In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping...
A new report proves what we've known all along, the lying liberal media is real.
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
[...]
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
The candidate told the Globe News he would create a 10-member panel to determine which games are violent.
Can it be expected that he will appoint panel members with views on violence in video games differing from his? Not much balance can be hoped for if those who decide on which games are to be taxed adhere to Jack Thompson's viewpoint.
Fortunately, today comes more bad news for the Democrats. Their long awaited investigation into voter fraud found no evidence of voter fraud by the GOP and their deranged poster boy, Dean was forced into a humilating admission.
A five-month study for the Democratic National Committee found that more than one in four Ohio voters experienced problems at the polls last fall, but the study did not find evidence of widespread election fraud that might have contributed to President Bush's narrow victory there.
In a stinging reply to the report, Mr. Mehlman agreed that there were numerous election abuses that took place in Ohio last year, but said they were perpetrated by Democrats or their political allies. In one instance, he said, "Democrat allies attempted to disenfranchise Ohio voters by submitting registration cards for Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Michael Jordan."
...
"Overwhelmingly," this report said, "these problems were reportedly traced primarily" to four Democratic political allies who supported Mr. Kerry: ACORN, America Coming Together, the AFL-CIO and the NAACP National Voter Fund.
... says Google's motto. But what exactly does the company mean by that? To quote Sergey Page in an interview he and Larry Brin did for Playboy.
As for "Don't be evil," we have tried to define precisely what it means to be a force for good--always do the right, ethical thing. Ultimately, "Don't be evil" seems the easiest way to summarize it.
So what exactly is the right, ethical thing to do in the situation Google is having to face when it comes to providing search services in China? Abide by Chinese censorship laws in the name of business, or not deploy a local version of their search engine in that country rather than having to provide access to a search engine with censored results?
After all, is this the right, ethical thing to do as far as Google is concerned?... If it truly is, then I believe we ought to be somewhat more cautious about the company than we actually are and stop considering it as one which can only do good to the extent of sacrificing business opportunities in the name of ethics. Otherwise, perhaps we should just content ourselves of reconsidering the said motto.
This word has triggered the filter of the buzzword use control, as a level 5 'useless/idiotic buzzword'. This is the last time we would like to have to alert, severe sanctions will prevail on next use of such a buzzword.
At first glance, this solution might look like one which can be trusted as a reliable method to avoid having unsolicitated mail in one's inbox, but it takes just a little curiosity to be somewhat put off the idea of paying the stated yearly fee for the service.
On the eProvisia LLC - Spam Eradicator presentation page, it is written that for 'a low yearly fee of $19.95', one can benefit of the enjoyment of a 'guaranteed 100% protection against spam [...] with the unprecedented reliability and simplicity of [their] all-in-one solution!' It first sounds like a rather interesting deal thus said, and one is incited to read on. After all, how do they obtain an unprecedented reliability against protection? It is written further on, that 'a dedicated team of over a hundred trained Screening and Preselection Specialists, working 24 hours a day, will begin manually reviewing, hand-picking and approving important correspondence, vigilantly discarding all junk mail.' Perhaps this company has 'thousands of satisfied customers' as it is said on the same page, but I would certainly not be volunteering to pay for some people I do not know reading my personal e-mail and sorting it according to what they think is or is not what I would like to recieve in my inbox.
After all, how could I know what are the ethics of my 'Specialist', what he or she considers to be correct and what he or she considers not to be, whether or not the 'Specialist' in question may just employ some subjectivity when sorting my e-mail? What's more, from what I understand basing myself on what is indicated on the given site, the client is not actually able to recieve the e-mail marked as unsolicitated by the 'Specialist', and hence cannot verify whether or not there are some false positives with a quick glance, as one usually can. I do recognize this is intentional so the client is free of the mail marked as unsolicitated, but it would be appreciated if there was the option of recieving the junk mail with a specific tag (such as 'X-Unsolicitated') which the mail client would filter so the user of the service could have the -mail marked as unsolicitated by the 'Specialist' sent in a folder, just so results can be checked.
