After how poor the last one was -- crystal skull -- I'm probably done with 'em anyway. I nearly bailed after that one with the incredibly annoying kid, but Lucas redeemed himself through Sean Connery's good auspices. That kid was the Jar Jar Binks / Ewok of IJ movies. Precocious, annoying children only amuse mothers in the full flush of new-kid hormones, and grandparents who snicker at the parents trying to handle them. The rest of us just want to stuff them into a barrel and pound in the bung.
Even at that, what TFS and TFA leave out is the selling price. They cost less to produce, but that doesn't mean the price to end users is a lot lower; there's plenty of motivation to eat that delta in profit, especially for a public company as in this case.
...the CBS article reads like 1984, urging travelers to treat all electronic devices (from fax to cellphone and back) as compromised and then proceeding to talk about China's aggressive cyber-espionage programs.
This would be fine if it warned US citizens about the US government's invasive Internet and telecomm spying. What we have here is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black.
However, in the case of the US government, said spying is in direct violation of the documents that give the government authority to operate (in particular, the 4th amendment); I'm not at all sure that anything similar can be said of China, which has an entirely different form of government. Consequently, I suspect the US deserves considerably less respect than China does with regard to these activities.
A) I spent $3500 on that display, total, considerably less than most people spend on beer in their younger years, also less than many spend on plasma and large-screen LCDs.
B) Considering that I don't drink beer, I don't think I'm any sillier than anyone else, plus I have something to show for my investment.
C), if you'd really like to have a go at slapping the shit out of me, you're cordially invited to my private fighting gym and by all means, lets have a little fun.:-)
The projector was $2500; the paint for the screen was about $1000. So total investment for that 17' display, $3500. All the rest of it would work fine with a plasma or LCD. So I'm not sure what your math might have told you, but I'm already thinking I disagree.:-)
In fact, the reason that it offers "better motion depiction" is due to its lower frame rate. Blu-rays can do 24 frames a second which is the same frame rate as film.
No, Blueray can do 60 FPS at 1080p. It can also do 24 FPS, but that's not a limitation of the format or the players or the displays by any means. That's just a limitation of old film technology. And "in fact", the reason that Blueray can do motion better is because it can present a full, non-interlaced frame in 1/60th of a second so that (a) there's no interline distortion, and (b) the full frame rate is twice as fast and (c) things like panning are less susceptible to blurring the background because the frame rate can be up to twice as fast (see the Red one digital movie camera for an instance of this capability.)
DVDs do 30 frames a second (after being de-interlaced), so the film's 24 fps needs to be converted to 30 fps (actually, 29.97 fps).
Old films are not the only source material available today. Wake up and smell the digital data.
See the wikipedia article on Telecine to learn about the conversion process.
I'm well aware of how it works; My company's software has supported 3:2 pulldown since the early 1990's. I'm an engineer with many video-related hardware and software design credits. Slashdot is full of people like me.:-)
DVD appeared to be pushed on us as well. But... at least it had some merit to it!
Blue-ray has plenty of honest, actual merit; it is capable of about six times the visual detail, higher frame rates (so considerably better motion depiction) and a larger color space as compared to a DVD; in fact, it is so good that just as compact disks did for audio, a Blue-ray version of a film often reveals limitations of the original recording.
The summary has it at least partially right: The problem isn't that Blue-ray isn't better, the problem is that without good source material, a large hi-def TV and a viewing arrangement where you can actually make out the additional detail, it is difficult or even impossible for a viewer to appreciate the extra capability. With the economy tanking, I rather doubt the first thing on everyone's list is to go out and get an HDTV.
For those of us who do have them, though, and where the viewing arrangement is large enough to see all the detail, Blue-ray is not just "better", but far, far better and definitely the format of choice. I went extreme with my setup, and I don't regret it even a little bit. People who see movies and HD games on my systemnever leave thinking HD is a marketing scam.
I am almost certain that HD and Blue-ray will do just fine; it's just that there's a ton of legacy hardware that people already like, and it'll have to get old and crufty in their sight before they upgrade, and the economy has slowed down what wouldn't have been all that quick a process anyway.
Is it technically a "power grab" authorized or not if this has been the situation for almost the entire existence of the country?
Of course. Ever since the federal government was created by the constitution, if an act of the federal government is in violation of the constitution, then it's an unauthorized act. Doesn't matter when it occurred, any more than if you murdered your mother in the 1960's or in 2007; it's murder either way. There are two ways federal powers can go: They're constitutional, or they're not. If they're not, they're unauthorized. The judiciary has very limited powers, as specified by the constitution. When they declare something that they have not been explicitly given the power to determine, they're acting in an unauthorized manner. Everything subsequent that is based on such a determination is also unauthorized.
You see, your problem, and the problem of people who think like you, is that you imagine the federal government as the primary fact, and the constitution as something that it can take or leave as it prefers. But that's utterly backwards. The constitution CREATED the federal government, and it specifies both what powers it has, and what powers it cannot have. If the government feels that the constitution needs to be changed, they are allowed to attempt to do that with the explicit procedure specified in article V; there's no other way authorized to effect a change in the document. The idea that judges can effect such changes is in no way supported by a single word in the constitution. Check article V: you won't find a word about judges being able to amend the document. Judges aren't lawmakers. They're the people who look at the law that exists, and determine if the defendant has broken the law as written, or not.
