That's the POINT. Reasonable controls would be requiring a warrant (which is as simple as presenting a basic reason to an impartial judge). The government can already perform these taps with a warrant using the secret and expedited FISA court. This law guts the warrant necessity eliminating any reasonable control. It's already been shown that the FBI has abused these sorts of wiretaps with bogus National Security Letters. We're not saying don't wiretap, we're saying require a review (as required by the Constitution).
And, so what if the President got caught in Watergate? It was by accident that the unlocked door was found. How many more similar incidents have happened that we haven't heard about? We'll never know without auditable control.
Uncle Sam may not care about your personal business, but the individuals who are doing the wiretaps may. The point is that without oversight there is plenty of chance of abuse; that abuse comes in the form of individuals using the wiretaps for personal gain. (Remember Watergate?)
It's rare to see someone who clearly and concisely addresses the issue, and then provides rational solutions to it. Thank you, this comment was awesome.
While I understand that the above article has already been modded down, I do feel it needed to address several flaws in your argument style. It's important that we argue with integrity and following the rules of logic, otherwise nothing can ever get decided.
1. The local government was more to blame than anyone for the Katrina disaster. I hardly ever hear this mentioned because the local government was a bunch of good for nothing Dems. They've controlled that state for how long? Proof positive that a liberal government does not really care about its people.
It's unfortunate that many people have lost the ability to form a logical argument. Even assuming what you've said in point 1 is 100% correct, how does that give proof positive that liberal governments don't care about their people? "Proof by example" has never been legitimate. Unfortunately the response to my comment will likely be an ad hominem attack "oh but when the Republicans do X, Dems say y". In any case, label it as ancedotal evidence if you wish, but not as proof positive.
2. Saddam was a thorn in our side, and he needed to be stood up to. Bush took advantage of the timing and went after him. Brilliant.
How? Again, arguments need to be supported by fact, otherwise it's just political rhetoric. What did he specifically do prior to the war to be a thorn in our side? And, was he the biggest problem that we could have tackled? (or even, at the level of the top problems?)
3. There is no evidence that the Iraq war is taking resources away from fighting Bin Laden. I suppose Dems now want to attack Pakistan? Or do they want to sign some paper saying that they do, but then act like Bush misled them afterwards? Cowards.
I don't think that you can argue no evidence. There have been talks about the current strain on the military due to under-recruitment and current deployment. Whether or not Iraq hasn't detracted us from Bin Laden is a different point -- feel free to argue that, backed with real facts, not sweeping generalizations. I also don't take well to the creating of an opposing viewpoint just so you can offer an answer. Nowhere in the public record has an attack on Pakistan been mentioned, to my knowledge. The closest reference would be Bush stating that he'd go into Pakistan immediately if he knew Bin Laden were there.
7. You dems have no room to talk when it comes to scandals. Your own Barney Frank ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house and he is still in office.
Ad hominem argument. Anyone can talk about scandals. In fact, we should. Democrat or Republican, we should point out when they mess up and remove them from office. Another unfortunate way we argue is to say "well someone you know somewhere down the road messed up once so don't talk". There have been scandals on both sides of the isle, including the recent one with the Florida Republican Representative. Can we talk about them all? Sure.
The reason this one merits some attention is because it's one of those projects that seeks to tear down the barriers that are often between disciplines in academia. While it's not a new idea that everything is inter-related, interdisciplinary cooperation is finally on the rise after years of academia erecting silos of knowledge.
There was an interesting New York Times article that talked about how IT reaches into all fields now. Take a field like Travel and Tourism and you can raise your revenue with a sharp IT staff. How do you schedule trains, planes and taxis to minimize wait and maximize paying customers? What's the optimal price at each moment for a plane that is x% full and leaves in y days.
Technology careers are everywhere, not just in vanilla software development firms.
I think that the misconception in many of the comments is that this program is designed to turn the average college student into somewhat of a "quickie-techie". It is not.
The program is designed to supplement the courses that a technology-area major takes ordinarily. The idea is that your English, Speech, Health and other core College courses would be technology infused, thus showing you the connections between the theory of technology you're majoring in and applications to other fields. The hope is that by the end, students will know the breadth of career possibilities instead of getting pipelined directly into the average help desk career.
