Swimming and biking require social interaction? Aside from sports, a lot of exercise is primarily solitary.
They sure don't require social interaction, but exercise doesn't have to be solitary. For those fortunate enough to be able to join a bike club, or a swim club, or something like that, I can tell you it is way fun: you get to work out alongside others (maybe better than you, or worse than you -- it doesn't matter) and encourage each other as you make progress. As a geek, I love swimming and biking as a change of pace; it's healthy and makes me feel good. When I don't feel like working out, and inertia threatens to make me skip, it's the thought that I'll get to see my friends that spurs me on to get out of the house. I like spending time with non-geek friends and listening to their voices, and sometimes I even get to tell them about Linux, EFF, and what NP completeness is.:-)
It sure can get your heart rate up, if you pedal hard. If you go up a steep hill, or go fast (25-30 mph), or into a headwind, you'll have no choice but to get your heart thumping. It's aerobic and it works quads, calves, and hip flexors, if you pedal right. It's also fun -- my favorite sport. It's not ideal exercise, but probably no single sport is.
Agreed, but your numbers are a little pessimistic. If you attach a power meter to a bicycle you can measure 200-500 watts during a race, and a strong cyclist can keep this up for hours. For example, this guy reports over 12 MJ output in a 4+ hour race. I think a top athlete in competition could produce well over 12 MJ.
Just harness the power of 300 of those races and you've finally achieved 1 MWh! Ha.
He's covering up for a person or persons who tried to kill someone.
Absurd. He is being jailed by a federal judge. This isn't about assault -- that's a matter of California law. This subpoena is from the FBI's terrorist unit (JTTF). There is more happening here than you realize. RTFA.
protecting the perpetrators of a serious violent crime.
No. He is protecting the identities of the nonviolent protestors who are also pictured on the video, whom the feds would like to have identified. And he is being jailed by a federal judge over a matter that should not involve the feds. This protest is apparently being called "terrorism," and that is the reason the federal prosecutor is involved. That sounds to me like a load of nonsense. The violence should be solely a matter of California law, not federal law. Considering what the US does to suspected terrorists, even its own citizens, I cannot blame Wolf for wanting to protect those he filmed from such horrors. I think Wolf is standing up for justice.
At the same time I hope California is successful in investigating this clash with the police, and I hope they bring the guilty to justice.
But not a federal crime. So why is he in trouble with the feds? Because they are bullying him: seems they want to charge people with terrorism. He is quite right to resist that shit. Assault and battery is a bad crime, but it is not terrorism. Nor is nonviolent participation in a protest (or so I was told).
A crime against the state of California happened right in front of him, on camera...
Fixed that for you.
the federal judge gave him such a sentence [sic] because of his flippant attitude.
There, got the other one. Now do you see the disconnect?
Q. Why is a federal judge concerned with Cali law? A. He isn't.
Q. So what federal crime occurred here? A. It seems someone wants to call it terrorism.
I think that is pretty chilling. Are they not asking him to identify these protestors in order to charge them with terrorism? That is what Wolf says, and objects to. I think he has a good point. Consider what the USA did to citizen Jose Padilla -- detained him without counsel and supposedly drove him insane.
Let California investigate and uphold its laws -- obviously this protest turned into something ugly. But this crime does not involve the G-men, and Wolf is I think doing the right thing resisting their attempts to intrude.
Well, I take it you jest. He is certainly right to claim that some blogs constitute a form of journalism. And unless you like the idea of "licensed journalist," the line between Woodward/Bernstein and Crackpot Blogger has got to be kept blurry.
What you both are overlooking is that the assault on the police officer is a California crime, not a federal crime. As I've argued above, I can't think of any federal crime at all that Wolf's video might have shown -- although the assault apparently is being labeled as terrorism. Which is absurd. Wolf doesn't want these people he might know to be disappeared off to Gitmo, deprived of their rights, and driven out of their minds, which is apparently what the feds do to suspected terrorists. (Never mind the "Oh, that was months ago! We are so over that now!") I think Wolf is the one with a decent justification for keeping mum, and it's the feds who are behaving unreasonably. If I were in his shoes I would be leery of even meeting with the federal judge.
He's been served a perfectly normal run-of-the-mill subpoena
No, he's been served a rather unusual subpoena because it comes from the Joint Terrorism Task Force. He's been asked to identify people who I daresay obviously broke California law. So why isn't this a Cal. subpoena? Because they have a press shield law. And why is he on the wrong end of a federal subpoena? I don't know, but it sounds like they want to call these violent protestors "terrorists," which is chilling. This is not a run-of-the-mill contempt tangle.
He has video of what are presumably illegal acts by anti-G8 demonstrators,
No and yes. Seems clear there were violations of California law. But it is FAR from clear there were violations of federal law, and it's a federal prosecutor that has subpoenaed the video. It's a federal judge, William Alsup, who considers Wolf in contempt. The subpoena comes from the jointterrorismtask force. So I deem that the prosecutor alleges that "crime" of this (violent) citizens' protest was terrorism. That's poppycock. I think the folks who bashed the cop probably should be charged (by a California prosecutor) with battery. But these people are not terrorists; this protest got out of control, but it was not terrorism.