Back to the telephone tap laws, the courts have ruled them not protected...
Even the most cursory reading of the 4th amendment indicates they are protected. The courts aren't even relevant here, I'm sorry I brought them up. The constitution says you have a right to be secure; arguing that a newly developed mean of communication somehow abrogates the right to security is both specious and simplistic. Your papers are to be secure; hence your mail is to be secure and your banking; hence your private emails and your credit; hence your intergalactic hyperwave messages. It's obvious. Really obvious.
Also, your operating under the false assumption that the constitution has been suspended or somehow nullified. It simply hasn't. A minor amount of research could have showed you that.
You know a my research has shown me about the current state of the constitution? This (quoted from a post i made elsewhere):
Starting with the bill of rights...
1st amendment: "free speech zones." Government funding of religious activities. The shifting of religious tax obligations onto the shoulders of others. Laws making it a felony to picket at a funeral. Numerous examples of censorship (federal, state, and local.) Arrest of peaceable (silent, still, small sign-holding) protesters at rallies.
2nd amendment: Any law that makes it a crime to keep or carry arms. Which means most arms laws from sword canes to machine guns. Even the recent "victory" at SCOTUS regarding the Washington D.C. law was utterly ridiculous, based upon an assertion that never appears in the constitution, and ignoring the language of the amendment itself.
4th amendment: Telecomm law violations. FISA in its entirety. Seizure of funds without a warrant or any kind of due process. Warrantless physical searches. Seizure of computers without probable cause. All manner of net monitoring, general tracking systems like cameras and license plate recognition systems, the continuous and in-depth snooping of banking activity, credit card activity, payment services like paypal, auction services like EBay... I could rea
You "constitutional literalists" are no different than 'biblical literalists (fundamentalists)"
Really? You think I'd advocate throwing your daughter to a lust-maddened crowd? Or I'd stone you to death for uttering a name? Or that I'd condemn you for eating shellfish?
Quite the contrary. My interest is in seeing to it that your freedoms, as embodied by my understanding of your liberties, are very well protected indeed.
If the "paper" gets in the way it is reinterpreted to fit
President Bush has a quote about the constitution that agrees with you: "It's just a piece of paper." I don't know if you are aware, but he is widely ridiculed for having made that remark. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.
A written constitution simply retards the achievement of popular will, it doesn't stop it.
So, in your view, tomorrow the congress could vote for the system to become a straight dictatorship, ceding all power to the sitting president, and that would be fine. Because it'd be "the popular will" of the congress. Because the constitution is an old "piece of paper", just a "political compromise", now to be succeeded by another "political compromise." That about sum it up?
In my view, either the government is based on the written authorization that established it, or it is not. Now, the last I heard, the USA is very specifically a constitutional republic, not an interpretive dance by the latest batch of well-meaning (or not) political office-holders. You may want to be ruled by a 545-strong cadre of "royals" who no longer have any limits they have to adhere to other than those they recast or make up; me, I'm not inclined to think that's a good idea; both in general, and specifically in light of the extensive mess these same 545 have made of the structure of government, and the laws themselves, specifically by ignoring the constitution.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion — just like the rest of us. In fact, your right to hold and express such an opinion is protected by... the constitution. There's some real irony there if you care to dig for it.
Come on. If they speak French, they'll surrender at the border. You know it; I know it; the French know it. It's people at the border who have the munchies that really threaten us. Bastards will eat us out of house and home. Katie bar the door!
Actually, the courts have long claimed that issues of national security outweight any 4th amendment protections.
Yes. That's what we call an "unauthorized power grab."
Border searches, phone taps and so on have been ruled outside the scope of the constitution for almost the entire history of the country because the danger of losing the country is more important then not being able to enforce a constitution that would no longer exist.
Um, yeah... I recall when Thomas Jefferson called Ben Franklin on his phone and said...
Oh, wait. Phone taps have only been possible since there were... PHONES! And what do we have with regard to phones? TELECOMM law, which is based on what??? Right! On THE FOURTH AMENDMENT! And what does telecomm law say??? Why, it says you need a WARRANT! And the danger of "losing the country" didn't exist in the person of an individual crossing a border until (at the very earliest) 1945. Only not really then, because although they could make A-Bombs, no one was going to be smuggling a multi-ton object in their valise. There are practical issues. And organized germ warfare came considerably later as well; about ten years later.
So, as it turns out, you're wrong on every single fact. Way to go, dude, that's epic.
The requirements to protect and defend the constitution sort of over ride provisions in it.
That's what they tell us, all right. Do you really think some person's laptop qualifies as a threat to the constitution? To national security? Even to uncle Ralph down the street? Don't you think that if Achmed The Awful has some data he wants to get into the country that is of a critical nature to his nefarious plans to elect another idiot like Bush in order to continue the destruction of our constitution, that even dumbassed, camel-fucking Achmed would have the sense to buy a virgin laptop here, and then SSL the data from places sandier than the good old U S of A? Or are you really so gullible to think that a laptop, of all things in this universe, is so threatening that the constitution should be suspended in order to protect us from it?
