I'm sure the MPAA is working on a draft war declaration as we speak.
No kidding. It might be amusing to watch anti-war Hollywood suddenly discover that, while war is always wrong, a "narrow" use of the US military is sometimes necessary for the greater good.
Who holds the copyright on kiddie porn? And, while you will get your computer back, and hopefully your good name (assuming no prosecutor with a hard-on who doesn't want to be bothered with the facts of the case), will it be worth the hassle?
And, while I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with sharing access, I would be very careful with having such a cavalier attitude about throwing all such responsibilities onto the government. They will be more than happy to "help".
As well we should have. Last time I checked the Rockefellers and Kennedys still had quite a bit of family money. The inheritance tax only harms working stiffs who manage to not fritter their money away as they worked their whole life. $600,000 is a lot of money if in $$. Not so much if you are talking a home and a piece of property somewhere, or maybe even a small three-bedroom in San Francisco that no one in your family could afford if you didn't already own it.
Even leftists are starting to recognize that the Second Amendment is a right of the People that they cannot simply wish or take away. Having thus recognized this fact, they have now begun to advocate repealing the Second Amendment. While I disagree with doing so, and will fight against such, at least the dialog is now underway in an appropriate fashion.
I don't know about second life, having never played, but I really don't think so for WoW. While it might have some use for communication, as any mmorpg would, there is nothing functionally real world enough that using WoW would be the best training option available. Learning how to flip merchandise in the Auction house might have some Ebay application but, again, there are training tools and aids specifically designed to teach this.
About the only useful thing I can think of is that if any of the terrorists spend any time listening to the inane chatter on the General and Trade channels, any qualms about killing everyone in Western Civilization might be completely alleviated.
If it were already a totalitarian state, discussions like this would be taking place...
Since this is the second comment on the issue, and you are not an anonymous coward, let me clarify: I never said the US is a Totalitarian state. I don't believe that for an instant. However, that possibility (not likelihood but possibility) is increasing and the issue needs to be addressed before it is too late for a non-violent resolution.
Your and the ac's post both allude to repressive totalitarian states of the past (communist Russia) and perhaps present-day China. I think you both are right in doing this, given historical precedent, but I think limiting totalitarian to mean only the afore fails to account for a more passive but more Orwellian system wherein one's life is an open book to the government. One where they have total access to your purchases, your finances, your travel, your postings, your IP addresses, and your encryption keys. (So it wouldn't matter if you used pgp or not.)
The fact is, the US governmental systems are already very close to this. Now, granted, much of this data has been obtained by private entities (which, for me, doesn't actually make it any more palatable), and I certainly not been abused in any fashion by the Government (well, except for TSA but that isn't personal, they hate everybody), but in either case, the legal and technological groundwork is being laid for a system that could most certainly control its citizens in the Totalitarian sense. Which, of course, lead to my previous statements about totalitarianism and technology.
We are closer to a totalitarian state; more so now, but we were under Clinton as well. And my point is not Clinton versus Bush, it is to note that technological capabilities really bloomed for the Government under Clinton and have only increased. Due to enhanced technology, it is no longer as labor or resource intensive to listen on your calls, monitor your surfing, or fly over and determine your ambient energy output. (And by your, I mean YOU or ME. Not all of us collectively but each individual in the collective whole. Kinda scary, actually.)
The US really needs to have a frank dialog and discussion to decide how much permission we want to give our Government to observe and control us under the guise of the public good. Any approach to the subject has, so far, been based too much in partisan politics and too little in addressing the foundational issue of what kind of society we want given the capabilities of enhanced technology.
I believe that things will only get increasingly repressive until this discussion occurs and politicians have impressed upon their consciousness the difference between can and should where technology exists.
We do. It is the Second Amendment, which enshrines a right that many people take very seriously. It would be bloody, however, so, except for a few radical wingnuts of either political extreme, all hope and pray it is never necessary to fully exercise that right.
This was started by a Democrat to push back against Fox.
