spawns a monster.
Spawns a monster? I think I couldn't agree more. However, the idea of democracy is over blown in the US. It's concentrated on too much as it is the will of the majority where the original idea was liberty through representation of the people.
The difference here is that liberty is a concept of being limited by your own means or ability without depending on a government where democracy can bring about the same but usually results in tyranny of the masses and restrictions to your abilities are put in place. We can see this by the class warfare and the battles against the evil corporations. If liberty were still the model, then when a corporation acted in a bad way, you or I could just start our own and offer much of the same services. This is next to impossible within the means of the average citizen because of all the barriers to entry that the democratic majority demanded to be put in place. On top of that, we have arbitrary environmental laws (some are good and needed but some are completely arbitrary), a licensing system just to open a business, permits and a panel of people (zoning boards) who will tell you what kind of business can go where.
If the US was back to it's roots, almost nobody would be calling corporations in general evil, they would be naming specific corporations and others would start up and compete with them. Now, I'm not delusional in thinking that US history has all been like this, large corporations employed dirty and underhanded tactics to keep competition out but as long as that much is illegal, we should see a much better reality. A reality that we can participate in as equals, or as equal as our own weaknesses and limits allow.
Well, as long as a law doesn't affect normal people, there's no problem!
Yes, there is no problem because normal people don't conceed control of their life over to the government to just get a job. Only the people in the military do that. I'm glad you finally found the difference.
I guess the question might be is if the document is that important and wiki leaks has it, in order to drum up the attention and/or scrutiny it should have, someone is going to have to link to it. Do you think the hassle he is attempting to avoid would still be there?
I have taken your advice and I've discovered that the United States Supreme Court is a part of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government!
Keep looking, the SCOTUS doesn't make law or tell people to do anything. They interpret laws and the constitution and reconcile the two together. Your getting closer though.
Unless you work for them, then it's still illegal.
Once again, your a little off. Don't ask don't tell relaxed the military code but when you join the military, you aren't a free citizen anymore so it doesn't count. The law doesn't effect normal people.
Keep trying, your almost there. I would suggest not attempting to bash the US federal government in your next attempt. That or just give up. Either way, the US UCMJ or the state laws aren't the same as usual and they aren't as the op I was replying to, a significant change from the usual.
You are, guys. You can object on the grounds that it violates your Constitution (and it does), but in practice, every time the Feds say "jump", you jump, for over 100 years now.
Well, not all of us. And in particular, it's the less educated people who were sleeping through their government and civics classes in high school and don't understand the role of the federal government in the US.
I find it extremely annoying when someone states they want the federal government to do something about which they have absolutely no legitimate power over. And I find it really infuriating when someone will claim that the constitution is a living document and needs to bend with the will of the people despite there being an amendment procedure spelled out in it to allow the changing of it in almost any way. And I find it even more infuriating when the same retards claim something violates their constitutional rights when most likely it doesn't but more importantly, it goes directly against their living document theory.
I don't need evidence of panic. I'm just comparing the charges. Whether he is innocent or guilty is another matter entirely.
As to the mans opinion, I agree, it's a valid position to hold. however, I wasn't speaking to that, just the charge and how not all speech is protected.
Slashdot Mirror
If he can't read it then he can't read it. Of course he might report the procedure incomplete because of file encryption and the judge might look at it with skepticism.
However, I have seen several replies about obfuscating the files in some way and your suggesting encryption. The problem is that having the files in the computer in and of itself isn't against the law or against what the lawsuit is about. what is at question is whether or not the files were being offered to anyone else and whether or not anyone else got them (distribution and copying outside of fair use). Your not really going to be able to share files that are encrypted unless you decrypt them or the partition they are on first. No one looking for Britney Spears latest hits will be looking for .doc or .ffm or .whatever files, they will be looking for a known file type by extention so they can use it.
Now here is where the problem with these overly complex schemes come up. If your using true crypt to hide a sharing folder/partition, there will be markers in the file sharing software pointing to the directory and flags will be raised when everything is encrypted and the forensics software can't access it. If you download to a specific folder and then move it to another or change the file extension, there is/could be a good chance that a deleted file will remain in either meta data on the file system or it's actual content would remain as the file is rewritten from memory. I would hope that people know by now that a deleted file isn't actually deleted and secure erasing becomes more difficult with large drives and Logical Block addressing where the firmware on the drive controller interprets the file positions and acts as a middleman to the operating system (some of which has been addressed with native 48bit addressing in the IDE controllers). Most modern multiuser file system will also load a file into memory from the dive and instead of appending the existing information,>/a> it actually rewrite the file to another location and mark the old file as deleted.