I'm not so worried about Achmed. I'm worried about idiots. It's the idiots who will destroy us. Achmed is so far back in line behind the morons who erode and ignore and denigrate the constitution that he hasn't got even a fraction of a chance to get the credit for the huge damage people like you cause.
Let me explain something to you. I have here on my wall the travel papers of my great-grandfather and his family, including two servants. It is a document that describes him and a very few physical characteristics, and which instructs other countries to give him clear, unimpeded passage. No pictures, no description of what was, or was not, in their luggage or how much of it there was, no assertions that he wasn't carrying drugs, etc. Basically "here they are, this is how many in the party, treat them well." Nice official seals, too. Very, very pretty.
With this document, he and his family traveled all over Europe, meeting (occasionally) only with the most polite and respectful officials, and even then, usually after they had been settled in for several days. He wrote extensively about the experience, we consider all of this family heirlooms for obvious reasons. These papers are absolutely mint.
To summarize the relevant parts of his travels, the fact is, when you got off the ship, you walked or rode away, or at least, presuming only that you knew where you were going. No one went through your luggage; no one stripped you and checked your colon; No one took your papers away from you for weeks so they could pore through them. And certainly no one did any such thing upon return to the United States; no, far from it. He had permission to travel; that was the end of it, and I mean the complete and utter end of it.
The fact is, there is no clause in the constitution that says "except at the borders, where we will do anything we want." Did you notice that? Did you ALSO notice that the constitution provides a list of enumerated powers, and that there's no colon probing, record-stealing, finger-printing authority given there, either? No, I didn't think you had. You know why I know that? Because I know from your post that you're one of those people who thinks that because the government has said something, it must therefore be the very golden light of truth. Which is nonsense, and can be easily demonstrated in a matter of seconds. For instance, the government says the commerce clause gives them authority to regulate commerce within the states. Really. That's what they say. Now go read the commerce clause. They also say they can regulate your ability to keep and carry arms. Now go read teh 2nd amendment. Etc. I could go on all night. Point made &mdash they say things that are not true to grab powers they are not authorized to have.
This whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" nonsense is a steaming, sludgy, hip-deep pile of the most noxious and vile excreta; it is only comparable in its intellectual dishonesty with the "imperial powers" dung they like to drag out.
On the other hand, if the officials at the border have probable cause — or in other words, they have sworn information that says you're bringing in something of a harmful nature... that's when this whole ability to search and/or seize comes in. Which of course makes perfect sense. Because no one in their right mind would impede innocent travelers from their lawful way. With regard to laptops, it is very difficult to see how an incoming laptop would contain anything of even the remotest threatening nature.
Quite aside from the fact that data can be moved across any set of national borders completely encrypted and in fractions of a second, and the common sense of any person (much less a presumably organized terrorist) trying to use a laptop to "smuggle data" would be so lacking that I am left basically speechless, the real harm done by taking away business and personal information for an "unspecified period of time" could be massive.
(they can't only be the arbiter of the Constitution when you like what they say - you can't have it both ways).
Please. They can't be the "arbiter" at all, constitutionally speaking. The constitution says (article III, section 1) with regard to SCOTUS: "The judicial Pow
...you left out the "war for the children"; it is one of the most powerful mechanisms congress routinely uses to assert unauthorized (and blatantly anti-liberty) powers.
And as such, any law requiring and / or "authorizing" such dragnet operations is itself null and void, an illegal law.
Sadly, this is not true. What it is, is a constitutionally unauthorized law, but it is 100% in force, not null, not void, and the government can and will use its massive power to enforce it unless or until it stopped by the courts. Barring actual revolution, that is.
Some of the most glaring faults in our system are that there is no punishment for congresscritters and judges for violating their oaths; no recompense for people hurt by unconstitutional laws; and there is no review system that ensures that laws are even remotely constitutional prior to them coming into force. All we can do (within the system) is vote 'em out or hope that the courts will return to 10th grade reading skills and thus gain the wit to interpret the constitution as it was meant to be; an exercise in plain English. Unfortunately, our voting system is a process that favors the majority, and the majority are, to put it kindly, uninformed on the one hand; and on the other, the justices at SCOTUS are, again to be kind, incompetent to do their jobs.
...the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is
The fourth amendment gives the specific definition of reasonable:
Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, a description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which in turn forms the basis for issuing a warrant, and the warrant itself is the legal pivot upon which the authorization of the federal government to search, or not search, turns.
The states must follow suit because the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Local jurisdictions must follow suit because they must comply with the laws of the state they exist within.
Any argument about "reasonable searches" not being explicitly defined in the 4th amendment is entirely sophist. The 4th goes into very specific detail on exactly that subject, and was written by people whose primary interest was limiting federal power. You can't say that the conditions required for a reasonable search aren't laid out in there. You certainly can't say that the terms for an unreasonable search are laid out in there -- those aren't unreasonable terms, they're reasonable terms.
With the specific and explicit definition of what 'reasonable" is right in hand, given by the constitution itself, the definition of "unreasonable" is crystal clear: everything else.
Now, if congress wants some other definition of "reasonable" in there, then amazingly enough, there is a mechanism specifically provided for them to get that accomplished; that is article V, Amendment. There is no other way they can legitimately effect such a change.
