The whole idea of "expectation of privacy" is purely an invention of the supreme court from the 1960s. It is in no way implied by the 4th amendment.
You may want to rethink this belief. In 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published their now famous article in the Harvard Law Review, entitled simply: "The Right to Privacy". Also though I haven't relocated it yet a USSC ruling in the early 1800s said that the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause included the right to anonymous political speech.
Fast forward to today. Today, the firepower of the average soldier is anywhere between a few thousand to one and a few million to one in favor of the soldier, depending on what weapons you decide the soldier has available to him. Give him nuclear weapons and it's millions to one. Meaning that the military would be able to kill anywhere from thousands to millions of civilians while losing just one soldier.
And what are the possibilities a US soldier will fire on US citizens? One or two may but I bet many more would desert if not aid civilians. Heck China couldn't even get some Red Army units to shoot protesters during the protests at Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people. Here's an article from the New York times dated 8 June 1989 saying about one army unit that was believed to be planning to attack another unit:
"On Tuesday, residents in the western part of the city cheered convoys of troops who said they were members of the 38th Army, widely believed to be planning attacks against the forces in the 27th Army, the one responsible for most of the bloodshed. The citizens even dismantled some of their barricades on the Avenue of Eternal Peace, so that the 38th Army vehicles could proceed more rapidly to the center of the city and attack the 27th. 'Can't Figure It Out"
Another NYT article, TURMOIL IN CHINA; Legions of Soldiers Encircling Beijing: Loyalty to Whom? questions the loyalty of some Red Army units. If China can't count on army units to shoot on civilians what would make anyone think US Army units would fire on US civilians, on a scale far larger than the Kent State Massacre? I know when I was I the US Army I and others in my unit would of been among those who protected civilians. No, anyone expecting the US military to shoot on US citizens demonstrating on a massive scale would learn otherwise if they were to give the orders.
Yes, you heard that right: the resistance in Iraq is a nuisance. It's not a real threat. How do I know? Simple: we're still there, and we're not budging, and any inclination on our part to leave would come as a result of us wanting to leave, not being forced to leave.
As states above what makes you think you could get away with ordering the US Military to fire on US citizens? If I had been ordered to fire on US civilians by a commanding officer I'd have been more likely to shoot the officer. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq now and I bet he wouldn't follow such an order either.
It isn't anonymous OR private that I see my doctor, the insurance company knows, the people in the waiting room know. So I am NOT anonymous, nor private about visiting the doctor.
Insurance is paying for the visit and it's only right they know what they are paying for. Now if you are willing to pay out of pocket then insurance has no need to know, nor should they. And, even if those in the waiting room go with you into the exam room, more than likely they don't know who you are therefore you are anonymous.
Being anonymous is rare. Is voting anonymous? NO. They know who voted and who didn't in most systems.
But they don't know who specific people vote for, unless they say who the vote for. Actually in the US they are prevented from giving voters a record of their votes just for this reason, nobody can force a voter to vote in a specific way. If receipts were given out an employer say could demand that employees vote for specific candidates, or to vote against them. With no receipt employers don't know how a voter voted.
As voters we on the one hand seem to want our goverments to "protect" us, but on the other hand we are loath for anything that affects us.
You might, and too many others do, but not me. I want less government not more, historically governments have proven to be the greatest terrorists and the greatest threat to freedom and liberty, whether it be NAZI Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or what's his name in Rwanda. Heck, in the US more are killed in accidents every year than all of the US citizens who've been killed by terrorists. Where's the outrage over these deaths?
Dangerous driving is in holland one of the top irritations, but speed camera's are just as often seen as one of the great satan's. How does this reconcile? Could it be that voters speak with split tongue? What I really think people want is that the state goes after wrong doers, just as long as the wrong doers ain't them.
I oppose all traffic cameras that can record license plates or those in the cars, heck even pedestrians. The only legitimate purpose for them is for traffic control such as controlling traffic lights on busy intersections. And maybe, though it's a stretch, to monitor for accidents. I was shocked and dismayed when I went to Germany in the early 1980s and learned they were using cameras to issue tickets. Though the autobahns outside of cities had no speed limits, speed limits on city streets were strictly enforced. You might speed in a city, or loan your car to someone else who speeds, and think you got away with it. But then later you can get a ticket in the mail with the details of when and where the violation took place captured on camera. If you don't pay the ticket on tyme, even if you can prove you were somewhere else and couldn't have been driving when and where the ticket said, you could loose your license to drive.