But to make obfuscating the files more complex, when you down load something to your encrypted location, the file doesn't directly go there. it goes to a temporary location to be reassembled first then copied over to the correct location. This could leave remnants of the files on the disk directly and/or possibly in the swap file that could be seen later with the correct tools. There for a while, people were able to pull credit card information entered into web browsers for online shopping from swap files on computers even after a couple of reboots. Also, the code for the true crypt could be stored in the swap file too and with the right tools, access and used to decode your super secrete partitions.
Here is a brief article describing some of the places you should look to cover your ass with if your that concerned. Keep in mind that many applications keep their own cache which can expose information on it's own outside of the ones mentioned. Most P2P software will have a cache of torrents being served, it may also keep a history of them that can come back to bite you. Normally people won't have the means to be this thorough but the judge required a forensic examination buy the experts of the RIAA's choice which pretty much assures you that they will go that far considering the other lengths they have went to.
Not really. The forensic expert wouldn't technically be looking at anything the software doesn't pin as a music file.
The software can anonymously (can't think of the word I want but this is close enough) scan through each file and only log or flag the ones labeled as music then after a more thorough check, report only what is music files as to what the case is about. The forensic expert will by the very nature of the game need to look at files other then what is ordered in order to make his report. What he can't do is list any files not in the order nor disclose any information about them.
Imagine if I told you to pick me out of a crowd. You would have to look at other people to find me. Not even if you used facial recognition software, you would still have to look at other people to find me. It's the same in the forensic world, however, you wouldn't be allowed to identify or report the identity of anyone else in the crowd if the judge made a similar order to your searching just for me. The order won't defeat the technical aspects of the search, just limit the disclosure and discovery of anything not outlined in the order.
There is nothing in the copyright laws to date making downloading illegal. It all pertains to unauthorized copying and distribution outside of fair use (fair dealings in other countries).
This is something that has extremely irritated me about the **ia's for a long time. Now when you download something, you might be causing something to be copied but technically speaking, it's the distributor's system making the copy on demand.
I have a ten acre lot which is about 250 yards by 200 yards next to my bean field. It is about 250 yards from where we launch with a motor cross track in the middle of it. It's five acres across if you look at it in 100 yard wide residential plots which is pretty much the norm for my area. If you ask my neighbor or anyone in the area how much 5 acres was, they would just tell you your yard at 250 yards long.
I understand that not everyone everywhere will be as familiar with this so that's why I included the 250 yards.
They have but the problem was the naming. "Google pervert" just wasn't marketable so they scrapped the entire project.
I don't know. I have a gun, an M-40 like riffle (I have some British version 7.62 x 51 mm but it's the same design minus the scope) left over from Korea or something like that which is accurate with an effective range out to about 1000 meters (1076 yards). This is just under two thirds of a mile for perspective.
My friend has a BMG 50 caliber riffle that a range of over a mile (2000+ yards or 1.1 miles).
I have a potato cannon that's accurate enough from 50-100 yards away but also works like a mortar launcher that we can peg a bush roughly 5 acres away (about 250 yards).
The reason I pointed that out is that the google cameras, at least on the street view pics I have seen, seem to be focused really close to the unit. From half the distance I mentioned, someone would be little more then a blur if not just a dot. Of course all that changes if the the cameras pick up everything and software focuses the images for the applications. But from what we see, the images barely make it down a full street block before getting blurry at least in perspective. That means no too much usable evidence for the cops if done at a distance or from behind some structure.
I'm breathing Co2 right now, so are you.
I'm not sure what your attempting to claim here but a lack of breathing Co2 us just as dangerous to humans and animals as too much Co2. If you look at the requirements for the OSHA confined space entry, there is a minimum and a maximum Co2 level required before you can enter without self contained or supplied breathing equipment.
Don't confuse the overdose of something for the regular effects. Acetaminophen can cause liver failure but not in the normal dosages. Alcohol poisoning can kill a person but no one things one or two glasses of wine a week is a bad thing, in fact, some studies show it is beneficial. So lets put our critical thinking hats on and remain without reason when discussing crap like this.