They can, however, assert unauthorized power by simply making unconstitutional legislation, just as they have with ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, various kinds of censorship, and an entire laundry list of other unauthorized power grabs; and in such an effort, they will continue to enjoy the support of the executive and the judiciary, because after all -- they're all part of the same system, and all benefit from accruing additional power.
It is very important that we, as citizens, remain cognizant of the difference between the authorizations of power made by the constitution, and the naked grabs for unauthorized power made by oath-breaking members of the executive, congress, and the judiciary. What little power we have -- essentially that of "throw the bums out" with regard to our own members of congress, and the executive -- should be used whenever we detect such unauthorized activity.
The problem is that most people don't bother to read the constitution, and are wholly unaware that the federal government has widely violated its constituting authority in many areas; there's an almost impossible obstacle to overcome with regard to informing the public as to just how far outside the lines the federal government has extended itself.
No, I was just speaking generally; you're just trying to pull an anal-retentive analysis over the fact that certs don't do anything but enable encryption, unless of course that's been compromised too. The bottom line is the same no matter what: The entire CA infrastructure is a scam. Saying "well of course if they're compromised bad things happen" doesn't make your case -- it destroys it. That's the whole point. There are no guarantees. INCLUDING who you are talking to. And as you say, this is what they are advertised to solve; however since in FACT they DO NOT solve it, they're worth exactly zero for that purpose. Their value is entirely in supporting the CA infrastructure. Which they do very well. To the tune of many, many dollars. Now, I understand you've been buffaloed by the marketing magic here, but that doesn't change the facts: They CANNOT guarantee what they claim, that's ALL they are useful for, ergo, they aren't useful. It's a scam. A money making scam to be certain, but a scam nonetheless.
I'm proposing the radical idea that unless we know he is "the scumbag", we let him go, yes.
Otherwise, two things happen. (1) We punish the wrong person, and (2) the actual criminal goes free, because once there is a conviction, THEY STOP PURSUING THE CASE. The current system is broken by design.
Reasonable doubt isn't good enough. As this very subject - DNA testing - has roundly proven.
You're missing the part about the adversarial system.... Prosecutors are primarily interested in convictions, but defense attorneys are primarily interested in acquittal.
Oy. No one is missing it. We're just weary (or worse) of a system that isn't truth based; isn't about justice; isn't about honor. The idea that the prosecutor is a conviction oriented seeker after injustice is not balanced out by the idea that the defender is an acquittal oriented seeker after injustice. Instead, it's made (at least) twice as bad.
Luckily, this is almost certainly a phase we're almost done with. Science is sure to come up with a 100% dependable, inexpensive way to tell if someone is telling the truth, and in criminal matters we can finally be done with this tedious and outrageously expensive employment of third parties whose interests in no way lie with the concept of justice.
I hope Shakespeare's character can be satisfied by lawyers getting what they so richly deserve: a McJob. Although I could see the best of them them migrating to marketing; that's another area where the truth is the last interest to be served.
These errors don't imply false clearing; your DNA will always match your own DNA. The only way you can be cleared by DNA evidence is if the DNA at the scene doesn't match yours; that, by definition, cannot be a false clear. You can be falsely implicated if it wasn't you and the DNA matches, which is what the problem is here, though.
Convicting people on probabilities, rather than proof, is not a good plan. The down side of a probability is that it goes the other way; for instance, if you're 99% on the "guilty" side, there's a 1% chance you're completely wrong. If you don't have 100% solid evidence, you don't have evidence at all, as far as I'm concerned. I've personally seen the system go the wrong way to my certain knowledge; it is beyond tragic, and it does NOT make up for whatever happened. And has been pointed out, the damage done to the innocent by such a conviction cannot be rectified.
No, you're missed a bunch. All of these presume an untruth; that the cert itself must be compromised. If I get into your root (by any means -- remote or local), I can get your cert and your key. I can then take them elsewhere, compromise the user at any DNS level including the hosts list, and the chain will establish itself as valid. The cert and key are fine; but they're in the wrong place, that's all.
I can also replace the browser; either eliminating its tests, or modifying them.
I can go around the entire system with a keylogger.
The bottom line is that these certificates cannot provide the kind of security they want you to think they do, which is, only you and the party the certificate names are privvy to the information. Since we KNOW that they cannot guarantee such things, the question is now, what *do* they guarantee? And the answer is exactly what I said above: They guarantee that the conversation between the two ends of the connection is encrypted. Not that the encryption is secure; not that the other end is who you think it is; not that the things you enter are in any way safe; just that the conversation is encrypted. And even *that* is subject to a browser hack that puts up a lock and modifies the URL to read https to the intended target when it is in fact http to an unintended party.
What we're seeing here is a crack in the government's facade of fake-goodness. The ideas we're fed are that justice is blind, which means (we're taught), ultimately fair; that prosecutors and judges and the legal system in general have our best interests at heart, and so on, platitude after platitude...
But the truth peers 'round the corner here. They're not interested in accuracy, else they'd be all for determining how well this works, or not. The process and the results would both be open. What they're interested in are convictions, because that's how they keep score. That's how the public is keeping score.
