Except that warrantless wiretapping *is* allowed - for short periods of time
No. Required: Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, all presented to a judge, who might, if your presentation is good enough, issue a warrant.
Then you can search, wiretap, read email, etc. As long as you're looking for what you said you were looking for such that it agrees with the reasons underlying warrant.
Anything else -- anything -- is unauthorized use of power not granted by the constitution, and therefore completely unavailable to the federal government (or any state government, according to any reasonable reading of 14th amendment) without a constitutional convention and subsequent alteration of the 4th amendment itself.
The supreme court, as thus far constituted in many different ways, doesn't understand ANY part of "no" or "shall not." Nor has the executive to date, nor congress.
Examples abound.
The problem is, the constitution has no teeth: there are no penalties for any one, or any combination, of the executive, judiciary, or congress violating the constitution's explicit directives (and their oaths as well.) None whatsoever. Furthermore, even should something (magically!? accidentally!?) be declared correctly unconstitutional, all of the harm done between the implementation of the legislation and its demise is rarely undone, compensated for, or otherwise given the attention it needs. As for the actual malfeasance, there's no provision for impeachment, reprimand, fine or imprisonment. Nothing.
Basically, the government is operating well outside its constitutionally authorized bounds, and there isn't a single thing that can be done directly about it -- from the bottom. So vote for Ron Paul -- because he can jam the process up from the top, and it appears he is more than willing to do so.
why does no one ever think of a calendar with 13, 28 day months?
Because those months would differ fairly significantly in weather from the traditional months, I'm guessing. The more familiar the "new" months are, perhaps the easier they are to accept?
I worked this out some time ago. And my approach is MUCH better. Seriously. Take a look. Benefits: Benefits include every month starts with Monday; Pay periods are normalized; billing periods are normalized; the ridiculous and confusing spattering of celebrations all over the calender are eliminated; bills would always be due the same date and day; the 11th would always be Thursday (as every date would always be the same day of the week think of the implications no more figuring that nonsense out!); Your birthday would always be the same day; no more celebrations that wander around the calender; a vastly improved sense of what day and/or date it is, because (for example) there are only four Mondays in the month, and if you know it’s Monday, you probably know what date it is; and if you know the date, it’s always the same day anyway, so you would know the day right off.
I'm not the first to take a swing at this, either -- and almost every attempt I've looked at is better than what these academics made. IMHO, of course.:)
The whole silly idea of letting every unlicensed idiot broadcast is nonsense.
No, it isn't. You're just failing to imagine it at the moment. It'd work just fine. For many reasons. Given one prerequisite: spectrum within existing receiver ranges where such a thing can exist. IOW, perhaps 540...700 KHz; 88...95 MHz; etc. Commercial stations can move. Might as well do something with the money they've raked in from their decades-long monopoly, after all.
How in the world would you keep them from interfering with each other?
Exactly the way RC cars work, CB works, wifi works, portable telephones work(ed), etc. In a nutshell, low power and small antennas. Just arrange for the capacity to cover a neighborhood in terms of non-skip range, perhaps 10 watts, and otherwise let the chips fall where they may. During skip periods for a particular band... just like our current AM band, sometimes you get one station when your local channel is open, sometimes you get another. Which is fun. Dxing, remember? Skip coming in? Well, so what. It doesn't need regulation. It just needs freedom. But we'll never get it, and that's because "public" airwaves are never, ever opened for broadcast opportunities. Corporate, censored tripe is all they will ever allow. Could the allocation become overcrowded in an urban region? Sure. Again, so what? There's no commercial interest involved, so... so what? Could neighbors (in the RF sense) make arrangements to share? Sure. Etc. And remember, FM has capture ratio going for it... so interference really isn't much of an issue. Open your mind, man.
How would you regulate these unlicensed broadcast stations _at all_?
Again, not regulate at the broadcast point, but limit at the manufacture point: same way they do CB, wifi, portable phones, etc. Provide transmitters that produce X, and antennae with gain of Y. Then apply benign lack of attention, and let it work itself out.
There's no actual *need* to regulate them. If they're within the band segment and the power limits, who cares? If not, same as today: they're pirates and there are already procedures for that.