Besides the tech-infusion into typical courses, the program also concludes by having students create a simulated technology business in the classroom. They're asked to go through the process of coming up with an idea, business model, marketing plans, and then working to "sell" that product. This connects their technology knowledge with real world business practices, as well as forces them to read about the current state of the industry, all while imparting those critical communication, groupwork and other soft skills.
The real question here is what skills need to be infused into the Liberal Arts courses so that in their final course they are able to and feel confident in starting their own tech-based business.
That's really not the point of the program. The program is infusing IT concepts into the Liberal Arts courses that will be taken by technology students. The goal is for the students to see the connections between technology and the rest of the world early on.
Doesn't a National Sales Tax shift the entire burden from the corporation to the customer? Do you think that companies are going to lower their prices? Probably not. They'll blame it on the government, leave prices in place and reap higher, untaxed profits.
And the flat tax eliminates the progressive tax structure we have in this country. You know, the one that keeps the poor family from paying much, while the rich family can only buy two helicopters, instead of three.
You should more carefully research your comment.
I'm very surprised to see how poor the spelling and capitalization is in a lawyer's letter. I would have expected a more thoroughly reviewed document... is that for real?
i think you're getting confused. Companies have a duty to make money (that's what they're for). They even have rights pursuant to activities surrounding the making of money. They do not have the right to make money, otherwise they could sit and do nothing and then demand taxpayer cash from the government because their rights were being infringed.
And that doesn't happen these days?;) (Don't look at the defense industry!)
I live in India and I am constantly bogged by sms' asking me if I was interested in winning gold, buying a car etc. What's worse ?? Sometimes, we get automated calls asking if we are interested in some offers.
The funny part is that the spam you're getting is coming from American [call] centers.
If we abolish the IRS and put all the powers back into the state's hands, we'll be back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. Read up on your history, that time of our nation's history went horribly.
I said: Just think long and hard about what you're advocating here, it's quite scary.
You said: Ever heard of "satirical exaggeration for polemical effect"?
It's not exaggeration when you present an easily possible situation.
With America moving to conglomerates there's very few companies that are solely independent. In your example of a company running the court system, why would you assume that a small company would get a contract a larger company that could offer cut-throat prices? You, yourself, advocate going for the lowest bidder.
I think that you've failed to see how flawed your situation is.
Well that's OK then, since this is much more like communism than capitalism. Think of the Bells as state-run companies whose chiefs are relatives of the party bosses. The details are a little different, but not by much in any practical sense.
More like socialism, where the government provides lots of services that are in the public interest, such as Universal Healthcare. Many European countries are socialist democracies. It doesn't have quite the negative stigma that the word "communism" seems to have.
Since by definition (by some) the state is less efficient than private enterprise, it should resign itself to collecting funds and farm out the execution of, well, anything to the low bidder. There is absolutely no reason why we could not achieve the same savings and efficiencies in law enforcement, fire fighting or social services.
And why stop there? Why not farm out the court system, for example? The body of case law we already have provides an excellent foundation for the requirements of the contract - just let an efficient private company do the work instead of that wasteful bureocracy.
So you seriously advocate allowing corporations to enforce and decide the law? What happens when a trade-group like the RIAA or MPAA gains court control because they're the lowest bidder? What happens when a private fire firm decides to either charge a nominal fee or to not serve certain neighborhoods (afterall, settling lawsuits may be cheaper than providing the service)?
The point of the government (aka the people) providing these critical services is that we aren't trying to make a buck off ourselves. We're trying to do the best possible job for the common good. The reason that government may be seen as "inefficient" is because we don't go through as many people-hurting, cost-cutting measures that businesses do.
Just think long and hard about what you're advocating here, it's quite scary.
All varieties of non-human animals have been being chimaerated successfully for decades now, including other apes in our family. What, besides anthropocentric arrogance, makes you think grafting humans with other animals is such a big leap? In the embryonic stage where this occurs we really are not much different from the other animals. The science is established.
