Then stop blowing up half the world, you imperialist swine. We want nothing more than for your money to stay in your country. Now go back in your SUV, buy a burger and go watch some football.
I'm not a supporter of the war in Iraq. Afghanistan was necessary, yes, but the invasion of Iraq was excessive. And US and British historical meddling in the Middle East (Mossadegh, etc) has done little to make for a stable political situation there now.
As far as my SUV, I don't own one. Honda CB550 motorcycle and an old station wagon that I'm selling in a month before I move to New York. As far as football, I didn't watch the SuperBowl -- I was having dinner with my dad who was in NYC for the day. And we didn't have burgers either.
Your post is proof that Americans aren't the only people who can be ignorant, abusive, ignorant swine. BTW, have you ever BEEN to the US? Come visit some time -- you may like it despite yourself.
The US government doesn't design and build trucks.
They sort of do - a lot of military trucks are built specifically to government contract and only sold to civilians later or as surplus. Look at the Humvees, the M-151 MUTTs, and the Gama Goats as examples of this.
I think I'd rather just give the government less money and make them pick the lowest cost supplier that can meet the business requirements and take less of our money so we can choose to spend it where we want.
Except that the tax money is coming back to Americans -- in the form of wages, stock dividends, purchases from other US companies, local property taxes -- and even some obscure stuff like corporate university research grants. If you're dealing with tax money that was TAKEN from Americans, I'd rather have it stay within the US.
Yeah, it's a "good thing" to funnel more tax money into the pockets of corporations.
Well, better American corporations than the Russians or anyone else. At least *Americans* get the tax money back in the form of wages, dividends, and benefits. And, BTW, those corporations are *already* developing the launch technologies without Federal help. So it might be cheaper to pay them to launch rather than reinventing the wheel again.
Sad to say, the areas with the most wide open spaces - Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc probably have the highest percent of Republicans. Agarophobes they are not.
If its cheaper than the shuttle, and works just as well, why not?
Especially if American companies get the contracts as well. Nothing against the Russians and Europeans, but I'm an American and I want to see money (especially tax money, which supports NASA) stay in my country.
Looks like they'll be buying from American private companies as well as the Russians and Europeans. Actually, private exploitation of space will probably be a good thing if those companies find a way to make it turn a profit. Maybe we'll even get a permanent human presence in space -- NASA's work has been small-scale and mostly short-duration. About time we stick our noses out of this comfortable but aging blue ball.
What were the ad guys thinking when they made this ad? In a country/world full of fears you just don't place boxes with lights in a city. That is asking for troubles...
No, you do it more and more. The first boxes will be complained about and subject to government stupidity. As this becomes common, people will learn to relax and laugh once in a while once again. Screw the security state with a Louisville Sluggah.
Yea, I would. I expect to. You all should, in fact. Driving on public roads carries with it a very heavy responsibility. These laws exist for a reason. Traffic laws are no joke, they exist to keep us all alive.
*Some* traffic laws exist for that purpose. But what about the instances when the speed limit on a 2-lane highway drops from 60 mph to 25 with no prior warning when crossing a town line (mind you, not when entering the actual populated part of town). And, of course, there's a speed trap another 100 yards down the road. Some traffic laws are sane. Others exist purely for municipal revenue generation, unfortunately, and it's the latter type of law that causes people to lose all respect for the former.
"Tracking" was always allowed, if you were walking/driving in public they could always follow you, no warrant was necessary.
I'd suspect that long-term physical following without a warrant would be (a) noticed eventually, (b) viewed as harassment by some judges, and (c) impractical except for serious cases due to manpower considerations. Since long-term GPS surveillance is subject to none of those limitations, it should require a warrant to prevent abuse.
Got a cell phone? Most have GPS incorporated due to the E911 requirements.
It's not permanently attached to my car or to me. It can be (and often is) left at home or switched off - I suppose if I were really paranoid I'd remove the battery. OnStar is non easily removable (though it has been done). EZ-Pass stores location data by design - I doubt that cell companies store GPS locations of everyone's phone over time in detail since there'd be simply too much data to store.
Correct me if im wrong, but isn't the hope that you do keep it?