Are you kidding me? You're honestly complaining about the lack of spectrum that is available for public use?
Oy. Unbelievable the level of confusion and misunderstanding here. Look: The ham bands cannot legally be used for broadcast. Believe me, I know -- I'm a ham, have been for decades, and I currently hold the highest class license as well as having held a first class FCC broadcast engineer license.
What I'm speaking of here is the lack of bands that the PUBLIC, by which I mean everyone/anyone, can use to broadcast to the PUBLIC, by which I again mean everyone/anyone. For instance, the ability to set up a small AM or FM or TV station and broadcast a program on [FITB] to your community. There's nothing like that. NOTHING. Every speck of broadcast space of that nature is awarded to corporations; should you somehow brave the incredible morass of licensing and FCC type requirements and the associated horrible expense, and manage to put up a "low power" station, you will find that you are, in fact, an organization of considerable heft, as opposed to a citizen who wants to put on a program about [FITB].
The fact is, however, FCC aside, the effort required to put up a *technically* rules compliant FM or AM station good for your local community is negligible. $100 would do a fine job, even less if you were a technie type and built it. Maybe $200 if you want to go with TV. We're facing government requirements as the blocking issue here. Nothing else.
The ham bands can be used by licensed hams talking to one another, about a specifically limited range of subjects, can't be used to play music -- even if it's original music YOU wrote and own all the rights to -- and so on. There's zero provision for broadcast in the ham bands, they're no more useful for that than are the "public" wifi frequencies a modern DSL modem occupies or the "citizen's band."
There's plenty of spectrum available for you and yours to talk to each other, or the plumber to talk to his plumbing vans, etc. The issue here is BROADCASTING. Get it now?
The unused spectrum now assigned to television broadcast has been made available for public use by the FCC.
No. It hasn't. It's been made available for commercial use, following the long standing tradition at the FCC of giving the public nothing or next to nothing, and corporations everything.
Maintaining your beliefs whether or not they are correct is not integrity; it's simply stubbornness.
No. It's not that simple. Saying it is stubbornness implies that the believer understands they are wrong, or understands that looking at the data will enlighten them into a new outlook. It's more like this (and I'm still simplifying there.)
Until or unless gene therapy goes a lot further than it has...
"You can't cure stupid."
I think what's going to happen first is sex-, service- and menial-robotics and other game-changing vehicles for technological plenty and comfort will come along and (further) pacify the crowd; they'll be no less hungry for gossip, but they'll be even less willing to disturb the status quo that is serving them up said comforts than they are today. We won't see superstition go away until or unless it becomes a form of child abuse to let your child be born and/or raised stupid, and/or gullible, and/or without critical thinking abilities. Just an IMHO.
Yeah... but... notice that is *research* cell efficiencies. Where's the chart for cells you can BUY? Price against watts output would be most interesting, followed by watts output against square area.
We're all well aware that research is announced all the time with fabulous tales of benefits. What we're grinching about is the inability buy such a thing cost-effectively -- and have it not turn into silicon splinters in the first hailstorm, or lose most of its efficiency in the first few years on the roof.
They'd just institute daylight-based pricing. Use of electricity during the day = $0.05/kWh. Use of electricity an night = $0.50/kWh. Now you've got to solve the battery problem AND the solar panel problem.
Nah, then all you need is batteries and a charging and inverter system. No solar panels at all. Because all you'd have to do is store electricity from the company during the day, and use it at night or when the power is down. Right now, there's no great price advantage to doing this, but the second the day and night prices diverge significantly, there would be. And THEN, if they caught on and changed it back, all you'd need to add would be panels. So this would be a very bad move for the power companies.
What YOU missed is that Christ specifically said the OT remained in force:
Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Heaven and earth are still here -- and that's the end of any possible argument you can make. Sorry, dude. You've been doing it wrong.
Look, a lower tax rate != "paying less taxes." Pull your head out of your ass and write truthfully, and you'll make a better impression. Just admit you're wrong and fix it. It amazes me that some people are too stubborn to even accept assistance designed to forward their specific intent.
