I'd normally be the first to agree, but isn't a large portion of malware used for criminal activity? Identity theft, botnets that engage in DDoS extortion attempts, spam relays, phishing, etc, etc. It seems to me that law enforcement (i.e: government) has a legitimate interest in reducing the number of malware infections that are out there.
Of course, a call center filled with follow the script support drones probably isn't the best way to go about doing that.......
Is this just a government make work project or something?
One could argue that will save the government work in the long run, given that many malware installations are used for criminal activity ranging from identity theft to extortion.
Of course that doesn't mean it isn't a make work project or that this is the best way to go about combating the malware threat.
i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?
Yes, and you responded to my criticism of that choice by presenting a false dichotomy between Obama and Bush.
what the fuck are you saying?
That Obama's foreign policy is misguided, naive and destined to end in failure. I believe I've been quite clear on this point.
here's an amazing wacky concept for you
How about we don't extend our hand to brutal regimes that murder their own citizens and support terrorist organizations? How's that for a wacky concept to you? Let them rot on the fucking vine until a responsible Government comes to power.
bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing.
I wasn't aware that foreign policy was a binary choice. "Bushism" vs. "Obamaism". Who knew those were the only two choices?
if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?
Because I reject your flawed notion that the only two choices available to us are those presented by Bush and Obama. I reject the notion that because Bush sucked I should embrace what Obama is doing. Can I say it any plainer?
and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism.
that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea
I love how I say absolutely nothing about Bush yet you immediately resort to bringing him up as though it represents sort of meaningful counterpoint. Let me clue you into something: Disagreeing with Barack H. Obama != supporting George W. Bush. I happen to think that Bush did our country a great deal of damage but that's rather irrelevant to the point of whether or not Obama is making wise decisions.
but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support.
Actually no, the international attitude that I would support would be a return to non-interventionism and a withdrawal from most alliances and international agreements. For better or worse though that isn't in the cards.
he has to be criticized by idiots like yourself, who don't understand that obama's approach SERVES YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR COUNTRY BETTER
Imagine that, I have the audacity to criticize the leader of my country. Something tells me you wouldn't be whining about that if I had done it two years ago. I guess dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in charge, huh?
Obama is naive enough to think that a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations is one that can be negotiated with in good faith. He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago. The worst part of it all is that he has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts. Iran continues to march towards nuclear capability. They've taken his measure and found him lacking.
Well if you want to take things out of context and hold them up as something meaningful, I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about "spreading the wealth around" and how an entire class of people "cling" to their guns and religion.
I didn't like McCain 2.0 very much but if you think he's "eager" for any sort of war then I don't think you understand him very well.
If McCain / Palin had won the election, I might agree with you.
I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran. You'll note that Bush didn't. Iran can't win a war against the United States but they can make it sufficiently expensive to deter us from undertaking such a venture unless our back is truly against the wall. They can creditably threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. Could they keep it closed indefinitely against the US Navy? Not likely. But closing it for even a few days would send the global price of oil through the roof and bring enormous diplomatic pressure down on the United States.
I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.
Irrelevant. They are foreign nationals conducting acts of war against the United States.
and give in to paranoid fear like you have
Who said I'm fearful? Just because I don't agree with the actions of the current administration I must be a fearful paranoid? For the record I'm sure that our justice system can safely handle these jackasses. That's quite beside the point though. The main question is should our justice system be handling this matter, not can it handle this matter.
than we have lost something as a country.
We lost something as a country when we decided to treat acts of war as criminal matters. Next we'll stop using hellfire missiles and start filing extradition requests. Meanwhile our enemies are laughing at us. They know how the game is played.
Add some zeroes for fuck's sake - it's not like you're billing Medicare!
All of the sudden I've got this image in my mind of an elderly Jewish guy, "You don't think they actually spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"
Which "cities" are we dropping missiles on? I was referring to our predator campaign, i.e: the use of drones to conduct targeted assassinations against Al Quada and Taliban types.
It's not about them, it's about you and your justice system. Is it really not robust enough? Has anyone told the Founders yet?
It has nothing to do with our justice system. Enemy combatants are not common criminals. The distinction should be obvious to you. We don't use drones to launch hellfire missiles at common criminals. We don't get to kill common criminals unless they pose an IMMEDIATE threat to the life of another or have been accorded due process.
The people who are advocating that we treat these people as common criminals really haven't taken that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If they are common criminals then military action against them is not justifiable. Killing them absent an immediate threat to the life of another is not justifiable. Interrogating them without informing them of their Miranda rights is not justifiable. Is this really what you want?
If they are enemy combatants then we are well within our rights to hold them until the end of hostilities. We are also well within our rights to try them for any violations of the laws of war that they may have committed. This isn't something new that GWB and his cronies thought up. It's well established precedent. Even enemy combatants that obey the laws of war and whom are accorded POW status don't get access to the civilian justice system. Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued if we had allowed every captured Axis/Vietnamese/Korean/Confederate/Spanish/British POW to file petitions of habeas corpus? I ask you again, is this REALLY what you want?