This is unfair and irresponsible on two fronts. First, if you get the wrong person for any reason (including using DNA evidence that is supposed to be basically infallible, but is, in fact, fallible); then you've done a wrong to that person, of course. But secondly, for every false conviction the prosecutor and their accomplices notch into their pistols, the real criminal is now completely free -- the case is closed. They're not even looking.
As a society, we need to stop trying to raise up any part of the system based upon count of arrests, convictions, tickets, etc. The temptation to go for easy answers is too high; obviously, if the FBI itself is victim to this, an organization that prides itself on its organizational integrity, groups that have less tradition of trying to do right -- like the local cops who broke down your neighbors door last week -- are going to fall even more prey to such pressures.
As we see that the FBI tries to prevent the truth from coming out about a tool that is less effective than they claim, as they try to prevent exonerating information from reaching the defense, we see true colors.
These people are not our defenders; they claim to be, but they have their own agenda, and it is not about fairness. They're simply counting scalps.
Slashdot Mirror
After how poor the last one was -- crystal skull -- I'm probably done with 'em anyway. I nearly bailed after that one with the incredibly annoying kid, but Lucas redeemed himself through Sean Connery's good auspices. That kid was the Jar Jar Binks / Ewok of IJ movies. Precocious, annoying children only amuse mothers in the full flush of new-kid hormones, and grandparents who snicker at the parents trying to handle them. The rest of us just want to stuff them into a barrel and pound in the bung.
Even at that, what TFS and TFA leave out is the selling price. They cost less to produce, but that doesn't mean the price to end users is a lot lower; there's plenty of motivation to eat that delta in profit, especially for a public company as in this case.
Token answer: Wrong.
This would be fine if it warned US citizens about the US government's invasive Internet and telecomm spying. What we have here is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black.
However, in the case of the US government, said spying is in direct violation of the documents that give the government authority to operate (in particular, the 4th amendment); I'm not at all sure that anything similar can be said of China, which has an entirely different form of government. Consequently, I suspect the US deserves considerably less respect than China does with regard to these activities.
A) I spent $3500 on that display, total, considerably less than most people spend on beer in their younger years, also less than many spend on plasma and large-screen LCDs.
B) Considering that I don't drink beer, I don't think I'm any sillier than anyone else, plus I have something to show for my investment.
C), if you'd really like to have a go at slapping the shit out of me, you're cordially invited to my private fighting gym and by all means, lets have a little fun. :-)
The projector was $2500; the paint for the screen was about $1000. So total investment for that 17' display, $3500. All the rest of it would work fine with a plasma or LCD. So I'm not sure what your math might have told you, but I'm already thinking I disagree. :-)
Whatever.
Yes, in fact, it [Blueray] does.
No, Blueray can do 60 FPS at 1080p. It can also do 24 FPS, but that's not a limitation of the format or the players or the displays by any means. That's just a limitation of old film technology. And "in fact", the reason that Blueray can do motion better is because it can present a full, non-interlaced frame in 1/60th of a second so that (a) there's no interline distortion, and (b) the full frame rate is twice as fast and (c) things like panning are less susceptible to blurring the background because the frame rate can be up to twice as fast (see the Red one digital movie camera for an instance of this capability.)
Old films are not the only source material available today. Wake up and smell the digital data.
I'm well aware of how it works; My company's software has supported 3:2 pulldown since the early 1990's. I'm an engineer with many video-related hardware and software design credits. Slashdot is full of people like me. :-)
No. Just for myself.
Blue-ray has plenty of honest, actual merit; it is capable of about six times the visual detail, higher frame rates (so considerably better motion depiction) and a larger color space as compared to a DVD; in fact, it is so good that just as compact disks did for audio, a Blue-ray version of a film often reveals limitations of the original recording.
The summary has it at least partially right: The problem isn't that Blue-ray isn't better, the problem is that without good source material, a large hi-def TV and a viewing arrangement where you can actually make out the additional detail, it is difficult or even impossible for a viewer to appreciate the extra capability. With the economy tanking, I rather doubt the first thing on everyone's list is to go out and get an HDTV.
For those of us who do have them, though, and where the viewing arrangement is large enough to see all the detail, Blue-ray is not just "better", but far, far better and definitely the format of choice. I went extreme with my setup, and I don't regret it even a little bit. People who see movies and HD games on my system never leave thinking HD is a marketing scam.
I am almost certain that HD and Blue-ray will do just fine; it's just that there's a ton of legacy hardware that people already like, and it'll have to get old and crufty in their sight before they upgrade, and the economy has slowed down what wouldn't have been all that quick a process anyway.
Of course. Ever since the federal government was created by the constitution, if an act of the federal government is in violation of the constitution, then it's an unauthorized act. Doesn't matter when it occurred, any more than if you murdered your mother in the 1960's or in 2007; it's murder either way. There are two ways federal powers can go: They're constitutional, or they're not. If they're not, they're unauthorized. The judiciary has very limited powers, as specified by the constitution. When they declare something that they have not been explicitly given the power to determine, they're acting in an unauthorized manner. Everything subsequent that is based on such a determination is also unauthorized.