I disagree with Paul on some points -- particularly the social safety net -- but I'm pretty sure he couldn't get his ideas implemented anyway, because congress would never stand for it. His superstitious wackery bothers me too, but I think that's the price of candidacy at this point in time -- and I'm pretty sure he's less likely to try and inflict it on the rest of as compared to just about any other candidate.
My main issue that makes me really want him in there is his idea that we should pull back our military, and if some country wants us in there fighting, they can pay for the privilege. Turn the world's tendency to make war into profit instead of this constant drain on all of our resources. We certainly are good at some important parts of warfare, particularly smart weapons, stealth, intelligence acquisition, etc. And that *is* in the president's purview.
I'm going to vote for him. With this field, it's either him or Obama, and Obama has disappointed me just a bit too much, particularly in the constitutional rights and making war in a fashion that makes certain to maximise what I consider the useless expenditure of human lives and the incurring of pointless debt, to reward him with my vote. I look at Paul, and I think to myself -- "I know what to expect here." I look at Obama, and I think -- "Liar." And yeah, I voted for Obama last time.
Re environmental regs... when I was a kid, in the 50's and 60's, the sides of the highways were trashed, cigarette butts were everywhere, etc. Now people have stopped doing that, pretty much. It's very clean now by comparison. I think the takeaway is that most people -- acting as individuals -- have actually corrected their course, and that we would frown a lot on corporate polluters if they were brought to our attention (and there's always someone willing to do that.) Maybe everything doesn't have to be done by the federal government -- maybe a second chance wouldn't be a disaster. If it is, the states and/or congress -- not the president -- can correct the nation's course in this matter.
I'm willing to give it a try. We have some leeway to do so -- as I said, it's a lot better now than it was mid-1990's.
Reactors are great ideas, period. The problem is that they are not in any sense politically feasible. The political and politico-legal aspects raise the costs of reactors far beyond the practical. So forget about them. Concentrate on what can be done, not what you wish for.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no "FISA amendment", constitutionally speaking. Don't give it credence it has no right to.
FISA is unauthorized, illegal legislation which exhorts government employees to break their oaths. No more than that.
No. Required: Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, all presented to a judge, who might, if your presentation is good enough, issue a warrant.
Then you can search, wiretap, read email, etc. As long as you're looking for what you said you were looking for such that it agrees with the reasons underlying warrant.
Anything else -- anything -- is unauthorized use of power not granted by the constitution, and therefore completely unavailable to the federal government (or any state government, according to any reasonable reading of 14th amendment) without a constitutional convention and subsequent alteration of the 4th amendment itself.
The supreme court, as thus far constituted in many different ways, doesn't understand ANY part of "no" or "shall not." Nor has the executive to date, nor congress.
Examples abound.
The problem is, the constitution has no teeth: there are no penalties for any one, or any combination, of the executive, judiciary, or congress violating the constitution's explicit directives (and their oaths as well.) None whatsoever. Furthermore, even should something (magically!? accidentally!?) be declared correctly unconstitutional, all of the harm done between the implementation of the legislation and its demise is rarely undone, compensated for, or otherwise given the attention it needs. As for the actual malfeasance, there's no provision for impeachment, reprimand, fine or imprisonment. Nothing.
Basically, the government is operating well outside its constitutionally authorized bounds, and there isn't a single thing that can be done directly about it -- from the bottom. So vote for Ron Paul -- because he can jam the process up from the top, and it appears he is more than willing to do so.
Sorry man, Saturnalia both predates Festivus by millennia, and it had orgies. Clearly Saturnalia is the one to shoot for. :)
Because those months would differ fairly significantly in weather from the traditional months, I'm guessing. The more familiar the "new" months are, perhaps the easier they are to accept?
FTFY
I worked this out some time ago. And my approach is MUCH better. Seriously. Take a look. Benefits: Benefits include every month starts with Monday; Pay periods are normalized; billing periods are normalized; the ridiculous and confusing spattering of celebrations all over the calender are eliminated; bills would always be due the same date and day; the 11th would always be Thursday (as every date would always be the same day of the week think of the implications no more figuring that nonsense out!); Your birthday would always be the same day; no more celebrations that wander around the calender; a vastly improved sense of what day and/or date it is, because (for example) there are only four Mondays in the month, and if you know it’s Monday, you probably know what date it is; and if you know the date, it’s always the same day anyway, so you would know the day right off.