Letting the ACLU run this war will go down in history as the biggest mistake that Obama ever made. The precedent that he is setting will tie the hands of future administrations and leave our country and allies vulnerable. It's stupid, indefensible and criminally naive.
They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system.
Really? If they are just "common criminals" then do you mind telling me what gives us the right to drop hellfire missiles on them and kill them without any sort of due process whatsoever? Most American politicians (even the current President) and the American people support this action.
You can't have it both ways. If they are common criminals then military action against them is not justifiable and our response needs to be limited to the law enforcement realm. If they are enemy combatants worthy of a military response then we don't owe them access to our civilian justice system. Our options in such a scenario range from holding them accountable for violations of the laws of war via military trials to just holding them until the end of hostilities and then releasing them to their native countries.
So which is it? Common criminal or enemy combatant?
Go to a phone manufacturer's website - e.g. http://www.store.motorola.com/ [motorola.com] and you'll find plenty of phones you can buy completely unlocked and working on Verizon's (or any other carrier's) network.
Sorry, you can't buy a phone even from Motorola that will work on the Verizon network unless it's branded for the Verizon network. This means that it comes with the crippled Verizon UI and software. Believe me, I've tried. I would pay extra money for a phone that came with the Motorola OS but if I'm going to wind up with one that has the Verizon UI on it anyway why shouldn't I take their discount and get it directly from them?
Khalid what's-his-name, the supposed "9/11 mastermind" is actually so dangerous, they say, that he can't even be allowed to be tried in a court of law.
I don't think it matters how dangerous he is. Enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to destroy it are not entitled to access to our civilian justice system. It's patently absurd in my mind to treat these people as common criminals. They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they can. Build more towers.
The tower isn't the major limitation. The amount of frequency space that they have licensed is going to be the major limitation in many areas.
Just a guess but the flamebait mod might have something to do with his username.....
Hitler was a vegetarian. The Nazis built the Autobahns. Are either of those evil?
You'd think the former was evil if you were a vegetable.
No disrespect but that's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard.
My income is based on government make work projects you insensitive clod!
So do you work for DOT and vote Democrat or for a defense contractor and vote Republican? ;)
1. This isn't the role of government.
I'd normally be the first to agree, but isn't a large portion of malware used for criminal activity? Identity theft, botnets that engage in DDoS extortion attempts, spam relays, phishing, etc, etc. It seems to me that law enforcement (i.e: government) has a legitimate interest in reducing the number of malware infections that are out there.
Of course, a call center filled with follow the script support drones probably isn't the best way to go about doing that.......
Is this just a government make work project or something?
One could argue that will save the government work in the long run, given that many malware installations are used for criminal activity ranging from identity theft to extortion.
Of course that doesn't mean it isn't a make work project or that this is the best way to go about combating the malware threat.
I believe you rather missed the point of why I brought that quote up in the first place.
i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?
Yes, and you responded to my criticism of that choice by presenting a false dichotomy between Obama and Bush.
what the fuck are you saying?
That Obama's foreign policy is misguided, naive and destined to end in failure. I believe I've been quite clear on this point.
here's an amazing wacky concept for you
How about we don't extend our hand to brutal regimes that murder their own citizens and support terrorist organizations? How's that for a wacky concept to you? Let them rot on the fucking vine until a responsible Government comes to power.
bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing.
I wasn't aware that foreign policy was a binary choice. "Bushism" vs. "Obamaism". Who knew those were the only two choices?
if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?
Because I reject your flawed notion that the only two choices available to us are those presented by Bush and Obama. I reject the notion that because Bush sucked I should embrace what Obama is doing. Can I say it any plainer?
and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism.
Non-interventionism != isolationism.
BTW, the "shift" key is your friend.
that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea
I love how I say absolutely nothing about Bush yet you immediately resort to bringing him up as though it represents sort of meaningful counterpoint. Let me clue you into something: Disagreeing with Barack H. Obama != supporting George W. Bush. I happen to think that Bush did our country a great deal of damage but that's rather irrelevant to the point of whether or not Obama is making wise decisions.
but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support.
Actually no, the international attitude that I would support would be a return to non-interventionism and a withdrawal from most alliances and international agreements. For better or worse though that isn't in the cards.
he has to be criticized by idiots like yourself, who don't understand that obama's approach SERVES YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR COUNTRY BETTER
Imagine that, I have the audacity to criticize the leader of my country. Something tells me you wouldn't be whining about that if I had done it two years ago. I guess dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in charge, huh?
Communicating != extending a hand to.
Obama is naive enough to think that a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations is one that can be negotiated with in good faith. He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago. The worst part of it all is that he has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts. Iran continues to march towards nuclear capability. They've taken his measure and found him lacking.
