You have to read between the lines a bit. Their system is to store all metadata AND to record all phone calls. They can then go to a judge and get a warrant for calls that took place in the past, and (having previously recorded them) pull them up at will.
And metadata is a very broad term that encompases all data excluding the original. For example, "metadata" for a phone call would include electronically generated transcripts of the phone call. In theory (and probably practice) some algorithm scans these transcripts for keywords; on a match, they get a rubber stamp from a in-house judge, and then pass the records on to a human to do the real work.
Basically, someone figured out that you can use computers to wiretap the whole nation, and then did it. The whole constitution, legal framework, and morality be damned.
This is true in many other governments, but in the USA, the government has no right or ability except what is stated in the agreement with the people (aka Constitution). It specifies exactly what the government can do, and anything not specified is off-limits at the federal level and reserved to the states and the people. The first 10 amendments were largely considered redundant when they were passed, because they were just naming specifics cases of things that were off-limits. A favorite quote from James Iredell (a Justice from the first US Supreme Court):
It would be not only useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurption; and it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let any one make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.
Nowadays, any constitutional restrictions are largely worked around, or completely ignored, by all three branches of federal government. There was originally a check in place to counter expansion of federal power vs state soverenty, but that was removed with the adoption of the 17th amendment.
To own an assult rifle, a Title II firearm as defined by the 1934 National Firearms Act, a person must fill out an ATF form 4 which has to be signed by your local sheriff, as well as submit fingerprint cards, passport photos, pay application fees, and some other paperwork. If the ATF approves, then you can purchase the firearm (assuming your state also allows it). Of course, this really only applies to people who collect older guns as the sale/transfer to the public of newly manufactured automatic firearms has been completely banned since the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. This ban has not been relaxed or lessened in any way during the last 27 years.
Guns are made and sold to be a force equalizer, not necessarily to kill, and definitely not to murder. They are used on a daily basis to prevent or stop violence, not just by the police, but everyday people. The most frequent occurance is fending off rapists and home intruders, but their uses extend to public areas as well. e.g. Handgun stops school stabbing
There were any number of horrific experiments performed on Jews in the name of science during World War II; the USSR, with state enforced atheism, murdered millions of its own people and shipped uncounted more off to die in Siberia. Does that imply that science and atheists are evil? No, that would be a silly argument. Violent people will use anything they have at their disposal to justify themselves, but we need to remember that it's the people who are doing the evil, not the concepts they purport to support.
What nonsense! By my impeccible logic, I am sure that if you remove guns from society then criminals using guns will suddenly choose to become outstanding citizens. Obviously, guns corrupt people's minds and once they are removed we can all live happily ever after.
Four U.S. states do not require a permit to carry a concealed pistol, and the overwhelming majority of remaining states are "shall-issue" with regard to permits, which means you default to being allowed a permit unless the state can dig up some legal reason why you should be disqualified. Much like drug laws, people opposed to simple freedoms are usually fearful and misinformed, if not completely ignorant.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think this new law would stand if challenged. Federal law cannot trump the constitution. And the courts would NEVER allow the legislature violate the constitution. (Is a/sarcasm really necessary?)
The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. Being that the government has violated that contract, does it not follow that the contract is void? In which case no federal laws, taxes, or regulations apply to any of the residents of the fifty Independent States of America.
Actually, a large portion of Gentoo users, myself included, use distcc to speed the compile. I could start the compile tonight before I go to sleep and it would be finished by the time I woke up.
In response to your nethack question, telnet to nethack.alt.org
Other than being a great nethack server, you can also watch others play. Or if you go to their website, alt.org/nethack, you can view serverwide stats and look through other players' options files.
Here's some info for people who fear global warming (and no, I do not believe in GW):
The actual cause of rising temps here ; from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division.
Debunking the myth of consensus by the scientific community on GW here; from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
More GW debunking goodness here from the University of Virginia.
There are more reputable sources out there, these will just get you started. Geeks/nerds don't typically buy into things without having the facts. I find it amazing that when it comes to global warming, however, too many simply accept what their told by the media as true.
This guy is from Los Alamos... where a good time out with the 'guys' is chalking up a new design for an H-bomb. I'm sure his methods are a tinsy bit more scientific than you suggest.
After going over the article at realclimate, I fail to see how this in any way 'debunked' the novel. It merely showed an alternate viewpoint of some of the data presented in the book and pointed out some errors that (and I quote from the article) "probably just slipped through the editing process." Perhaps you are using too strong of words.