I'm not the first to take a swing at this, either -- and almost every attempt I've looked at is better than what these academics made. IMHO, of course. :)
Dude, I hate to tell you, but your ears were shot "back then" too -- it's just that your imagination was working really well.
So.... win?
No, it isn't. You're just failing to imagine it at the moment. It'd work just fine. For many reasons. Given one prerequisite: spectrum within existing receiver ranges where such a thing can exist. IOW, perhaps 540...700 KHz; 88...95 MHz; etc. Commercial stations can move. Might as well do something with the money they've raked in from their decades-long monopoly, after all.
Exactly the way RC cars work, CB works, wifi works, portable telephones work(ed), etc. In a nutshell, low power and small antennas. Just arrange for the capacity to cover a neighborhood in terms of non-skip range, perhaps 10 watts, and otherwise let the chips fall where they may. During skip periods for a particular band... just like our current AM band, sometimes you get one station when your local channel is open, sometimes you get another. Which is fun. Dxing, remember? Skip coming in? Well, so what. It doesn't need regulation. It just needs freedom. But we'll never get it, and that's because "public" airwaves are never, ever opened for broadcast opportunities. Corporate, censored tripe is all they will ever allow. Could the allocation become overcrowded in an urban region? Sure. Again, so what? There's no commercial interest involved, so... so what? Could neighbors (in the RF sense) make arrangements to share? Sure. Etc. And remember, FM has capture ratio going for it... so interference really isn't much of an issue. Open your mind, man.
Again, not regulate at the broadcast point, but limit at the manufacture point: same way they do CB, wifi, portable phones, etc. Provide transmitters that produce X, and antennae with gain of Y. Then apply benign lack of attention, and let it work itself out.
There's no actual *need* to regulate them. If they're within the band segment and the power limits, who cares? If not, same as today: they're pirates and there are already procedures for that.
Oy. Unbelievable the level of confusion and misunderstanding here. Look: The ham bands cannot legally be used for broadcast. Believe me, I know -- I'm a ham, have been for decades, and I currently hold the highest class license as well as having held a first class FCC broadcast engineer license.
What I'm speaking of here is the lack of bands that the PUBLIC, by which I mean everyone/anyone, can use to broadcast to the PUBLIC, by which I again mean everyone/anyone. For instance, the ability to set up a small AM or FM or TV station and broadcast a program on [FITB] to your community. There's nothing like that. NOTHING. Every speck of broadcast space of that nature is awarded to corporations; should you somehow brave the incredible morass of licensing and FCC type requirements and the associated horrible expense, and manage to put up a "low power" station, you will find that you are, in fact, an organization of considerable heft, as opposed to a citizen who wants to put on a program about [FITB].
The fact is, however, FCC aside, the effort required to put up a *technically* rules compliant FM or AM station good for your local community is negligible. $100 would do a fine job, even less if you were a technie type and built it. Maybe $200 if you want to go with TV. We're facing government requirements as the blocking issue here. Nothing else.
The ham bands can be used by licensed hams talking to one another, about a specifically limited range of subjects, can't be used to play music -- even if it's original music YOU wrote and own all the rights to -- and so on. There's zero provision for broadcast in the ham bands, they're no more useful for that than are the "public" wifi frequencies a modern DSL modem occupies or the "citizen's band."
There's plenty of spectrum available for you and yours to talk to each other, or the plumber to talk to his plumbing vans, etc. The issue here is BROADCASTING. Get it now?
No. It hasn't. It's been made available for commercial use, following the long standing tradition at the FCC of giving the public nothing or next to nothing, and corporations everything.
No. It's not that simple. Saying it is stubbornness implies that the believer understands they are wrong, or understands that looking at the data will enlighten them into a new outlook. It's more like this (and I'm still simplifying there.)
Until or unless gene therapy goes a lot further than it has...