It would make for an awfully boring tracking pattern if the bug stays in the suspect's driveway 99% of the time and occasionally goes for a ride in the car to the grocery store or to church on Sunday.
Sneeking into some guys yard and putting a GPS device on his car to track his movements for several weeks before arresting him without getting a warrent, is a completly diffrent situation.
Agreed 100% -- they had ample time to see a judge and get a warrant.
But can't an officer follow a suspect without a warrant as it is. The difference in this case is that the officer wouldn't need to be there.
The GPS method takes less manpower since movements can be recorded and checked up on periodically and someone doesn't need to be "on the case" to follow the car. Thus it's more likely to be used capriciously since it's inexpensive and easy to use. I'm not opposed to it in cases where someone is fleeing after a felony for example, or had just stolen a car and the cops can't safely give chase but can fire a sticky GPS device from a dart gun. However, any long-term surveillance where there's time to see a judge should require a warrant or the fruits of it should be inadmissible in court.
The police in this case were using the GPS to track the person, through the car.
Well, let's say that there was a car containing someone who'd just robbed a diner and shot five people. I wouldn't be opposed to using a GPS bug to track its occupants if there's no other safe way of doing so. The primary issues are time and expediency - if there's prima facie evidence of a serious crime in progress or being fled from AND there isn't time to contact a judge to seek a warrant, then the surveillance is justified. Otherwise, it isn't. So continuing to track a vehicle for a week by GPS without obtaining a warrant is unacceptable IMHO since there's been ample time to plead before a judge.
Apparently, you are not aware that On*Star can give restaurant recommendations in times of dire emergency or you'd have never made your comment.
Has such a case occurred? (Restaurant recommendation instead of calling an ambulance.) Anyway, I suppose it all makes sense. You're bleeding to death. Therefore you have anemia. Nothing a good, bloody steak can't fix.
I could see it being useful in the event of expediency, but long-term surveillance (where there's time to see a judge) should require a warrant. Let's say if the cops see a stolen car making its way through heavy traffic and they can't safely chase it - perhaps that could fire some sort of sticky dart at it that contains a radio tracker. Then they just wait until the car stops moving somewhere and retrieve it.
They will probably just put something on the bottom of your car and GPS track you to where you're chop shop is.
Well, if they have probable cause to believe that crimes are being committed (existence of a chop shop parting out stolen cars), they can tell it to a judge and prosecutor and the judge will no doubt be happy to give a warrant authorizing tracking of the car.
I actually see this as being a good thing. It allows officers to follow a suspect without putting themselves in danger or alerting the suspect to being followed.
That's all good IF they have a warrant to authorize the tracking. The judge's decision essentially opened the door for warrantless surveillance of "suspects" - lack of judicial oversight over police actions isn't a good thing.
There is now absolutely nothing stopping the police from GPS-bugging anyone at any time for any reason, or even with a complete lack of a reason. Who here thinks that even though the police can GPS-bug people without a warrant that they simply will choose not to do so because the right thing to do, in the spirit of the Constitution, is to get a warrant first?
What's worse, would EZ-Pass or On*Star (I have neither system - I'd rather bleed to death at the side of the road after an accident than lose my privacy 100% of the time) data obtained without a warrant now be admissible in court? I suspect that the cops might not even have to leave the comfort of their offices to attach the GPS bug if they play the game right.
Clearly Russian schools need a donation of 10,000 Kubuntu live CDs. This will provide them with well-needed coasters, and maybe a few schools would try it out and switch to legitimate software rather than risk having their teachers sent to Siberia.
Well, if MS had a smart policy, they'd donate their software to Russian, Chinese, and Indian schools on the same theory why the first hit of crack or meth is free - once they're hooked, you have a customer for life.
Why is it that no one insisted on Russia being systematically "deSovietized" the way that the post-WWII Axis, Afghanistan and Iraq have been cleaned up? Why aren't the leaders who participated in the gulags, etc. hanging from gallows? Where are the human rights trials?