I recommend everyone read Michael Crichton's new book, "State of Fear". Besides being an excellent fiction story, MC also goes about disproving the notion that 'global warming' and 'abrupt climate change' are destroying the world as we know it. What makes this an especially wonderful about this book is that MC cites a plethora of academic references throughout the book to back the facts he states.
Re:It's called IP for a reason
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
People do respect the creator's right to claim ownership of his work. People don't respect corporations with monopolies that limit individual artists from publicity unless they agree to surrender the ownership first (*cough* RIAA *cough*).
Oh, and how do the rights of the creator translate into life plus 70 years?
You should know by now that there is only one party in the US government and that the reason it goes under two different names is to give the illusion of choice.
The significance isn't so much the amount; it's that they are hiring. Companies do not hire massive amounts of new employees if future outlook is grim. IBM obviously thinks things are going good and that the economy is done throwing up, and that's good news.
You might want to hold off on buying that licence. Seriously, what good is a licence from a company that will be bankrupt in a few years from multicast litigation?
In regards to third parties, it follows Gandhi's quote "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." As of right now the dem/rep majority are still in the 'ignore' stage with a little bit of 'ridicule' (ridicule = "you're just throwing away your vote"). And they'd like to keep it that way.
The U.S. was formed on rebellion from tradition, but now tradition has become our weakness. We stick to the antiquated "winner takes all" style of voting, which keeps third parties at bay. And there is no reason for the legislative branch to try to fix it - they like the 50/50 balance act and won't change it because that's how the founding fathers set it up to be. Well, guess what? The founding fathers were a rebellious bunch and wouldn't stand by for a locked two party system.
I won't be voting for Kerry, nor Bush this election. It's my vote, I'm going to choose a candidate I want to be president, and I don't give a shit about what others think about my choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Some poor people are poor because they always buy what you're selling.
You have to read between the lines a bit. Their system is to store all metadata AND to record all phone calls. They can then go to a judge and get a warrant for calls that took place in the past, and (having previously recorded them) pull them up at will.
And metadata is a very broad term that encompases all data excluding the original. For example, "metadata" for a phone call would include electronically generated transcripts of the phone call. In theory (and probably practice) some algorithm scans these transcripts for keywords; on a match, they get a rubber stamp from a in-house judge, and then pass the records on to a human to do the real work.
Basically, someone figured out that you can use computers to wiretap the whole nation, and then did it. The whole constitution, legal framework, and morality be damned.
This is true in many other governments, but in the USA, the government has no right or ability except what is stated in the agreement with the people (aka Constitution). It specifies exactly what the government can do, and anything not specified is off-limits at the federal level and reserved to the states and the people. The first 10 amendments were largely considered redundant when they were passed, because they were just naming specifics cases of things that were off-limits. A favorite quote from James Iredell (a Justice from the first US Supreme Court):
Nowadays, any constitutional restrictions are largely worked around, or completely ignored, by all three branches of federal government. There was originally a check in place to counter expansion of federal power vs state soverenty, but that was removed with the adoption of the 17th amendment.
To own an assult rifle, a Title II firearm as defined by the 1934 National Firearms Act, a person must fill out an ATF form 4 which has to be signed by your local sheriff, as well as submit fingerprint cards, passport photos, pay application fees, and some other paperwork. If the ATF approves, then you can purchase the firearm (assuming your state also allows it). Of course, this really only applies to people who collect older guns as the sale/transfer to the public of newly manufactured automatic firearms has been completely banned since the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. This ban has not been relaxed or lessened in any way during the last 27 years.
Guns are made and sold to be a force equalizer, not necessarily to kill, and definitely not to murder. They are used on a daily basis to prevent or stop violence, not just by the police, but everyday people. The most frequent occurance is fending off rapists and home intruders, but their uses extend to public areas as well. e.g. Handgun stops school stabbing
In that case, they could just buy a couple cans of gasoline and a box of matches and cause an equal, if not greater, loss of life.
The problem is not guns or games, but mental health - a much larger, and more difficult issue.
There were any number of horrific experiments performed on Jews in the name of science during World War II; the USSR, with state enforced atheism, murdered millions of its own people and shipped uncounted more off to die in Siberia. Does that imply that science and atheists are evil? No, that would be a silly argument. Violent people will use anything they have at their disposal to justify themselves, but we need to remember that it's the people who are doing the evil, not the concepts they purport to support.