Wolf thinks the feds claim jurisdiction because they fund antiterrorist training for local police, so thus any crime against police officers is well nigh terrorism. Which is baloney. However, the JTTF might well be trying to sow terror among bloggers; they have me nervous. Tag this one ''potmeetkettle.''
If you read the interview you can read Josh's reasons why he thinks that he has been treated differently than Big Media journalists, and he has something to say. It is not clear that if an NYT reporter had done the same sort of thing that she or he would be imprisoned for so bloody long.
Anyway, there is much more moral ambiguity here than most of the posters so far have acknowledged: they are missing something.
I hope you get modded up. More comments like this would be helpful. And here in the USA, implementing REALID will be more expensive and intrusive, since the existing system of drivers' licenses already has a huge user base, and the Feds want the states to tie all these huge, wacky databases together. That will be costly and there will be leaks galore.
Uh, nobody is forcing you to sit through all that crap.
Maybe it's his job? (I can't think of any other reason to go to that many movies.) Then again, he did say that he paid -- but maybe he just meant he was the one handing over the money.
ArcherB, I salute your dogged pursuit of this discussion. I see you are not satisfied by the rebuttals that have been offered you, but I think my fellow/.-ers have covered the main points. If you don't find their arguments compelling, then I don't think you are going to be persuaded. But I'm glad you have posted all the replies that you did.
There were a number of good points people made, and I think they are pretty weighty. But security is sexy these days and Common Sense isn't. The arguments articulated here are more important than most people appreciate. First, national ID looks unconstitutional, and I think it is always a good idea to stop unconstitutional Federal behavior, even if well intentioned. If constitutional limits are regularly trampled even for good intentions, they will become irrelevant on the day that we really need to say, "No, they can't do that." The government needs limits. This idea is very old and well established. Second, and related to this, is the idea of a healthy skepticism of government trustworthiness. Globally, government affronts to liberty and justice are common -- and the USA has dirty hands too, e.g., what allegedly has been done to Jose Padilla. Third, it is naive to think that the document would be unforgeable. Fourth, even terrorists get legitimate documents; making people have a valid ID card won't stop terrorism, as 9/11 proved. Fifth, consolidating all this identity data would make citizens more vulnerable to identity theft, not less. If the government has no the right to establish a national ID scheme, and if such a scheme would greatly erode privacy, and consolidate powers in the Federal that the framers of the constitution never dreamed of; if the scheme is going to be fantastically expensive ($9 to $12 billion according to the ACLU), if it won't stop terrorism (and how could it?) -- then let's not do it.
You might not agree with those who invoke Orwellian visions, but they might be more right than you realize. In this and the previous century, there have been plenty of "civilized" nation-states that have made their citizens' lives hell. The Soviets are just one example. Don't think it couldn't happen here. Don't make it easy for it to happen here. Stand up for the constitution; write your state legislators to reject Real ID -- or move to Maine.
It's those matter-of-fact and concrete arguments which make lawyers smile knowingly and say, "That's the kind of thing a lot of people might think, but . .."
Slashdot Mirror
Speak for yourself -- I wouldn't get touched either, I'm stinking rich!! . . . you insensitive clod!
(heh, jk, no im not)
It sure can get your heart rate up, if you pedal hard. If you go up a steep hill, or go fast (25-30 mph), or into a headwind, you'll have no choice but to get your heart thumping. It's aerobic and it works quads, calves, and hip flexors, if you pedal right. It's also fun -- my favorite sport. It's not ideal exercise, but probably no single sport is.
Agreed, but your numbers are a little pessimistic. If you attach a power meter to a bicycle you can measure 200-500 watts during a race, and a strong cyclist can keep this up for hours. For example, this guy reports over 12 MJ output in a 4+ hour race. I think a top athlete in competition could produce well over 12 MJ.
Just harness the power of 300 of those races and you've finally achieved 1 MWh! Ha.
But employing them makes us all poorer.
No. He is protecting the identities of the nonviolent protestors who are also pictured on the video, whom the feds would like to have identified. And he is being jailed by a federal judge over a matter that should not involve the feds. This protest is apparently being called "terrorism," and that is the reason the federal prosecutor is involved. That sounds to me like a load of nonsense. The violence should be solely a matter of California law, not federal law. Considering what the US does to suspected terrorists, even its own citizens, I cannot blame Wolf for wanting to protect those he filmed from such horrors. I think Wolf is standing up for justice.
At the same time I hope California is successful in investigating this clash with the police, and I hope they bring the guilty to justice.
But not a federal crime. So why is he in trouble with the feds? Because they are bullying him: seems they want to charge people with terrorism. He is quite right to resist that shit. Assault and battery is a bad crime, but it is not terrorism. Nor is nonviolent participation in a protest (or so I was told).
There, got the other one. Now do you see the disconnect?