Russia collapsed from within (due, to some extent to external forces as well as anger at Soviet abuses and mismanagement i.e. Chornobyl). It was never invaded by a foreign power who could force the issue of trials. The worst abusers from the Stalinist era were mostly dead of old age or other causes anyway by 1990. And a lot of the old guard transitioned to the new regime or became business leaders so there were vested interests against trials. Plus, maybe, no one really wanted to see another bloody purge as happened all to often under Stalin.
I agree that some people who are free now should probably be in prison, but it's the Russians' country ultimately and up to them to solve their problems as they see fit.
Whoa! Do those GULAGs still exist??? I thought they were done away with!
The prison camp system started in the 17th century and survived many tsars and the communist regime. Regime change didn't get rid of it, though it may have reduced its severity and the quantity of prisoners sent up. Remember that Siberia has a harsh climate but a lot of natural resources, so people didn't voluntarily go there. The existence of the system was an economic expedient as well as a political one. Also there were sentences of internal exile, where people were (maybe still are) sent to Siberia to live as 'free' citizens but unable to return to any city in Western Russia.
Without some education, these people that just don't know they are doing something wrong will continue and teach children to grow up and violate copyright, the GPL, Creative Commons and every other sort of license you can imagine. Is educating them by sending them to a prison came correct? Maybe not.
MAYBE not? Uhm, definitely not. Maybe a fine or some community service may be appropriate. But taking the guy away from his family and pupils for years for a crime committed without mens rea - he had bought the computers with pirated Windows already installed - is completely inappropriate. As a Pole whose family members died in Siberia during WW II, I find the whole thing reprehensible and disproportionate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a supporter of the war in Iraq. Afghanistan was necessary, yes, but the invasion of Iraq was excessive. And US and British historical meddling in the Middle East (Mossadegh, etc) has done little to make for a stable political situation there now.
As far as my SUV, I don't own one. Honda CB550 motorcycle and an old station wagon that I'm selling in a month before I move to New York. As far as football, I didn't watch the SuperBowl -- I was having dinner with my dad who was in NYC for the day. And we didn't have burgers either.
Your post is proof that Americans aren't the only people who can be ignorant, abusive, ignorant swine. BTW, have you ever BEEN to the US? Come visit some time -- you may like it despite yourself.
-b.
They sort of do - a lot of military trucks are built specifically to government contract and only sold to civilians later or as surplus. Look at the Humvees, the M-151 MUTTs, and the Gama Goats as examples of this.
-b.
Except that the tax money is coming back to Americans -- in the form of wages, stock dividends, purchases from other US companies, local property taxes -- and even some obscure stuff like corporate university research grants. If you're dealing with tax money that was TAKEN from Americans, I'd rather have it stay within the US.
-b.
Well, better American corporations than the Russians or anyone else. At least *Americans* get the tax money back in the form of wages, dividends, and benefits. And, BTW, those corporations are *already* developing the launch technologies without Federal help. So it might be cheaper to pay them to launch rather than reinventing the wheel again.
-b.
Sad to say, the areas with the most wide open spaces - Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc probably have the highest percent of Republicans. Agarophobes they are not.
-b.
Especially if American companies get the contracts as well. Nothing against the Russians and Europeans, but I'm an American and I want to see money (especially tax money, which supports NASA) stay in my country.
-b.
-b.
No, you do it more and more. The first boxes will be complained about and subject to government stupidity. As this becomes common, people will learn to relax and laugh once in a while once again. Screw the security state with a Louisville Sluggah.
-b.
*Some* traffic laws exist for that purpose. But what about the instances when the speed limit on a 2-lane highway drops from 60 mph to 25 with no prior warning when crossing a town line (mind you, not when entering the actual populated part of town). And, of course, there's a speed trap another 100 yards down the road. Some traffic laws are sane. Others exist purely for municipal revenue generation, unfortunately, and it's the latter type of law that causes people to lose all respect for the former.
-b.
I'd suspect that long-term physical following without a warrant would be (a) noticed eventually, (b) viewed as harassment by some judges, and (c) impractical except for serious cases due to manpower considerations. Since long-term GPS surveillance is subject to none of those limitations, it should require a warrant to prevent abuse.
-b.
Can GM/On*Star give up the data voluntarily even if no warrant is shown? What's in the customer contract regarding data protection?