What nonsense! By my impeccible logic, I am sure that if you remove guns from society then criminals using guns will suddenly choose to become outstanding citizens. Obviously, guns corrupt people's minds and once they are removed we can all live happily ever after.
What's that, ol' chap? Knife crime?
Blimey! Well, by my impeccible logic, I am sure that if you remove knifes from society...
General Motors = Dry-by shooting enabler.
ExxonMobil = Arson enabler.
Louisville Slugger = Mugging enabler.
Pacific Lumber Company = Mugging enabler enabler.
Slashdot = Trolling enabler.
Four U.S. states do not require a permit to carry a concealed pistol, and the overwhelming majority of remaining states are "shall-issue" with regard to permits, which means you default to being allowed a permit unless the state can dig up some legal reason why you should be disqualified. Much like drug laws, people opposed to simple freedoms are usually fearful and misinformed, if not completely ignorant.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think this new law would stand if challenged. Federal law cannot trump the constitution. And the courts would NEVER allow the legislature violate the constitution. (Is a /sarcasm really necessary?)
The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. Being that the government has violated that contract, does it not follow that the contract is void? In which case no federal laws, taxes, or regulations apply to any of the residents of the fifty Independent States of America.
Just a thought to consider.
... it's only a model.
Actually, a large portion of Gentoo users, myself included, use distcc to speed the compile. I could start the compile tonight before I go to sleep and it would be finished by the time I woke up.
Shame on you for perpetuating nasty Gentoo myths!
In response to your nethack question, telnet to nethack.alt.org
Other than being a great nethack server, you can also watch others play. Or if you go to their website, alt.org/nethack, you can view serverwide stats and look through other players' options files.
- The actual cause of rising temps here ; from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division.
- Debunking the myth of consensus by the scientific community on GW here; from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- More GW debunking goodness here from the University of Virginia.
There are more reputable sources out there, these will just get you started. Geeks/nerds don't typically buy into things without having the facts. I find it amazing that when it comes to global warming, however, too many simply accept what their told by the media as true.This guy is from Los Alamos... where a good time out with the 'guys' is chalking up a new design for an H-bomb. I'm sure his methods are a tinsy bit more scientific than you suggest.
LM Hash? That's what Windows uses.
I think I found your problem right there.
After going over the article at realclimate, I fail to see how this in any way 'debunked' the novel. It merely showed an alternate viewpoint of some of the data presented in the book and pointed out some errors that (and I quote from the article) "probably just slipped through the editing process." Perhaps you are using too strong of words.
You're quite right.
I recommend everyone read Michael Crichton's new book, "State of Fear". Besides being an excellent fiction story, MC also goes about disproving the notion that 'global warming' and 'abrupt climate change' are destroying the world as we know it. What makes this an especially wonderful about this book is that MC cites a plethora of academic references throughout the book to back the facts he states.
People do respect the creator's right to claim ownership of his work. People don't respect corporations with monopolies that limit individual artists from publicity unless they agree to surrender the ownership first (*cough* RIAA *cough*).
Oh, and how do the rights of the creator translate into life plus 70 years?
You should know by now that there is only one party in the US government and that the reason it goes under two different names is to give the illusion of choice.
The significance isn't so much the amount; it's that they are hiring. Companies do not hire massive amounts of new employees if future outlook is grim. IBM obviously thinks things are going good and that the economy is done throwing up, and that's good news.
You might want to hold off on buying that licence. Seriously, what good is a licence from a company that will be bankrupt in a few years from multicast litigation?
In regards to third parties, it follows Gandhi's quote "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." As of right now the dem/rep majority are still in the 'ignore' stage with a little bit of 'ridicule' (ridicule = "you're just throwing away your vote"). And they'd like to keep it that way.
The U.S. was formed on rebellion from tradition, but now tradition has become our weakness. We stick to the antiquated "winner takes all" style of voting, which keeps third parties at bay. And there is no reason for the legislative branch to try to fix it - they like the 50/50 balance act and won't change it because that's how the founding fathers set it up to be. Well, guess what? The founding fathers were a rebellious bunch and wouldn't stand by for a locked two party system.
I won't be voting for Kerry, nor Bush this election. It's my vote, I'm going to choose a candidate I want to be president, and I don't give a shit about what others think about my choice.