I think there are multiple intentions with this legislation. The one you stated is most assuredly one them, probably the foremost intention. In addition, Rockefeller himself probably doesn't much care for the casual use of vulgarity in the public venue. I am basing that on a generalization concerning men his age. And finally, I believe it is an attempt to curry favor with the "morals" voters.
The National Review pointed out recently that Sarbanes-Oxley, which was more or less intended to protect the non-professional investor by requiring greater scrutiny and transparency of publicly traded companies, requires a lot of overhead to administer. Consequently, while the larger firms can/have complied without a blink, the smaller start-ups (in particular, but not exclusively) have simply opted to avoid Sarbanes-Oxley by not going public.
So what, one says... Well, these smaller companies, while a greater risk, also provide greater gains. Not being publicly traded, however, the required money for investment is substantially higher than all but the wealthy can afford. Consequently, Sarbanes-Oxley leaves only the wealthy in a position to invest in projects with the greatest returns.
So, getting back to my question, while you may or may not think that Sarbanes-Oxley is a great piece of legislation or disagree with my (very likely butchered) representation of a conservative analysis of Sarbanes-Oxley, how is the parent flamebait?
As someone familiar with the use of dogs for US Customs (now Customs and Border Protection), there is an element in this thread that I have not yet seen addressed. That is, while allowing for performance variances among dogs, proper training determines a good drug dog, not necessarily the dog itself.
Most pooches have very good sniffers and can detect the presence of drugs. The key is to teach them when to alert and when not to. False positives benefit no one and neither do actual positives of no consequential quantity (residue on a $100 bill, for example). Further, other than preferences for breeds that are intelligent, there is no specific breed that is especially preferred as a matter of policy.
If demand exceeds supply, CBP just goes to the pound or Humane Society and selects dogs that meet particular requirements. If they do not wash out, they have a glorious career with Uncle Sam.
Consequently, cloning dogs to produce drug dogs makes no sense to me. Perhaps Korea does not have the surplus of medium to large dogs that are available in the US so cloning is a more cost-effective solution. I cannot comprehend that this is so, however, so suspect someone is trying to figure out how to fund his research.
Possibly. Another, or perhaps additional, option is to plan for the child contingency. Make the bots appealing and give them a few "stupid pet trick" buttons so the child will take the bot home to play with it. Now you have an embedded 'bot that can be used for surveillance.
Please read the GP, my post was in reply to the essence of his statement: that only corporate lackeys have doubts about how much impact humanity is having on climate change.
My response both shows that this is not true (there is another climatologist at MIT of similar opinion, though his name escapes me) and, more importantly, shows that there is real pressure to conform to the current political belief that humans alone are responsible.
Everything you say about the need for politicians to implement is true. However, it is inappropriate for a politician to censure a scientist who does not "fall in line" unless it can be shown that the scientist is practicing bad science. Even then, it should be a peer censure.
Regardless of the reason for climate change, we should prepare for potential impacts. Until, however, the politicians come up with solutions other than taxing wealthy nations to punish them (see the UN report on climate change and the suggested response) and the prophets of climate doom start living a little more in line with their claims (Al Gore, nuff said), the "we're all gunna die" global changers are going to have a hard time convincing me that they are doing anything other than attempting to enrich their own coffers and/or achieve their own political ends.
Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries
Here is one. Notice the political pressure to confirm that humans cause global warming.
Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff
06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007
By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
KGW photo
Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.
"Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations," Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
"He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Kulongoski said.
Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.
In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.
A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.
Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"
(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
Science by consensus is not science, it is politics. I personally think we would be better off planning and preparing as a global unit for climate change regardless of the source. If relocations, trade shifts, etc, do not occur or are not necessary, then yay. This standing around pointing fingers, however, is getting us nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. It might be amusing to watch anti-war Hollywood suddenly discover that, while war is always wrong, a "narrow" use of the US military is sometimes necessary for the greater good.
The copyright holder has to prove...