"You can't cure stupid."
I think what's going to happen first is sex-, service- and menial-robotics and other game-changing vehicles for technological plenty and comfort will come along and (further) pacify the crowd; they'll be no less hungry for gossip, but they'll be even less willing to disturb the status quo that is serving them up said comforts than they are today. We won't see superstition go away until or unless it becomes a form of child abuse to let your child be born and/or raised stupid, and/or gullible, and/or without critical thinking abilities. Just an IMHO.
Well, then, everything's ok, right? Nothing to see here! Move along.
lol - notice how alone we we are here? No one is jumping in with Coruscating Fields, etc., yadda yadda.
Sorry -- posse comitatus doesn't apply to the coast guard. And you get exactly one guess as to what service that "navy" hanger belongs to. Protip: It isn't the navy.
You need to start with a copper bathtub. Did you do that? No, you bloody well didn't. Kids today. There are no shortcuts!
I suggest you read my post again. Slowly. It's all in there, trust me.
Yeah... but... notice that is *research* cell efficiencies. Where's the chart for cells you can BUY? Price against watts output would be most interesting, followed by watts output against square area.
We're all well aware that research is announced all the time with fabulous tales of benefits. What we're grinching about is the inability buy such a thing cost-effectively -- and have it not turn into silicon splinters in the first hailstorm, or lose most of its efficiency in the first few years on the roof.
Nah, then all you need is batteries and a charging and inverter system. No solar panels at all. Because all you'd have to do is store electricity from the company during the day, and use it at night or when the power is down. Right now, there's no great price advantage to doing this, but the second the day and night prices diverge significantly, there would be. And THEN, if they caught on and changed it back, all you'd need to add would be panels. So this would be a very bad move for the power companies.
What YOU missed is that Christ specifically said the OT remained in force:
Heaven and earth are still here -- and that's the end of any possible argument you can make. Sorry, dude. You've been doing it wrong.
Look, a lower tax rate != "paying less taxes." Pull your head out of your ass and write truthfully, and you'll make a better impression. Just admit you're wrong and fix it. It amazes me that some people are too stubborn to even accept assistance designed to forward their specific intent.
I disagree with Paul on some points -- particularly the social safety net -- but I'm pretty sure he couldn't get his ideas implemented anyway, because congress would never stand for it. His superstitious wackery bothers me too, but I think that's the price of candidacy at this point in time -- and I'm pretty sure he's less likely to try and inflict it on the rest of as compared to just about any other candidate.
My main issue that makes me really want him in there is his idea that we should pull back our military, and if some country wants us in there fighting, they can pay for the privilege. Turn the world's tendency to make war into profit instead of this constant drain on all of our resources. We certainly are good at some important parts of warfare, particularly smart weapons, stealth, intelligence acquisition, etc. And that *is* in the president's purview.
I'm going to vote for him. With this field, it's either him or Obama, and Obama has disappointed me just a bit too much, particularly in the constitutional rights and making war in a fashion that makes certain to maximise what I consider the useless expenditure of human lives and the incurring of pointless debt, to reward him with my vote. I look at Paul, and I think to myself -- "I know what to expect here." I look at Obama, and I think -- "Liar." And yeah, I voted for Obama last time.
Re environmental regs... when I was a kid, in the 50's and 60's, the sides of the highways were trashed, cigarette butts were everywhere, etc. Now people have stopped doing that, pretty much. It's very clean now by comparison. I think the takeaway is that most people -- acting as individuals -- have actually corrected their course, and that we would frown a lot on corporate polluters if they were brought to our attention (and there's always someone willing to do that.) Maybe everything doesn't have to be done by the federal government -- maybe a second chance wouldn't be a disaster. If it is, the states and/or congress -- not the president -- can correct the nation's course in this matter.
I'm willing to give it a try. We have some leeway to do so -- as I said, it's a lot better now than it was mid-1990's.
Reactors are great ideas, period. The problem is that they are not in any sense politically feasible. The political and politico-legal aspects raise the costs of reactors far beyond the practical. So forget about them. Concentrate on what can be done, not what you wish for.