I hate to break this to you but the first two on your list were deist not atheist. Jefferson and Franklin both believed in a higher power, they just weren't convinced to the role it played in everyone's lives or that the concept of Jesus was accurate.
Lol.. What parts of the bible contradicts known facts or where you just making a generalization?
He is right, there is no proof of evolution on the scale needed for the speciation in the theory of evolution to be accurate. There is evidence that supports it but to date, we have not seen any animal turn into an existing or new species unless the definition of species is relaxed.
Now the evidence is strong to support evolution but there will always be a doubt about it. Well, there will unless your throwing the scientific method out the window and creating yet another religion based around what someone thinks the truth is.
Keep in mind, proof is a direct observation or a direct fact recovered from the observation. Evidence proves the likelihood but wouldn't be proof because it's still interpreted.
Don't forget the if's associated here too. Some of them might be,
If any data can be pulled off the drive,
If they still have the software to restore the hard drive,
if they can still find all the installation keys,
if the install media isn't one of those anal restore CDs built into a hidden partition on the drive and you were supposed to make a copy of it using some program that keep popping up and anoying you until you uninstalled it or disabled it while failing to make the required back up medium.
If the backup/restore medium you created actually works because no one tests these things after the make them until a problem arises.
If..
Well, there are a lot of ifs involved with a bad hard drive that could make it more reasonable to go the new route too.
When I had my shop open, I made a wall mounted board with all that stuff. It was all used and broken parts but it allowed the user to see what the assembled computer looks like without the case and had each part pulled to the side with a brief explanation of it's function.
They could learn all they wanted just by browsing the sales area but we also brought them to the bench to show them what was up with their specific computer. And with new technology coming around all the time, it wasn't hard to get new parts when someone's rocket scientist neighbor or super smark 7 year old grandson helps fix something before they bring it in for you to fix right. Usually we could get new CPUs for display in about 4 months from them coming to market. I loved looking at the waves in the rows of pins where they realized too late that the new CPU either doesn't fit into the old socket or it fits only one way and you shouldn't need to use force to get it to seat.
What do you suppose they check the email or URL out on when their hard drive is crashed?
That's something that always puzzled me. Our local electric coop decided to discontinue the 800 number to see if your power outage was already reported. Instead, they went to a website so that you can conveniently turn on your computer without electricity, navigate through your dark as night router to enter your address in a website to see if your power outage needs to be reported or not. At least with the 800 number, it used your phone number from caller ID (or enter it manu8aly) to check your billing records for your address coverage and if it wasn't reported, you could just press numbers on the keypad at the prompts and automatically report the outage. Now you conveniently need to not need power at your house to report an outage.
The correct answer is they wouldn't need it reinstalled. MS office will sometimes complain it needs the install disk after mirroring a drive because the serial number on the drive changed and it does some stupid checks when it accesses install when required features. Antivirus software sometimes complains about the boot sector being different and you have accept the changes too.
But you have to question the ethics of companies like the "geek squad" and outfits like them. They may all act differently in different locations but we have seen the reports of "secure destruction" of older upgraded drives ending up being selling them at flea markets instead of drilling holes in it or baking it in an oven like they claim. I actually had to send a cease and desist letter to the local best buy/geek squad back in 2003 or so because they were telling potential customers that if they took their computer to my shop, it would void the warranty and that I would take the good parts out and put old parts in to make it break faster. I found this out after sending a customer who needed a working system faster then I could build it to best buy to purchase one of the cheap bulk systems. Turns out they were saying that about any tech shop if it was mentioned during the sales pitch to get the geek squad to "set up" the new computer for $30 or $60.
One day, I sent a customer to bestbuy to pick up a US robotics hardware modem for a Linux server because I was out a job site in another town and wouldn't be able to swing buy to get one and fix his system before everyone closed. When I showed up at midnight, I found that he returned with a wintel modem and an XP home CD because after the sales droid got stumped on the difference between a hardware modem and a software modem, they asked the geek squad which told him that XP was the better OS and he should be running it so he could use the cheap wintel modem instead of the then $90 US robotics modem. Of course XP, especially XP home, can't run hylafax, nor does it have the ability to control the robotic tape library attached to the Linux box (at least not without buying some expensive software). Then best buy was refusing to take the XP home retail software back until I went down with him and explained how the only reason it was purchased was because of the incompetence of their sales staff and repair team and I would be more then happy to have that splashed all over the news papers when I filed the lawsuit that was going to be the only alternative acceptable to us outside a full refund.