Who holds the copyright on kiddie porn? And, while you will get your computer back, and hopefully your good name (assuming no prosecutor with a hard-on who doesn't want to be bothered with the facts of the case), will it be worth the hassle?
And, while I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with sharing access, I would be very careful with having such a cavalier attitude about throwing all such responsibilities onto the government. They will be more than happy to "help".
As well we should have. Last time I checked the Rockefellers and Kennedys still had quite a bit of family money. The inheritance tax only harms working stiffs who manage to not fritter their money away as they worked their whole life. $600,000 is a lot of money if in $$. Not so much if you are talking a home and a piece of property somewhere, or maybe even a small three-bedroom in San Francisco that no one in your family could afford if you didn't already own it.
The mods are smoking gun-control crack today. You are about as ON topic as it gets.
Well said.
Even leftists are starting to recognize that the Second Amendment is a right of the People that they cannot simply wish or take away. Having thus recognized this fact, they have now begun to advocate repealing the Second Amendment. While I disagree with doing so, and will fight against such, at least the dialog is now underway in an appropriate fashion.
Hmmm. Less is more.
Hey. No problem. http://www.digitalangelcorp.com/ />
About the only useful thing I can think of is that if any of the terrorists spend any time listening to the inane chatter on the General and Trade channels, any qualms about killing everyone in Western Civilization might be completely alleviated.
I always knew those Horde ganking twinks were terrorists!
If it were already a totalitarian state, discussions like this would be taking place...
Since this is the second comment on the issue, and you are not an anonymous coward, let me clarify: I never said the US is a Totalitarian state. I don't believe that for an instant. However, that possibility (not likelihood but possibility) is increasing and the issue needs to be addressed before it is too late for a non-violent resolution.
Your and the ac's post both allude to repressive totalitarian states of the past (communist Russia) and perhaps present-day China. I think you both are right in doing this, given historical precedent, but I think limiting totalitarian to mean only the afore fails to account for a more passive but more Orwellian system wherein one's life is an open book to the government. One where they have total access to your purchases, your finances, your travel, your postings, your IP addresses, and your encryption keys. (So it wouldn't matter if you used pgp or not.)
The fact is, the US governmental systems are already very close to this. Now, granted, much of this data has been obtained by private entities (which, for me, doesn't actually make it any more palatable), and I certainly not been abused in any fashion by the Government (well, except for TSA but that isn't personal, they hate everybody), but in either case, the legal and technological groundwork is being laid for a system that could most certainly control its citizens in the Totalitarian sense. Which, of course, lead to my previous statements about totalitarianism and technology.Hope that clarifies.
And type 11?
You should have received the "insightful" mod.
We are closer to a totalitarian state; more so now, but we were under Clinton as well. And my point is not Clinton versus Bush, it is to note that technological capabilities really bloomed for the Government under Clinton and have only increased. Due to enhanced technology, it is no longer as labor or resource intensive to listen on your calls, monitor your surfing, or fly over and determine your ambient energy output. (And by your, I mean YOU or ME. Not all of us collectively but each individual in the collective whole. Kinda scary, actually.)
The US really needs to have a frank dialog and discussion to decide how much permission we want to give our Government to observe and control us under the guise of the public good. Any approach to the subject has, so far, been based too much in partisan politics and too little in addressing the foundational issue of what kind of society we want given the capabilities of enhanced technology.
I believe that things will only get increasingly repressive until this discussion occurs and politicians have impressed upon their consciousness the difference between can and should where technology exists.
We do. It is the Second Amendment, which enshrines a right that many people take very seriously. It would be bloody, however, so, except for a few radical wingnuts of either political extreme, all hope and pray it is never necessary to fully exercise that right.
He hates these buttons! Stay away from the buttons!
This was started by a Democrat to push back against Fox.
I think there are multiple intentions with this legislation. The one you stated is most assuredly one them, probably the foremost intention. In addition, Rockefeller himself probably doesn't much care for the casual use of vulgarity in the public venue. I am basing that on a generalization concerning men his age. And finally, I believe it is an attempt to curry favor with the "morals" voters.