On the other hand I found it refreshing that parents could order wine for their children while eating out. That was frowned on if not illegal in the US.
The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution. In interpreting the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court has constructed a Constitutional protection of privacy. Maybe the definition of "activist judges" depends on where you sit. Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.
USSC rulings also acknowledge the right to privacy in the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. If people can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they are not free to speak as they wish. Without anonymity any political speech a person makes can be used against them. If the authors of the "Federalist Papers" wasn't able to wrote under a pseudonym they may never of been published. Related I find it ironic that many people say Thomas Paine was not an American and Founding Father of the USA. Though he was English by birth, he was serving in the Continental Army under George Washington's command when he wrote "These are the times that try men's souls" in "The Crisis". Instead of writing under a pseudonym he wrote under his own name. The British crown put a bounty on his head for this.
When my father-in-law retires in a year or two, the German nanny-state precludes him from doing something obvious like opening up a bicycle repair shop or computer maintenance business (two areas where he could do modest business). He is by law capped at an absurdly low level of income, once he goes into retirement.
If that is their law, fine. It just strikes me as bizarre to regulate small business in that manner.
Yea, several years ago my sister, who's a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, in the US and has her Masters, started an accounting firm with some friends of hers who are also CPAs. At the tyme I got into a discussion with someone in Germany on this and (s)he had said if my sister had tried to start the business in Germany she would have had to get a lawyer to start the business. I don't know if that's true but if so then it only adds to the small business unfriendliness of Germany. Add to that the fact that it's hard to fire an employee for cause there. And in France, there were some riots in France a few years ago because the French government wanted to pass a law to make it easier for an employer to fire someone, but the youth in France was against this. Why would anyone want to try to start a business, or hire more people, if they can't fire those who are hurting the business? A business could go bankrupt having to pay a good employee as well as one who's a financial drain on the business. If a business is already established why would it want to hire more people if it were hard to fire bad ones?
Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them.
Bingo! I'm sure that has already been considered by these asshats.
Yeap, I be someone has thought of that. I bet some have even thought an Enabling Act was needed.
Falcon
Yep, done that with fire ants as well.
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
I usually do a fast few shovelfuls out in the middle of the mound, dump in the pot of scalding water, then shovel the dirt back in and stomp it down flat, something to keep the heat in. I have had *marginal* success with that, not perfect, but at least it is a bit of revenge!
I'd just pure the boiling water right on ant hills, without digging. The hill wouldn't be repopulated however another ant hill would pop up somewhere else. Then again we'd have a few hills at the same tyme. I'd leave the black ants alone as they aerate the soil and don't bite like the red or fire ants do. I recall once so many red ants bit my feet they swelled up and I had a reaction so someone took me somewhere to let them soak in a solution then apply some sort of cream on them. For some days I couldn't wear shoes laced up.
But you are taking extraordinary measures to protect your identity, and as you said I could find more details if I wanted to. With an ip adress I would be able to trace you, or if I got you to email to me somehow.
I don't think I take extraordinary measures, I just take reasonable measures. Then again what's reasonable today may be extraordinary. However reading what some teenagers are doing, I don't take enough actions. While I try not to give out imprudent info or info that's too personal, I don't lie, create untrue info, either.
The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.
You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they do not have freedom of speech. The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.[pdf] case is one such case. In Watchtower Bible v. Stratton the USSC upholds "Anonymity, Free Speech." In another case a CATO brief argues "Anonymity and Associational Privacy Remain Important Guarantors of Free Political Speech."
Anyone here perhaps, but there are still many, many people who won't show up in a Google search, or who will show up with only the most benign data. Your profile in Google searches pretty much depends on your activity on the 'net, (or in the public sphere) and on how much information you choose to make available.
Google doesn't know me, Google my name and nothing comes up about me.
Luckily, everyone but me lives in a country with strict laws and regulations when it comes to privacy and the individuals right to privacy is paramount same with freedom. Not something that can be said of USA at all, no freedom, no privacy, and a lot of ra-ra cheers...
Actually though a person could never tell by the Bush admin's actions, privacy is a right in the US. A USSC ruling in the early 1800s, along with others, even said this.
Americans will accept this with a smile, they will even stand up and fight for taking away rights from them, just as long as you don't take away the soap operas and the reality shows, you are OK, you can take away all the rights and liberty you want, they will not protest but assist you in doing so.
Unfortunately there are many in the US will just roll over but not everyone does.