If I want human-powered spam filtering, I would rather try Cloudmark SpamNet as a solution. It is a product based on the active participation of the community, and it works by marking as spam mail marked as such by users of the service. Users with a greater reliability in the past use of the product have a greater influence in the marking as spam of e-mail, and the general reliability of the program is said to be of 98% if the company producing it is to be believed. (It costs $39.95 per annum for the subscription to the community filtering, though a 30-day trial version is provided.)
Slashdot Mirror
The Muslim Heritage Exhibition features inventions which it claims to be by Muslims although many of them simply aren't.
FOXNews.com has published an article which may be of interest: Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth .
If you feel that using Google is henceforth treason to your government then use Patriot Search!
Thanks, your search has been recorded and will be shared with the governments of the world!
The Amazon spokesman added that the wiki policy required contributions to be strictly NPOV, except for positive comments.
... says Google's motto. But what exactly does the company mean by that? To quote Sergey Page in an interview he and Larry Brin did for Playboy.
So what exactly is the right, ethical thing to do in the situation Google is having to face when it comes to providing search services in China? Abide by Chinese censorship laws in the name of business, or not deploy a local version of their search engine in that country rather than having to provide access to a search engine with censored results?After all, is this the right, ethical thing to do as far as Google is concerned? ... If it truly is, then I believe we ought to be somewhat more cautious about the company than we actually are and stop considering it as one which can only do good to the extent of sacrificing business opportunities in the name of ethics. Otherwise, perhaps we should just content ourselves of reconsidering the said motto.
Thank you for your coordination,
the Buzzword Police.
At first glance, this solution might look like one which can be trusted as a reliable method to avoid having unsolicitated mail in one's inbox, but it takes just a little curiosity to be somewhat put off the idea of paying the stated yearly fee for the service.
On the eProvisia LLC - Spam Eradicator presentation page, it is written that for 'a low yearly fee of $19.95', one can benefit of the enjoyment of a 'guaranteed 100% protection against spam [...] with the unprecedented reliability and simplicity of [their] all-in-one solution!' It first sounds like a rather interesting deal thus said, and one is incited to read on. After all, how do they obtain an unprecedented reliability against protection? It is written further on, that 'a dedicated team of over a hundred trained Screening and Preselection Specialists, working 24 hours a day, will begin manually reviewing, hand-picking and approving important correspondence, vigilantly discarding all junk mail.' Perhaps this company has 'thousands of satisfied customers' as it is said on the same page, but I would certainly not be volunteering to pay for some people I do not know reading my personal e-mail and sorting it according to what they think is or is not what I would like to recieve in my inbox.
After all, how could I know what are the ethics of my 'Specialist', what he or she considers to be correct and what he or she considers not to be, whether or not the 'Specialist' in question may just employ some subjectivity when sorting my e-mail? What's more, from what I understand basing myself on what is indicated on the given site, the client is not actually able to recieve the e-mail marked as unsolicitated by the 'Specialist', and hence cannot verify whether or not there are some false positives with a quick glance, as one usually can. I do recognize this is intentional so the client is free of the mail marked as unsolicitated, but it would be appreciated if there was the option of recieving the junk mail with a specific tag (such as 'X-Unsolicitated') which the mail client would filter so the user of the service could have the -mail marked as unsolicitated by the 'Specialist' sent in a folder, just so results can be checked.
If I want human-powered spam filtering, I would rather try Cloudmark SpamNet as a solution. It is a product based on the active participation of the community, and it works by marking as spam mail marked as such by users of the service. Users with a greater reliability in the past use of the product have a greater influence in the marking as spam of e-mail, and the general reliability of the program is said to be of 98% if the company producing it is to be believed. (It costs $39.95 per annum for the subscription to the community filtering, though a 30-day trial version is provided.)