Yeah. Not only LOUD words, but bold words.
Why was this marked flamebait?
The National Review pointed out recently that Sarbanes-Oxley, which was more or less intended to protect the non-professional investor by requiring greater scrutiny and transparency of publicly traded companies, requires a lot of overhead to administer. Consequently, while the larger firms can/have complied without a blink, the smaller start-ups (in particular, but not exclusively) have simply opted to avoid Sarbanes-Oxley by not going public.
So what, one says... Well, these smaller companies, while a greater risk, also provide greater gains. Not being publicly traded, however, the required money for investment is substantially higher than all but the wealthy can afford. Consequently, Sarbanes-Oxley leaves only the wealthy in a position to invest in projects with the greatest returns.
So, getting back to my question, while you may or may not think that Sarbanes-Oxley is a great piece of legislation or disagree with my (very likely butchered) representation of a conservative analysis of Sarbanes-Oxley, how is the parent flamebait?
Go rent "The Peacekeeper Wars". All will be well.
Polite, insightful, and all around well stated. I wish I had mod points for ye.
As someone familiar with the use of dogs for US Customs (now Customs and Border Protection), there is an element in this thread that I have not yet seen addressed. That is, while allowing for performance variances among dogs, proper training determines a good drug dog, not necessarily the dog itself.
Most pooches have very good sniffers and can detect the presence of drugs. The key is to teach them when to alert and when not to. False positives benefit no one and neither do actual positives of no consequential quantity (residue on a $100 bill, for example). Further, other than preferences for breeds that are intelligent, there is no specific breed that is especially preferred as a matter of policy.
If demand exceeds supply, CBP just goes to the pound or Humane Society and selects dogs that meet particular requirements. If they do not wash out, they have a glorious career with Uncle Sam.
Consequently, cloning dogs to produce drug dogs makes no sense to me. Perhaps Korea does not have the surplus of medium to large dogs that are available in the US so cloning is a more cost-effective solution. I cannot comprehend that this is so, however, so suspect someone is trying to figure out how to fund his research.
Possibly. Another, or perhaps additional, option is to plan for the child contingency. Make the bots appealing and give them a few "stupid pet trick" buttons so the child will take the bot home to play with it. Now you have an embedded 'bot that can be used for surveillance.
Please read the GP, my post was in reply to the essence of his statement: that only corporate lackeys have doubts about how much impact humanity is having on climate change.
My response both shows that this is not true (there is another climatologist at MIT of similar opinion, though his name escapes me) and, more importantly, shows that there is real pressure to conform to the current political belief that humans alone are responsible.
Everything you say about the need for politicians to implement is true. However, it is inappropriate for a politician to censure a scientist who does not "fall in line" unless it can be shown that the scientist is practicing bad science. Even then, it should be a peer censure.
Regardless of the reason for climate change, we should prepare for potential impacts. Until, however, the politicians come up with solutions other than taxing wealthy nations to punish them (see the UN report on climate change and the suggested response) and the prophets of climate doom start living a little more in line with their claims (Al Gore, nuff said), the "we're all gunna die" global changers are going to have a hard time convincing me that they are doing anything other than attempting to enrich their own coffers and/or achieve their own political ends.
Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries
Here is one. Notice the political pressure to confirm that humans cause global warming.
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_n ews_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff 06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change. Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist. KGW photo Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause. "Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations," Taylor asserts. Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state. His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies. So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists. "He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Kulongoski said. Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science. In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen. A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter. Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies." Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change. The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'" (KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
Science by consensus is not science, it is politics. I personally think we would be better off planning and preparing as a global unit for climate change regardless of the source. If relocations, trade shifts, etc, do not occur or are not necessary, then yay. This standing around pointing fingers, however, is getting us nowhere.
Although you are responding to a flame, that was really funny. ^o^