The info you list comes from/. not Google, and not all of what you list is right. Such as "Age 21", heck I don't see where that comes from, looking at my profile there's nothing in it about my age. Now if you read through my posts you will see I am older than 21, even going so far as to say I was stationed in Germany years ago while in the US Army. And unlike what you say, "You live in Missouri", I do not live and have never said I did live in Missouri. I have said though the state I live in, even said the city, if I recall right.
Given the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"?
There's another choice, you can fight for freedom. You may die but you can take some oppressors out with you. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." However as with past civilizations, people have become lazy and fearful.
I don't really care for Ron Paul's politics on abortion (since I consider matters of reproduction an inalienable right), but I feel he's probably the only one who would remotely consider these actions. In fact, as a fairly liberal/libertarian person, he'd earn my vote in a heartbeat if he made prosecuting the guilty scumbags in the current administration his main campaign promise.
Ron Paul's position on abortion is one I don't particularly like, as is his position on immigration. However he still comes the closest on most issues to my own position. I am registered No Party Preference now but when the primary comes around I will change it to Republican if I have to to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. 'course I'll change it right back afterwards.
Type my real name into google and you'll find 3 entries relating to me
When I Google my full name I get more than 100 results. None of the results on the first page are about me. Same with the second and third pages, only 1 result is shown on the third one with a link to omitted results.
If you believe you can have privacy, security and anonyminity you are wrong. You might get any two of those. Maybe.
Privacy and anonymity are essentially the same thing. A USSC ruling even stated this in the early 1800s. If a person couldn't reasonable expect to keep their privacy then freedom of political speech didn't mean anything. Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them. I think the appropriate third word is "cheap" though "fast" is good too.
The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook.
The thing that articles like this neglect to mention is that kids lie on their profiles and chats. Here's an article from "Business Week" about "Marketing to Teens Online". One of the reasons they give for kids lying is "Kids also lie on the Web to avoid creepy predators. One parent told me her 13-year-old son's MySpace profile says he's 26 and married with two kids. Teens, sometimes with parental encouragement, will give this type of false information because they don't want to be bothered by adults looking to chat it up with children."
"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.
Try telling that to John Smith.
Yea, Googling my name, first and last, I got almost 300,000 results. Adding a middle initial I still got almost 2000. Spelling out the middle name I still got more than 100. And I'm a nobody.
In first year Astrophysics, for homework, one of the 5-minute questions was "estimate the solar flux at the earth's surface."
To the nearest two significant figures, I estimated it at 1.0kW/square metre. That's about right.
How do you propose to fuel the whole planet, all the people, the animals, plants and the weather with that?
Let's see, civilization has lasted for thousands of year, how can it ever have existed at all if your figures are right? Through some magic?
Besides solar, there's also wind, tidal, and geothermal energy even if conservation isn't enough. The Rocky Mountains in the US have enough wind potential to power the 48 continuous states, and there are a number of other states with good potential as well.
Sure, in fact I bet that most humans could do better. But because war and the like is part of us, we will never escape it.
I think part of the problem is nationalism, however conflicts are mostly about resources. Take Africa, in the Niger Delta the rebels are fighting over money oil brings in. Several different ethnic tribes live there but only a couple see any benefits or money. In the Congo fighting is over timber and minerals such as coltan.
Thanks, appreciate the gardening link. I'm gonna investigate the hotwater weed killer thing I found off that site. I already have a propane flame weed burner, but a large part of the year it is too dangerous to use from fire hazard, so a continuous hot steam applicator would actually work better.
No Prob, though it's only a small space I garden. Being a small spot I just put weeds. Before moving though I had more space to garden. Then I had to deal with fire ants so I used hot water for them. Boil some water then pour it on the anthills. It would kill plants too, but in the grass the grass would grow within days.
I forgot to mention in the other reply that you also don't seem to understand economics.
Everything you post also reads like regurgitated Undergraduate 101 junk. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Who doesn't understand economics, someone who doesn't know there's a difference between an entity receiving hugh government aid while another receives no aid, or a person who knows there is a big difference? But I agree we'll just have to disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole idea of "expectation of privacy" is purely an invention of the supreme court from the 1960s. It is in no way implied by the 4th amendment.
You may want to rethink this belief. In 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published their now famous article in the Harvard Law Review, entitled simply: "The Right to Privacy". Also though I haven't relocated it yet a USSC ruling in the early 1800s said that the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause included the right to anonymous political speech.