What a customer needs isn't important and places like the geek squad. It's what they can sell and how gullible the people are. How about that extended warranty they sell you that mirrors the manufacturers warranty but costs $100 more then the sticker price of whatever you buy?
I think we covered a though d pretty well and while we might not be in total or complete agreement, I think we are at the same conclusions in principle which is why I thought the last question was deserving and connected. After all, we are talking about what the courts have allowed the cops to do, how our rights have been intertwined into it, and whether or not the courts interpretations are limited to the specific scope of a specific situation or not. It would appear that if the questions were answered by the highest court, the type of the court's makeup and how strict they follow the document giving government authority as well as restricting it's actions, would be detrimental to estimating the outcome of the decision.
(* question D should read more like, In general, can a police officer effect an arrest based on a second hand complaint _that doesn't suggest the breaking of any law_ and refusal of the suspect to cooperate.)
I guess you would consider me a constructionist because I see the means to amend the constitution in all but two specific ways that could create an unconstitutional amendment in order to reflect the people of the time. If it can't be amended because there isn't enough support then it's obvious that the interpretation of society and social realities aren't really there. Well, at least they aren't there in enough force to warrant the population or it's elected officials to do anything about it. Imagine if the living document was taken to the detriment of society and it was used to justify the "war om terror" actions as constitutional and proper and society needed the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to not apply. It's not out of reach when it's a "living document".
Well, I agree with you to a point. School prayer should be outside the reach of the federal government however. It should be in the realm of the state or local communities so Jefferson and all probably shouldn't be included in their interpretations of anything outside the 1st amendment. So if a school and local community determines that prayer in school is appropriate, it should be left to them to do as long as the make no law requiring it. In other words, as long as it is voluntary and originated with the students or the student's parents, the government and constitution has no role in it.
This is sort of an issue I have. Making no law has turned into you can't do something your free to do in public. This isn't the case at all in the original intent of the constitution or the founding fathers even if they were atheist or deist.
Maybe I'm missing something. I agree that t
Good point. And for the life of me, I don't know why I didn't see it before you made it. I guess my old age is catching up with me.
I think Time is the bulk of the factor but it isn't just time on it's own. Every war leave dead people on the battlefield. These can be soldiers for either side or collateral damage to civilians. The biggest obstacle is that almost each dead person leaves behind a living dependent who life will be altered by the deprivation of whoever got killed.
Now given enough time, everyone will get past the disadvantages of the loss of the soldier or civilian and at some point, they are in control of their own life. This is true even if they haven't mentally gotten over the loss, but not having a father or mother would have transformed from determining your life to you having control over your life. The popularity of the war only increases the amount of casualties which increase the number of people directly or indirectly effected. WWII and Vietnam were both long enough ago that everyone effected by losses in them have taken the reigns of their life and control their own destiny. So it is about time, the time it take to remove the fun at their expense and simply apply fun to it.
Lol.. Your trying really hard to protect the status quo but it isn't working. The finding doesn't challenge anything, it invalidate understood principles that other things were built around.
It means that if you build a building on what you thought was a stable foundation to find it's not as you originally thought, you need to go back and recheck the foundation, make changes if necessary, examine the structure of the building to ensure it's strength, and you need to be prepared to tear the building down and start over if neccesary.
Now, replace building with the current anthropogenic global warming model and you will understand the point. And yes, this is as serious as a foundation in a building not only because of the way we interpreted the thermal interactions of the ocean currents has changed but because the entire premise of anthropogenic global warming is being used politically to limit freedoms and manipulate economies. There was a study a year or two back which said all the earth's measured increases in warming could be attributed to variances in ocean temperatures. When we know how much thermal content is in the first 2.6 meters of the ocean, then we can start to see where variances in currents can compound this.
And something to note, I have never seen nor have I had anyone point me to a strict accounting of Co2 increases that can be quantified without making some assumptions. In other words, the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere doesn't match the total amounts emitted by man nor does the amounts of increases nor are they predicable to any certain degree of accuracy. So something else is at play if not in addition to the Co2 effect. The problem in only blaming Co2 is that it may not be enough to effect any difference yet we are about to embark on the process of depriving people of their freedoms and turn their lives into hardships though tax and cap/trade systems and we better be damn sure about it. It would seem that we aren't at present.