Calm down, dude. I was merely stating that the other article talked about mice instead of sheep.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the POINT. Reasonable controls would be requiring a warrant (which is as simple as presenting a basic reason to an impartial judge). The government can already perform these taps with a warrant using the secret and expedited FISA court. This law guts the warrant necessity eliminating any reasonable control. It's already been shown that the FBI has abused these sorts of wiretaps with bogus National Security Letters. We're not saying don't wiretap, we're saying require a review (as required by the Constitution). And, so what if the President got caught in Watergate? It was by accident that the unlocked door was found. How many more similar incidents have happened that we haven't heard about? We'll never know without auditable control.
Uncle Sam may not care about your personal business, but the individuals who are doing the wiretaps may. The point is that without oversight there is plenty of chance of abuse; that abuse comes in the form of individuals using the wiretaps for personal gain. (Remember Watergate?)
It's rare to see someone who clearly and concisely addresses the issue, and then provides rational solutions to it. Thank you, this comment was awesome.
-et
While I understand that the above article has already been modded down, I do feel it needed to address several flaws in your argument style. It's important that we argue with integrity and following the rules of logic, otherwise nothing can ever get decided.
1. The local government was more to blame than anyone for the Katrina disaster. I hardly ever hear this mentioned because the local government was a bunch of good for nothing Dems. They've controlled that state for how long? Proof positive that a liberal government does not really care about its people.
It's unfortunate that many people have lost the ability to form a logical argument. Even assuming what you've said in point 1 is 100% correct, how does that give proof positive that liberal governments don't care about their people? "Proof by example" has never been legitimate. Unfortunately the response to my comment will likely be an ad hominem attack "oh but when the Republicans do X, Dems say y". In any case, label it as ancedotal evidence if you wish, but not as proof positive.
2. Saddam was a thorn in our side, and he needed to be stood up to. Bush took advantage of the timing and went after him. Brilliant.
How? Again, arguments need to be supported by fact, otherwise it's just political rhetoric. What did he specifically do prior to the war to be a thorn in our side? And, was he the biggest problem that we could have tackled? (or even, at the level of the top problems?)
3. There is no evidence that the Iraq war is taking resources away from fighting Bin Laden. I suppose Dems now want to attack Pakistan? Or do they want to sign some paper saying that they do, but then act like Bush misled them afterwards? Cowards.
I don't think that you can argue no evidence. There have been talks about the current strain on the military due to under-recruitment and current deployment. Whether or not Iraq hasn't detracted us from Bin Laden is a different point -- feel free to argue that, backed with real facts, not sweeping generalizations. I also don't take well to the creating of an opposing viewpoint just so you can offer an answer. Nowhere in the public record has an attack on Pakistan been mentioned, to my knowledge. The closest reference would be Bush stating that he'd go into Pakistan immediately if he knew Bin Laden were there.
7. You dems have no room to talk when it comes to scandals. Your own Barney Frank ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house and he is still in office.
Ad hominem argument. Anyone can talk about scandals. In fact, we should. Democrat or Republican, we should point out when they mess up and remove them from office. Another unfortunate way we argue is to say "well someone you know somewhere down the road messed up once so don't talk". There have been scandals on both sides of the isle, including the recent one with the Florida Republican Representative. Can we talk about them all? Sure.
I agree completely.
The reason this one merits some attention is because it's one of those projects that seeks to tear down the barriers that are often between disciplines in academia. While it's not a new idea that everything is inter-related, interdisciplinary cooperation is finally on the rise after years of academia erecting silos of knowledge.
There was an interesting New York Times article that talked about how IT reaches into all fields now. Take a field like Travel and Tourism and you can raise your revenue with a sharp IT staff. How do you schedule trains, planes and taxis to minimize wait and maximize paying customers? What's the optimal price at each moment for a plane that is x% full and leaves in y days.
Technology careers are everywhere, not just in vanilla software development firms.
I think that the misconception in many of the comments is that this program is designed to turn the average college student into somewhat of a "quickie-techie". It is not.
The program is designed to supplement the courses that a technology-area major takes ordinarily. The idea is that your English, Speech, Health and other core College courses would be technology infused, thus showing you the connections between the theory of technology you're majoring in and applications to other fields. The hope is that by the end, students will know the breadth of career possibilities instead of getting pipelined directly into the average help desk career.