FalconFast forward to today. Today, the firepower of the average soldier is anywhere between a few thousand to one and a few million to one in favor of the soldier, depending on what weapons you decide the soldier has available to him. Give him nuclear weapons and it's millions to one. Meaning that the military would be able to kill anywhere from thousands to millions of civilians while losing just one soldier.
And what are the possibilities a US soldier will fire on US citizens? One or two may but I bet many more would desert if not aid civilians. Heck China couldn't even get some Red Army units to shoot protesters during the protests at Tiananmen Square. Chinese leaders had to call in army units from other places because the local units refused to fire on their own people. Here's an article from the New York times dated 8 June 1989 saying about one army unit that was believed to be planning to attack another unit:
"On Tuesday, residents in the western part of the city cheered convoys of troops who said they were members of the 38th Army, widely believed to be planning attacks against the forces in the 27th Army, the one responsible for most of the bloodshed. The citizens even dismantled some of their barricades on the Avenue of Eternal Peace, so that the 38th Army vehicles could proceed more rapidly to the center of the city and attack the 27th. 'Can't Figure It Out"
Another NYT article, TURMOIL IN CHINA; Legions of Soldiers Encircling Beijing: Loyalty to Whom? questions the loyalty of some Red Army units. If China can't count on army units to shoot on civilians what would make anyone think US Army units would fire on US civilians, on a scale far larger than the Kent State Massacre? I know when I was I the US Army I and others in my unit would of been among those who protected civilians. No, anyone expecting the US military to shoot on US citizens demonstrating on a massive scale would learn otherwise if they were to give the orders.
Yes, you heard that right: the resistance in Iraq is a nuisance. It's not a real threat. How do I know? Simple: we're still there, and we're not budging, and any inclination on our part to leave would come as a result of us wanting to leave, not being forced to leave.
As states above what makes you think you could get away with ordering the US Military to fire on US citizens? If I had been ordered to fire on US civilians by a commanding officer I'd have been more likely to shoot the officer. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq now and I bet he wouldn't follow such an order either.
FalconIt isn't anonymous OR private that I see my doctor, the insurance company knows, the people in the waiting room know. So I am NOT anonymous, nor private about visiting the doctor.
Insurance is paying for the visit and it's only right they know what they are paying for. Now if you are willing to pay out of pocket then insurance has no need to know, nor should they. And, even if those in the waiting room go with you into the exam room, more than likely they don't know who you are therefore you are anonymous.
Being anonymous is rare. Is voting anonymous? NO. They know who voted and who didn't in most systems.
But they don't know who specific people vote for, unless they say who the vote for. Actually in the US they are prevented from giving voters a record of their votes just for this reason, nobody can force a voter to vote in a specific way. If receipts were given out an employer say could demand that employees vote for specific candidates, or to vote against them. With no receipt employers don't know how a voter voted.
As voters we on the one hand seem to want our goverments to "protect" us, but on the other hand we are loath for anything that affects us.
You might, and too many others do, but not me. I want less government not more, historically governments have proven to be the greatest terrorists and the greatest threat to freedom and liberty, whether it be NAZI Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or what's his name in Rwanda. Heck, in the US more are killed in accidents every year than all of the US citizens who've been killed by terrorists. Where's the outrage over these deaths?
Dangerous driving is in holland one of the top irritations, but speed camera's are just as often seen as one of the great satan's. How does this reconcile? Could it be that voters speak with split tongue? What I really think people want is that the state goes after wrong doers, just as long as the wrong doers ain't them.
I oppose all traffic cameras that can record license plates or those in the cars, heck even pedestrians. The only legitimate purpose for them is for traffic control such as controlling traffic lights on busy intersections. And maybe, though it's a stretch, to monitor for accidents. I was shocked and dismayed when I went to Germany in the early 1980s and learned they were using cameras to issue tickets. Though the autobahns outside of cities had no speed limits, speed limits on city streets were strictly enforced. You might speed in a city, or loan your car to someone else who speeds, and think you got away with it. But then later you can get a ticket in the mail with the details of when and where the violation took place captured on camera. If you don't pay the ticket on tyme, even if you can prove you were somewhere else and couldn't have been driving when and where the ticket said, you could loose your license to drive.
On the other hand I found it refreshing that parents could order wine for their children while eating out. That was frowned on if not illegal in the US.
FalconThe "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution. In interpreting the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court has constructed a Constitutional protection of privacy. Maybe the definition of "activist judges" depends on where you sit. Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.