You see, your problem, and the problem of people who think like you, is that you imagine the federal government as the primary fact, and the constitution as something that it can take or leave as it prefers. But that's utterly backwards. The constitution CREATED the federal government, and it specifies both what powers it has, and what powers it cannot have. If the government feels that the constitution needs to be changed, they are allowed to attempt to do that with the explicit procedure specified in article V; there's no other way authorized to effect a change in the document. The idea that judges can effect such changes is in no way supported by a single word in the constitution. Check article V: you won't find a word about judges being able to amend the document. Judges aren't lawmakers. They're the people who look at the law that exists, and determine if the defendant has broken the law as written, or not.
Even the most cursory reading of the 4th amendment indicates they are protected. The courts aren't even relevant here, I'm sorry I brought them up. The constitution says you have a right to be secure; arguing that a newly developed mean of communication somehow abrogates the right to security is both specious and simplistic. Your papers are to be secure; hence your mail is to be secure and your banking; hence your private emails and your credit; hence your intergalactic hyperwave messages. It's obvious. Really obvious.
You know a my research has shown me about the current state of the constitution? This (quoted from a post i made elsewhere):
Starting with the bill of rights...
1st amendment: "free speech zones." Government funding of religious activities. The shifting of religious tax obligations onto the shoulders of others. Laws making it a felony to picket at a funeral. Numerous examples of censorship (federal, state, and local.) Arrest of peaceable (silent, still, small sign-holding) protesters at rallies.
2nd amendment: Any law that makes it a crime to keep or carry arms. Which means most arms laws from sword canes to machine guns. Even the recent "victory" at SCOTUS regarding the Washington D.C. law was utterly ridiculous, based upon an assertion that never appears in the constitution, and ignoring the language of the amendment itself.
4th amendment: Telecomm law violations. FISA in its entirety. Seizure of funds without a warrant or any kind of due process. Warrantless physical searches. Seizure of computers without probable cause. All manner of net monitoring, general tracking systems like cameras and license plate recognition systems, the continuous and in-depth snooping of banking activity, credit card activity, payment services like paypal, auction services like EBay... I could rea
Really? You think I'd advocate throwing your daughter to a lust-maddened crowd? Or I'd stone you to death for uttering a name? Or that I'd condemn you for eating shellfish?
Quite the contrary. My interest is in seeing to it that your freedoms, as embodied by my understanding of your liberties, are very well protected indeed.
President Bush has a quote about the constitution that agrees with you: "It's just a piece of paper." I don't know if you are aware, but he is widely ridiculed for having made that remark. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.
So, in your view, tomorrow the congress could vote for the system to become a straight dictatorship, ceding all power to the sitting president, and that would be fine. Because it'd be "the popular will" of the congress. Because the constitution is an old "piece of paper", just a "political compromise", now to be succeeded by another "political compromise." That about sum it up?
In my view, either the government is based on the written authorization that established it, or it is not. Now, the last I heard, the USA is very specifically a constitutional republic, not an interpretive dance by the latest batch of well-meaning (or not) political office-holders. You may want to be ruled by a 545-strong cadre of "royals" who no longer have any limits they have to adhere to other than those they recast or make up; me, I'm not inclined to think that's a good idea; both in general, and specifically in light of the extensive mess these same 545 have made of the structure of government, and the laws themselves, specifically by ignoring the constitution.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion — just like the rest of us. In fact, your right to hold and express such an opinion is protected by... the constitution. There's some real irony there if you care to dig for it.
Come on. If they speak French, they'll surrender at the border. You know it; I know it; the French know it. It's people at the border who have the munchies that really threaten us. Bastards will eat us out of house and home. Katie bar the door!
Yes. That's what we call an "unauthorized power grab."
Um, yeah... I recall when Thomas Jefferson called Ben Franklin on his phone and said...
Oh, wait. Phone taps have only been possible since there were... PHONES! And what do we have with regard to phones? TELECOMM law, which is based on what??? Right! On THE FOURTH AMENDMENT! And what does telecomm law say??? Why, it says you need a WARRANT! And the danger of "losing the country" didn't exist in the person of an individual crossing a border until (at the very earliest) 1945. Only not really then, because although they could make A-Bombs, no one was going to be smuggling a multi-ton object in their valise. There are practical issues. And organized germ warfare came considerably later as well; about ten years later.
So, as it turns out, you're wrong on every single fact. Way to go, dude, that's epic.
That's what they tell us, all right. Do you really think some person's laptop qualifies as a threat to the constitution? To national security? Even to uncle Ralph down the street? Don't you think that if Achmed The Awful has some data he wants to get into the country that is of a critical nature to his nefarious plans to elect another idiot like Bush in order to continue the destruction of our constitution, that even dumbassed, camel-fucking Achmed would have the sense to buy a virgin laptop here, and then SSL the data from places sandier than the good old U S of A? Or are you really so gullible to think that a laptop, of all things in this universe, is so threatening that the constitution should be suspended in order to protect us from it?
I'm not so worried about Achmed. I'm worried about idiots. It's the idiots who will destroy us. Achmed is so far back in line behind the morons who erode and ignore and denigrate the constitution that he hasn't got even a fraction of a chance to get the credit for the huge damage people like you cause.
Let me explain something to you. I have here on my wall the travel papers of my great-grandfather and his family, including two servants. It is a document that describes him and a very few physical characteristics, and which instructs other countries to give him clear, unimpeded passage. No pictures, no description of what was, or was not, in their luggage or how much of it there was, no assertions that he wasn't carrying drugs, etc. Basically "here they are, this is how many in the party, treat them well." Nice official seals, too. Very, very pretty.