Besides the tech-infusion into typical courses, the program also concludes by having students create a simulated technology business in the classroom. They're asked to go through the process of coming up with an idea, business model, marketing plans, and then working to "sell" that product. This connects their technology knowledge with real world business practices, as well as forces them to read about the current state of the industry, all while imparting those critical communication, groupwork and other soft skills.
The real question here is what skills need to be infused into the Liberal Arts courses so that in their final course they are able to and feel confident in starting their own tech-based business.
That's really not the point of the program. The program is infusing IT concepts into the Liberal Arts courses that will be taken by technology students. The goal is for the students to see the connections between technology and the rest of the world early on.
Doesn't a National Sales Tax shift the entire burden from the corporation to the customer? Do you think that companies are going to lower their prices? Probably not. They'll blame it on the government, leave prices in place and reap higher, untaxed profits. And the flat tax eliminates the progressive tax structure we have in this country. You know, the one that keeps the poor family from paying much, while the rich family can only buy two helicopters, instead of three. You should more carefully research your comment.
I'm very surprised to see how poor the spelling and capitalization is in a lawyer's letter. I would have expected a more thoroughly reviewed document... is that for real?
i think you're getting confused. Companies have a duty to make money (that's what they're for). They even have rights pursuant to activities surrounding the making of money. They do not have the right to make money, otherwise they could sit and do nothing and then demand taxpayer cash from the government because their rights were being infringed.
And that doesn't happen these days? ;) (Don't look at the defense industry!)
I live in India and I am constantly bogged by sms' asking me if I was interested in winning gold, buying a car etc. What's worse ?? Sometimes, we get automated calls asking if we are interested in some offers.
The funny part is that the spam you're getting is coming from American [call] centers.
If we abolish the IRS and put all the powers back into the state's hands, we'll be back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. Read up on your history, that time of our nation's history went horribly.
Come on, it's legitimate, it is innovation that supports their trademarked slogan. ;)
Just saying, you don't want to be fined or anything while conducting your perfectly legal broadcasting...
It's not exaggeration when you present an easily possible situation.
With America moving to conglomerates there's very few companies that are solely independent. In your example of a company running the court system, why would you assume that a small company would get a contract a larger company that could offer cut-throat prices? You, yourself, advocate going for the lowest bidder.
I think that you've failed to see how flawed your situation is.
Well that's OK then, since this is much more like communism than capitalism. Think of the Bells as state-run companies whose chiefs are relatives of the party bosses. The details are a little different, but not by much in any practical sense.
More like socialism, where the government provides lots of services that are in the public interest, such as Universal Healthcare. Many European countries are socialist democracies. It doesn't have quite the negative stigma that the word "communism" seems to have.Since by definition (by some) the state is less efficient than private enterprise, it should resign itself to collecting funds and farm out the execution of, well, anything to the low bidder. There is absolutely no reason why we could not achieve the same savings and efficiencies in law enforcement, fire fighting or social services.
And why stop there? Why not farm out the court system, for example? The body of case law we already have provides an excellent foundation for the requirements of the contract - just let an efficient private company do the work instead of that wasteful bureocracy.
So you seriously advocate allowing corporations to enforce and decide the law? What happens when a trade-group like the RIAA or MPAA gains court control because they're the lowest bidder? What happens when a private fire firm decides to either charge a nominal fee or to not serve certain neighborhoods (afterall, settling lawsuits may be cheaper than providing the service)?
The point of the government (aka the people) providing these critical services is that we aren't trying to make a buck off ourselves. We're trying to do the best possible job for the common good. The reason that government may be seen as "inefficient" is because we don't go through as many people-hurting, cost-cutting measures that businesses do.
Just think long and hard about what you're advocating here, it's quite scary.
How about a magnet?
Even better, look at the definition of burgle. It cross-references burglarize.
I think he's going looking for the Declaration of Independence.
Calm down, dude. I was merely stating that the other article talked about mice instead of sheep.
This is orders of magnitude harder than blending with mice. It's really not a dupe.
You know, the way this country is going, I wouldn't be surprised....
Dude, next time be smart and look it up on Google.