USSC rulings also acknowledge the right to privacy in the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. If people can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they are not free to speak as they wish. Without anonymity any political speech a person makes can be used against them. If the authors of the "Federalist Papers" wasn't able to wrote under a pseudonym they may never of been published. Related I find it ironic that many people say Thomas Paine was not an American and Founding Father of the USA. Though he was English by birth, he was serving in the Continental Army under George Washington's command when he wrote "These are the times that try men's souls" in "The Crisis". Instead of writing under a pseudonym he wrote under his own name. The British crown put a bounty on his head for this.
FalconWhen my father-in-law retires in a year or two, the German nanny-state precludes him from doing something obvious like opening up a bicycle repair shop or computer maintenance business (two areas where he could do modest business). He is by law capped at an absurdly low level of income, once he goes into retirement.
If that is their law, fine. It just strikes me as bizarre to regulate small business in that manner.
Yea, several years ago my sister, who's a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, in the US and has her Masters, started an accounting firm with some friends of hers who are also CPAs. At the tyme I got into a discussion with someone in Germany on this and (s)he had said if my sister had tried to start the business in Germany she would have had to get a lawyer to start the business. I don't know if that's true but if so then it only adds to the small business unfriendliness of Germany. Add to that the fact that it's hard to fire an employee for cause there. And in France, there were some riots in France a few years ago because the French government wanted to pass a law to make it easier for an employer to fire someone, but the youth in France was against this. Why would anyone want to try to start a business, or hire more people, if they can't fire those who are hurting the business? A business could go bankrupt having to pay a good employee as well as one who's a financial drain on the business. If a business is already established why would it want to hire more people if it were hard to fire bad ones?
FalconWithout remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them.
Bingo! I'm sure that has already been considered by these asshats.
Yeap, I be someone has thought of that. I bet some have even thought an Enabling Act was needed.
FalconI usually do a fast few shovelfuls out in the middle of the mound, dump in the pot of scalding water, then shovel the dirt back in and stomp it down flat, something to keep the heat in. I have had *marginal* success with that, not perfect, but at least it is a bit of revenge!
I'd just pure the boiling water right on ant hills, without digging. The hill wouldn't be repopulated however another ant hill would pop up somewhere else. Then again we'd have a few hills at the same tyme. I'd leave the black ants alone as they aerate the soil and don't bite like the red or fire ants do. I recall once so many red ants bit my feet they swelled up and I had a reaction so someone took me somewhere to let them soak in a solution then apply some sort of cream on them. For some days I couldn't wear shoes laced up.
FalconBut you are taking extraordinary measures to protect your identity, and as you said I could find more details if I wanted to. With an ip adress I would be able to trace you, or if I got you to email to me somehow.
I don't think I take extraordinary measures, I just take reasonable measures. Then again what's reasonable today may be extraordinary. However reading what some teenagers are doing, I don't take enough actions. While I try not to give out imprudent info or info that's too personal, I don't lie, create untrue info, either.
FalconThe Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.
You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they do not have freedom of speech. The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.[pdf] case is one such case. In Watchtower Bible v. Stratton the USSC upholds "Anonymity, Free Speech." In another case a CATO brief argues "Anonymity and Associational Privacy Remain Important Guarantors of Free Political Speech."
FalconAnyone here perhaps, but there are still many, many people who won't show up in a Google search, or who will show up with only the most benign data. Your profile in Google searches pretty much depends on your activity on the 'net, (or in the public sphere) and on how much information you choose to make available.
Google doesn't know me, Google my name and nothing comes up about me.
FalconLuckily, everyone but me lives in a country with strict laws and regulations when it comes to privacy and the individuals right to privacy is paramount same with freedom. Not something that can be said of USA at all, no freedom, no privacy, and a lot of ra-ra cheers...
Actually though a person could never tell by the Bush admin's actions, privacy is a right in the US. A USSC ruling in the early 1800s, along with others, even said this.
Americans will accept this with a smile, they will even stand up and fight for taking away rights from them, just as long as you don't take away the soap operas and the reality shows, you are OK, you can take away all the rights and liberty you want, they will not protest but assist you in doing so.
Unfortunately there are many in the US will just roll over but not everyone does.
FalconThe info you list comes from /. not Google, and not all of what you list is right. Such as "Age 21", heck I don't see where that comes from, looking at my profile there's nothing in it about my age. Now if you read through my posts you will see I am older than 21, even going so far as to say I was stationed in Germany years ago while in the US Army. And unlike what you say, "You live in Missouri", I do not live and have never said I did live in Missouri. I have said though the state I live in, even said the city, if I recall right.