With this document, he and his family traveled all over Europe, meeting (occasionally) only with the most polite and respectful officials, and even then, usually after they had been settled in for several days. He wrote extensively about the experience, we consider all of this family heirlooms for obvious reasons. These papers are absolutely mint.
To summarize the relevant parts of his travels, the fact is, when you got off the ship, you walked or rode away, or at least, presuming only that you knew where you were going. No one went through your luggage; no one stripped you and checked your colon; No one took your papers away from you for weeks so they could pore through them. And certainly no one did any such thing upon return to the United States; no, far from it. He had permission to travel; that was the end of it, and I mean the complete and utter end of it.
The fact is, there is no clause in the constitution that says "except at the borders, where we will do anything we want." Did you notice that? Did you ALSO notice that the constitution provides a list of enumerated powers, and that there's no colon probing, record-stealing, finger-printing authority given there, either? No, I didn't think you had. You know why I know that? Because I know from your post that you're one of those people who thinks that because the government has said something, it must therefore be the very golden light of truth. Which is nonsense, and can be easily demonstrated in a matter of seconds. For instance, the government says the commerce clause gives them authority to regulate commerce within the states. Really. That's what they say. Now go read the commerce clause. They also say they can regulate your ability to keep and carry arms. Now go read teh 2nd amendment. Etc. I could go on all night. Point made &mdash they say things that are not true to grab powers they are not authorized to have.
This whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" nonsense is a steaming, sludgy, hip-deep pile of the most noxious and vile excreta; it is only comparable in its intellectual dishonesty with the "imperial powers" dung they like to drag out.
On the other hand, if the officials at the border have probable cause — or in other words, they have sworn information that says you're bringing in something of a harmful nature... that's when this whole ability to search and/or seize comes in. Which of course makes perfect sense. Because no one in their right mind would impede innocent travelers from their lawful way. With regard to laptops, it is very difficult to see how an incoming laptop would contain anything of even the remotest threatening nature.
Quite aside from the fact that data can be moved across any set of national borders completely encrypted and in fractions of a second, and the common sense of any person (much less a presumably organized terrorist) trying to use a laptop to "smuggle data" would be so lacking that I am left basically speechless, the real harm done by taking away business and personal information for an "unspecified period of time" could be massive.
Please. They can't be the "arbiter" at all, constitutionally speaking. The constitution says (article III, section 1) with regard to SCOTUS: "The judicial Pow
Sadly, this is not true. What it is, is a constitutionally unauthorized law, but it is 100% in force, not null, not void, and the government can and will use its massive power to enforce it unless or until it stopped by the courts. Barring actual revolution, that is.
Some of the most glaring faults in our system are that there is no punishment for congresscritters and judges for violating their oaths; no recompense for people hurt by unconstitutional laws; and there is no review system that ensures that laws are even remotely constitutional prior to them coming into force. All we can do (within the system) is vote 'em out or hope that the courts will return to 10th grade reading skills and thus gain the wit to interpret the constitution as it was meant to be; an exercise in plain English. Unfortunately, our voting system is a process that favors the majority, and the majority are, to put it kindly, uninformed on the one hand; and on the other, the justices at SCOTUS are, again to be kind, incompetent to do their jobs.
The summary speweth forth:
The fourth amendment gives the specific definition of reasonable:
Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, a description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which in turn forms the basis for issuing a warrant, and the warrant itself is the legal pivot upon which the authorization of the federal government to search, or not search, turns.
The states must follow suit because the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Local jurisdictions must follow suit because they must comply with the laws of the state they exist within.
Any argument about "reasonable searches" not being explicitly defined in the 4th amendment is entirely sophist. The 4th goes into very specific detail on exactly that subject, and was written by people whose primary interest was limiting federal power. You can't say that the conditions required for a reasonable search aren't laid out in there. You certainly can't say that the terms for an unreasonable search are laid out in there -- those aren't unreasonable terms, they're reasonable terms.
With the specific and explicit definition of what 'reasonable" is right in hand, given by the constitution itself, the definition of "unreasonable" is crystal clear: everything else.
Now, if congress wants some other definition of "reasonable" in there, then amazingly enough, there is a mechanism specifically provided for them to get that accomplished; that is article V, Amendment. There is no other way they can legitimately effect such a change.
They can, however, assert unauthorized power by simply making unconstitutional legislation, just as they have with ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, various kinds of censorship, and an entire laundry list of other unauthorized power grabs; and in such an effort, they will continue to enjoy the support of the executive and the judiciary, because after all -- they're all part of the same system, and all benefit from accruing additional power.
It is very important that we, as citizens, remain cognizant of the difference between the authorizations of power made by the constitution, and the naked grabs for unauthorized power made by oath-breaking members of the executive, congress, and the judiciary. What little power we have -- essentially that of "throw the bums out" with regard to our own members of congress, and the executive -- should be used whenever we detect such unauthorized activity.
The problem is that most people don't bother to read the constitution, and are wholly unaware that the federal government has widely violated its constituting authority in many areas; there's an almost impossible obstacle to overcome with regard to informing the public as to just how far outside the lines the federal government has extended itself.