Q. Why is a federal judge concerned with Cali law?
A. He isn't.
Q. So what federal crime occurred here?
A. It seems someone wants to call it terrorism.
I think that is pretty chilling. Are they not asking him to identify these protestors in order to charge them with terrorism? That is what Wolf says, and objects to. I think he has a good point. Consider what the USA did to citizen Jose Padilla -- detained him without counsel and supposedly drove him insane.
Let California investigate and uphold its laws -- obviously this protest turned into something ugly. But this crime does not involve the G-men, and Wolf is I think doing the right thing resisting their attempts to intrude.
Well, I take it you jest. He is certainly right to claim that some blogs constitute a form of journalism. And unless you like the idea of "licensed journalist," the line between Woodward/Bernstein and Crackpot Blogger has got to be kept blurry.
What you both are overlooking is that the assault on the police officer is a California crime, not a federal crime. As I've argued above, I can't think of any federal crime at all that Wolf's video might have shown -- although the assault apparently is being labeled as terrorism. Which is absurd. Wolf doesn't want these people he might know to be disappeared off to Gitmo, deprived of their rights, and driven out of their minds, which is apparently what the feds do to suspected terrorists. (Never mind the "Oh, that was months ago! We are so over that now!") I think Wolf is the one with a decent justification for keeping mum, and it's the feds who are behaving unreasonably. If I were in his shoes I would be leery of even meeting with the federal judge.
As I argued above, it is unlikely there is any federal crime at all going on in that demonstration.
No and yes. Seems clear there were violations of California law. But it is FAR from clear there were violations of federal law, and it's a federal prosecutor that has subpoenaed the video. It's a federal judge, William Alsup, who considers Wolf in contempt. The subpoena comes from the joint terrorism task force. So I deem that the prosecutor alleges that "crime" of this (violent) citizens' protest was terrorism. That's poppycock. I think the folks who bashed the cop probably should be charged (by a California prosecutor) with battery. But these people are not terrorists; this protest got out of control, but it was not terrorism.
Wolf thinks the feds claim jurisdiction because they fund antiterrorist training for local police, so thus any crime against police officers is well nigh terrorism. Which is baloney. However, the JTTF might well be trying to sow terror among bloggers; they have me nervous. Tag this one ''potmeetkettle.''
If you read the interview you can read Josh's reasons why he thinks that he has been treated differently than Big Media journalists, and he has something to say. It is not clear that if an NYT reporter had done the same sort of thing that she or he would be imprisoned for so bloody long.
Anyway, there is much more moral ambiguity here than most of the posters so far have acknowledged: they are missing something.
I hope you get modded up. More comments like this would be helpful. And here in the USA, implementing REALID will be more expensive and intrusive, since the existing system of drivers' licenses already has a huge user base, and the Feds want the states to tie all these huge, wacky databases together. That will be costly and there will be leaks galore.
ArcherB, I salute your dogged pursuit of this discussion. I see you are not satisfied by the rebuttals that have been offered you, but I think my fellow /.-ers have covered the main points. If you don't find their arguments compelling, then I don't think you are going to be persuaded. But I'm glad you have posted all the replies that you did.
There were a number of good points people made, and I think they are pretty weighty. But security is sexy these days and Common Sense isn't. The arguments articulated here are more important than most people appreciate. First, national ID looks unconstitutional, and I think it is always a good idea to stop unconstitutional Federal behavior, even if well intentioned. If constitutional limits are regularly trampled even for good intentions, they will become irrelevant on the day that we really need to say, "No, they can't do that." The government needs limits. This idea is very old and well established. Second, and related to this, is the idea of a healthy skepticism of government trustworthiness. Globally, government affronts to liberty and justice are common -- and the USA has dirty hands too, e.g., what allegedly has been done to Jose Padilla. Third, it is naive to think that the document would be unforgeable. Fourth, even terrorists get legitimate documents; making people have a valid ID card won't stop terrorism, as 9/11 proved. Fifth, consolidating all this identity data would make citizens more vulnerable to identity theft, not less. If the government has no the right to establish a national ID scheme, and if such a scheme would greatly erode privacy, and consolidate powers in the Federal that the framers of the constitution never dreamed of; if the scheme is going to be fantastically expensive ($9 to $12 billion according to the ACLU), if it won't stop terrorism (and how could it?) -- then let's not do it.
You might not agree with those who invoke Orwellian visions, but they might be more right than you realize. In this and the previous century, there have been plenty of "civilized" nation-states that have made their citizens' lives hell. The Soviets are just one example. Don't think it couldn't happen here. Don't make it easy for it to happen here. Stand up for the constitution; write your state legislators to reject Real ID -- or move to Maine.
"Suffocating net innovation . . . would create heroic camaraderie."
Maybe it's naivete, or maybe you didn't dig deep enough. You had the right idea though.
"Follow the money." -- William Goldman
You are confusing piracy and copyright infringement.
It's those matter-of-fact and concrete arguments which make lawyers smile knowingly and say, "That's the kind of thing a lot of people might think, but . . ."
What textarea? Oh, right, the textarea of his browser!!