I was with you until this part here. We don't know with any confidence that we are poisoning the earth. We know that we are having effects on it but we simply don't know if any or all of those effects are poisonous.
You see, pollution is only effecting part of our food and water supply and to that extent, only a small portion of it is inedible because of it. I'm not concerned that it isn't completely natural anymore because Cyanide and Strychnine (two seriously potent poisons) are found naturally and found in some of our foods. Not all things natural are good for you and not all things potent are bad for you in limited quantities.
As for giving out children asthma, I have never seen a causation study blaming pollution for the cause of asthma. I have seen studies that show pollution activates predispositions and aggravates asthma but that isn't exactly a cause.
As for wiping out species and mutating others, this is more or less a probability but evolution predicts this so I'm not to concerned with it.
In short, you have a couple of good points until you went the religious route. I share a concern for the environment, I'm an avid hunter and fisher, I donate my time to wetlands restoration projects and I look at the situation from a perspective many wish they were in. So don't take my dismissal of your poisoning complaints as some nonchalant words in passing. I'm just not convicted into the religion of environmentalism and I'm able to see things for how they really are. You may not be a religious environmentalist but your repeating some of the same unsubstantiated claims they have.
Well, like I said before, that's because of public education and people not taking it seriously (sleeping in class). Every American should know the proper role of the federal government. And yes, sometimes I do feel like I'm in the minority.
Spawns a monster? I think I couldn't agree more. However, the idea of democracy is over blown in the US. It's concentrated on too much as it is the will of the majority where the original idea was liberty through representation of the people.
The difference here is that liberty is a concept of being limited by your own means or ability without depending on a government where democracy can bring about the same but usually results in tyranny of the masses and restrictions to your abilities are put in place. We can see this by the class warfare and the battles against the evil corporations. If liberty were still the model, then when a corporation acted in a bad way, you or I could just start our own and offer much of the same services. This is next to impossible within the means of the average citizen because of all the barriers to entry that the democratic majority demanded to be put in place. On top of that, we have arbitrary environmental laws (some are good and needed but some are completely arbitrary), a licensing system just to open a business, permits and a panel of people (zoning boards) who will tell you what kind of business can go where.
If the US was back to it's roots, almost nobody would be calling corporations in general evil, they would be naming specific corporations and others would start up and compete with them. Now, I'm not delusional in thinking that US history has all been like this, large corporations employed dirty and underhanded tactics to keep competition out but as long as that much is illegal, we should see a much better reality. A reality that we can participate in as equals, or as equal as our own weaknesses and limits allow.
Yes, there is no problem because normal people don't conceed control of their life over to the government to just get a job. Only the people in the military do that. I'm glad you finally found the difference.
I guess the question might be is if the document is that important and wiki leaks has it, in order to drum up the attention and/or scrutiny it should have, someone is going to have to link to it. Do you think the hassle he is attempting to avoid would still be there?
Keep looking, the SCOTUS doesn't make law or tell people to do anything. They interpret laws and the constitution and reconcile the two together. Your getting closer though.
Once again, your a little off. Don't ask don't tell relaxed the military code but when you join the military, you aren't a free citizen anymore so it doesn't count. The law doesn't effect normal people.
Keep trying, your almost there. I would suggest not attempting to bash the US federal government in your next attempt. That or just give up. Either way, the US UCMJ or the state laws aren't the same as usual and they aren't as the op I was replying to, a significant change from the usual.
Well, not all of us. And in particular, it's the less educated people who were sleeping through their government and civics classes in high school and don't understand the role of the federal government in the US.
I find it extremely annoying when someone states they want the federal government to do something about which they have absolutely no legitimate power over. And I find it really infuriating when someone will claim that the constitution is a living document and needs to bend with the will of the people despite there being an amendment procedure spelled out in it to allow the changing of it in almost any way. And I find it even more infuriating when the same retards claim something violates their constitutional rights when most likely it doesn't but more importantly, it goes directly against their living document theory.
I don't need evidence of panic. I'm just comparing the charges. Whether he is innocent or guilty is another matter entirely.
As to the mans opinion, I agree, it's a valid position to hold. however, I wasn't speaking to that, just the charge and how not all speech is protected.