Nothing, this neutralize Iran leaders best weapon: Blame internal troubles on Western powers to squash any protest.
Except they are still doing that. Don't you know that all of the current troubles are the fault of the British and Americans?
Well if you want to take things out of context and hold them up as something meaningful, I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about "spreading the wealth around" and how an entire class of people "cling" to their guns and religion.
I didn't like McCain 2.0 very much but if you think he's "eager" for any sort of war then I don't think you understand him very well.
And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?
If McCain / Palin had won the election, I might agree with you.
I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran. You'll note that Bush didn't. Iran can't win a war against the United States but they can make it sufficiently expensive to deter us from undertaking such a venture unless our back is truly against the wall. They can creditably threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. Could they keep it closed indefinitely against the US Navy? Not likely. But closing it for even a few days would send the global price of oil through the roof and bring enormous diplomatic pressure down on the United States.
I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.
These guys are not associated with a country
Irrelevant. They are foreign nationals conducting acts of war against the United States.
and give in to paranoid fear like you have
Who said I'm fearful? Just because I don't agree with the actions of the current administration I must be a fearful paranoid? For the record I'm sure that our justice system can safely handle these jackasses. That's quite beside the point though. The main question is should our justice system be handling this matter, not can it handle this matter.
than we have lost something as a country.
We lost something as a country when we decided to treat acts of war as criminal matters. Next we'll stop using hellfire missiles and start filing extradition requests. Meanwhile our enemies are laughing at us. They know how the game is played.
I think the tool is not being sold to people wanting to crack into a WiFi network, rather selling to people so that they can test their WiFi network.
And the majority of bittorrent traffic is Linux torrents and WoW patches.....
I really hope you are being a wiseass and aren't actually that stupid. If you are that stupid, here's a hint, the AC figured it out.
Add some zeroes for fuck's sake - it's not like you're billing Medicare!
All of the sudden I've got this image in my mind of an elderly Jewish guy, "You don't think they actually spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"
Which "cities" are we dropping missiles on? I was referring to our predator campaign, i.e: the use of drones to conduct targeted assassinations against Al Quada and Taliban types.
It's not about them, it's about you and your justice system. Is it really not robust enough? Has anyone told the Founders yet?
It has nothing to do with our justice system. Enemy combatants are not common criminals. The distinction should be obvious to you. We don't use drones to launch hellfire missiles at common criminals. We don't get to kill common criminals unless they pose an IMMEDIATE threat to the life of another or have been accorded due process.
The people who are advocating that we treat these people as common criminals really haven't taken that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If they are common criminals then military action against them is not justifiable. Killing them absent an immediate threat to the life of another is not justifiable. Interrogating them without informing them of their Miranda rights is not justifiable. Is this really what you want?
If they are enemy combatants then we are well within our rights to hold them until the end of hostilities. We are also well within our rights to try them for any violations of the laws of war that they may have committed. This isn't something new that GWB and his cronies thought up. It's well established precedent. Even enemy combatants that obey the laws of war and whom are accorded POW status don't get access to the civilian justice system. Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued if we had allowed every captured Axis/Vietnamese/Korean/Confederate/Spanish/British POW to file petitions of habeas corpus? I ask you again, is this REALLY what you want?
Letting the ACLU run this war will go down in history as the biggest mistake that Obama ever made. The precedent that he is setting will tie the hands of future administrations and leave our country and allies vulnerable. It's stupid, indefensible and criminally naive.
They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system.
Really? If they are just "common criminals" then do you mind telling me what gives us the right to drop hellfire missiles on them and kill them without any sort of due process whatsoever? Most American politicians (even the current President) and the American people support this action.
You can't have it both ways. If they are common criminals then military action against them is not justifiable and our response needs to be limited to the law enforcement realm. If they are enemy combatants worthy of a military response then we don't owe them access to our civilian justice system. Our options in such a scenario range from holding them accountable for violations of the laws of war via military trials to just holding them until the end of hostilities and then releasing them to their native countries.
So which is it? Common criminal or enemy combatant?
Go to a phone manufacturer's website - e.g. http://www.store.motorola.com/ [motorola.com] and you'll find plenty of phones you can buy completely unlocked and working on Verizon's (or any other carrier's) network.
Sorry, you can't buy a phone even from Motorola that will work on the Verizon network unless it's branded for the Verizon network. This means that it comes with the crippled Verizon UI and software. Believe me, I've tried. I would pay extra money for a phone that came with the Motorola OS but if I'm going to wind up with one that has the Verizon UI on it anyway why shouldn't I take their discount and get it directly from them?
Khalid what's-his-name, the supposed "9/11 mastermind" is actually so dangerous, they say, that he can't even be allowed to be tried in a court of law.
I don't think it matters how dangerous he is. Enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to destroy it are not entitled to access to our civilian justice system. It's patently absurd in my mind to treat these people as common criminals. They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.