-b.
It's not permanently attached to my car or to me. It can be (and often is) left at home or switched off - I suppose if I were really paranoid I'd remove the battery. OnStar is non easily removable (though it has been done). EZ-Pass stores location data by design - I doubt that cell companies store GPS locations of everyone's phone over time in detail since there'd be simply too much data to store.
-b.
It would make for an awfully boring tracking pattern if the bug stays in the suspect's driveway 99% of the time and occasionally goes for a ride in the car to the grocery store or to church on Sunday.
-b.
Agreed 100% -- they had ample time to see a judge and get a warrant.
-b.
The GPS method takes less manpower since movements can be recorded and checked up on periodically and someone doesn't need to be "on the case" to follow the car. Thus it's more likely to be used capriciously since it's inexpensive and easy to use. I'm not opposed to it in cases where someone is fleeing after a felony for example, or had just stolen a car and the cops can't safely give chase but can fire a sticky GPS device from a dart gun. However, any long-term surveillance where there's time to see a judge should require a warrant or the fruits of it should be inadmissible in court.
-b.
Well, let's say that there was a car containing someone who'd just robbed a diner and shot five people. I wouldn't be opposed to using a GPS bug to track its occupants if there's no other safe way of doing so. The primary issues are time and expediency - if there's prima facie evidence of a serious crime in progress or being fled from AND there isn't time to contact a judge to seek a warrant, then the surveillance is justified. Otherwise, it isn't. So continuing to track a vehicle for a week by GPS without obtaining a warrant is unacceptable IMHO since there's been ample time to plead before a judge.
-b.
Has such a case occurred? (Restaurant recommendation instead of calling an ambulance.) Anyway, I suppose it all makes sense. You're bleeding to death. Therefore you have anemia. Nothing a good, bloody steak can't fix.
-b.
-b.
Well, if they have probable cause to believe that crimes are being committed (existence of a chop shop parting out stolen cars), they can tell it to a judge and prosecutor and the judge will no doubt be happy to give a warrant authorizing tracking of the car.
-b.
That's all good IF they have a warrant to authorize the tracking. The judge's decision essentially opened the door for warrantless surveillance of "suspects" - lack of judicial oversight over police actions isn't a good thing.
-b.
What's worse, would EZ-Pass or On*Star (I have neither system - I'd rather bleed to death at the side of the road after an accident than lose my privacy 100% of the time) data obtained without a warrant now be admissible in court? I suspect that the cops might not even have to leave the comfort of their offices to attach the GPS bug if they play the game right.
-b.
Well, if MS had a smart policy, they'd donate their software to Russian, Chinese, and Indian schools on the same theory why the first hit of crack or meth is free - once they're hooked, you have a customer for life.
-b.
Russia collapsed from within (due, to some extent to external forces as well as anger at Soviet abuses and mismanagement i.e. Chornobyl). It was never invaded by a foreign power who could force the issue of trials. The worst abusers from the Stalinist era were mostly dead of old age or other causes anyway by 1990. And a lot of the old guard transitioned to the new regime or became business leaders so there were vested interests against trials. Plus, maybe, no one really wanted to see another bloody purge as happened all to often under Stalin.
I agree that some people who are free now should probably be in prison, but it's the Russians' country ultimately and up to them to solve their problems as they see fit.
-b.
The prison camp system started in the 17th century and survived many tsars and the communist regime. Regime change didn't get rid of it, though it may have reduced its severity and the quantity of prisoners sent up. Remember that Siberia has a harsh climate but a lot of natural resources, so people didn't voluntarily go there. The existence of the system was an economic expedient as well as a political one. Also there were sentences of internal exile, where people were (maybe still are) sent to Siberia to live as 'free' citizens but unable to return to any city in Western Russia.
-b.
MAYBE not? Uhm, definitely not. Maybe a fine or some community service may be appropriate. But taking the guy away from his family and pupils for years for a crime committed without mens rea - he had bought the computers with pirated Windows already installed - is completely inappropriate. As a Pole whose family members died in Siberia during WW II, I find the whole thing reprehensible and disproportionate.
-b.