FalconGiven the choice of living in slavery or death, which do you think most people would choose? Do you really expect people to say "yes, kill me please"?
There's another choice, you can fight for freedom. You may die but you can take some oppressors out with you. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." However as with past civilizations, people have become lazy and fearful.
FalconI don't really care for Ron Paul's politics on abortion (since I consider matters of reproduction an inalienable right), but I feel he's probably the only one who would remotely consider these actions. In fact, as a fairly liberal/libertarian person, he'd earn my vote in a heartbeat if he made prosecuting the guilty scumbags in the current administration his main campaign promise.
Ron Paul's position on abortion is one I don't particularly like, as is his position on immigration. However he still comes the closest on most issues to my own position. I am registered No Party Preference now but when the primary comes around I will change it to Republican if I have to to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. 'course I'll change it right back afterwards.
Falcon""These are the times that try men's souls."
FalconThomas Paine
I have yet to see anything turn up relating to me via my legal name (and variations) on Google. I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted.....
I'm relieved I don't find anything personal about me, but also disappointed I haven't done anything note worthy.
FalconType my real name into google and you'll find 3 entries relating to me
Googling my name I get nothing. All 100 plus results are about others.
FalconType my real name into google and you'll find 3 entries relating to me
When I Google my full name I get more than 100 results. None of the results on the first page are about me. Same with the second and third pages, only 1 result is shown on the third one with a link to omitted results.
FalconIf you believe you can have privacy, security and anonyminity you are wrong. You might get any two of those. Maybe.
Privacy and anonymity are essentially the same thing. A USSC ruling even stated this in the early 1800s. If a person couldn't reasonable expect to keep their privacy then freedom of political speech didn't mean anything. Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them. I think the appropriate third word is "cheap" though "fast" is good too.
FalconThe article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook.
The thing that articles like this neglect to mention is that kids lie on their profiles and chats. Here's an article from "Business Week" about "Marketing to Teens Online". One of the reasons they give for kids lying is "Kids also lie on the Web to avoid creepy predators. One parent told me her 13-year-old son's MySpace profile says he's 26 and married with two kids. Teens, sometimes with parental encouragement, will give this type of false information because they don't want to be bothered by adults looking to chat it up with children."
Falcon"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.
Try telling that to John Smith.
Yea, Googling my name, first and last, I got almost 300,000 results. Adding a middle initial I still got almost 2000. Spelling out the middle name I still got more than 100. And I'm a nobody.
FalconIn first year Astrophysics, for homework, one of the 5-minute questions was "estimate the solar flux at the earth's surface."
To the nearest two significant figures, I estimated it at 1.0kW/square metre. That's about right.
How do you propose to fuel the whole planet, all the people, the animals, plants and the weather with that?
Let's see, civilization has lasted for thousands of year, how can it ever have existed at all if your figures are right? Through some magic?
Besides solar, there's also wind, tidal, and geothermal energy even if conservation isn't enough. The Rocky Mountains in the US have enough wind potential to power the 48 continuous states, and there are a number of other states with good potential as well.
FalconSure, in fact I bet that most humans could do better. But because war and the like is part of us, we will never escape it.
I think part of the problem is nationalism, however conflicts are mostly about resources. Take Africa, in the Niger Delta the rebels are fighting over money oil brings in. Several different ethnic tribes live there but only a couple see any benefits or money. In the Congo fighting is over timber and minerals such as coltan.
FalconThanks, appreciate the gardening link. I'm gonna investigate the hotwater weed killer thing I found off that site. I already have a propane flame weed burner, but a large part of the year it is too dangerous to use from fire hazard, so a continuous hot steam applicator would actually work better.
No Prob, though it's only a small space I garden. Being a small spot I just put weeds. Before moving though I had more space to garden. Then I had to deal with fire ants so I used hot water for them. Boil some water then pour it on the anthills. It would kill plants too, but in the grass the grass would grow within days.
FalconI forgot to mention in the other reply that you also don't seem to understand economics.
Everything you post also reads like regurgitated Undergraduate 101 junk. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Who doesn't understand economics, someone who doesn't know there's a difference between an entity receiving hugh government aid while another receives no aid, or a person who knows there is a big difference? But I agree we'll just have to disagree.
Falcon