No, I was just speaking generally; you're just trying to pull an anal-retentive analysis over the fact that certs don't do anything but enable encryption, unless of course that's been compromised too. The bottom line is the same no matter what: The entire CA infrastructure is a scam. Saying "well of course if they're compromised bad things happen" doesn't make your case -- it destroys it. That's the whole point. There are no guarantees. INCLUDING who you are talking to. And as you say, this is what they are advertised to solve; however since in FACT they DO NOT solve it, they're worth exactly zero for that purpose. Their value is entirely in supporting the CA infrastructure. Which they do very well. To the tune of many, many dollars. Now, I understand you've been buffaloed by the marketing magic here, but that doesn't change the facts: They CANNOT guarantee what they claim, that's ALL they are useful for, ergo, they aren't useful. It's a scam. A money making scam to be certain, but a scam nonetheless.
I'm proposing the radical idea that unless we know he is "the scumbag", we let him go, yes.
Otherwise, two things happen. (1) We punish the wrong person, and (2) the actual criminal goes free, because once there is a conviction, THEY STOP PURSUING THE CASE. The current system is broken by design.
Reasonable doubt isn't good enough. As this very subject - DNA testing - has roundly proven.
Oy. No one is missing it. We're just weary (or worse) of a system that isn't truth based; isn't about justice; isn't about honor. The idea that the prosecutor is a conviction oriented seeker after injustice is not balanced out by the idea that the defender is an acquittal oriented seeker after injustice. Instead, it's made (at least) twice as bad.
Luckily, this is almost certainly a phase we're almost done with. Science is sure to come up with a 100% dependable, inexpensive way to tell if someone is telling the truth, and in criminal matters we can finally be done with this tedious and outrageously expensive employment of third parties whose interests in no way lie with the concept of justice.
I hope Shakespeare's character can be satisfied by lawyers getting what they so richly deserve: a McJob. Although I could see the best of them them migrating to marketing; that's another area where the truth is the last interest to be served.
These errors don't imply false clearing; your DNA will always match your own DNA. The only way you can be cleared by DNA evidence is if the DNA at the scene doesn't match yours; that, by definition, cannot be a false clear. You can be falsely implicated if it wasn't you and the DNA matches, which is what the problem is here, though.
Convicting people on probabilities, rather than proof, is not a good plan. The down side of a probability is that it goes the other way; for instance, if you're 99% on the "guilty" side, there's a 1% chance you're completely wrong. If you don't have 100% solid evidence, you don't have evidence at all, as far as I'm concerned. I've personally seen the system go the wrong way to my certain knowledge; it is beyond tragic, and it does NOT make up for whatever happened. And has been pointed out, the damage done to the innocent by such a conviction cannot be rectified.
Ex-#$%^-ing-zactly.
No, you're missed a bunch. All of these presume an untruth; that the cert itself must be compromised. If I get into your root (by any means -- remote or local), I can get your cert and your key. I can then take them elsewhere, compromise the user at any DNS level including the hosts list, and the chain will establish itself as valid. The cert and key are fine; but they're in the wrong place, that's all.
I can also replace the browser; either eliminating its tests, or modifying them.
I can go around the entire system with a keylogger.
The bottom line is that these certificates cannot provide the kind of security they want you to think they do, which is, only you and the party the certificate names are privvy to the information. Since we KNOW that they cannot guarantee such things, the question is now, what *do* they guarantee? And the answer is exactly what I said above: They guarantee that the conversation between the two ends of the connection is encrypted. Not that the encryption is secure; not that the other end is who you think it is; not that the things you enter are in any way safe; just that the conversation is encrypted. And even *that* is subject to a browser hack that puts up a lock and modifies the URL to read https to the intended target when it is in fact http to an unintended party.
What we're seeing here is a crack in the government's facade of fake-goodness. The ideas we're fed are that justice is blind, which means (we're taught), ultimately fair; that prosecutors and judges and the legal system in general have our best interests at heart, and so on, platitude after platitude...
But the truth peers 'round the corner here. They're not interested in accuracy, else they'd be all for determining how well this works, or not. The process and the results would both be open. What they're interested in are convictions, because that's how they keep score. That's how the public is keeping score.
This is unfair and irresponsible on two fronts. First, if you get the wrong person for any reason (including using DNA evidence that is supposed to be basically infallible, but is, in fact, fallible); then you've done a wrong to that person, of course. But secondly, for every false conviction the prosecutor and their accomplices notch into their pistols, the real criminal is now completely free -- the case is closed. They're not even looking.
As a society, we need to stop trying to raise up any part of the system based upon count of arrests, convictions, tickets, etc. The temptation to go for easy answers is too high; obviously, if the FBI itself is victim to this, an organization that prides itself on its organizational integrity, groups that have less tradition of trying to do right -- like the local cops who broke down your neighbors door last week -- are going to fall even more prey to such pressures.
As we see that the FBI tries to prevent the truth from coming out about a tool that is less effective than they claim, as they try to prevent exonerating information from reaching the defense, we see true colors.
These people are not our defenders; they claim to be, but they have their own agenda, and it is not about fairness. They're simply counting scalps.