If you believe that his quest for knowledge is so important then why don't you volunteer to be part of these primate studies? They use OTHER primates because they are similiar to human primates, but a human is the PERFECT test subject. So you think that his knowledge gain is important, you could give him even MORE by using yourself. Are you going to? If you do then you have a right to say something against these "terrorists," if not you're a hypocrite.
OK, let's turn it around on you. Unless you go down and volunteer to be the subject of some type of animal study, then you can no longer use any medicine or product that was created because of the use of animal research. Are you going to? If you do, then you have the right to use any product or medicine you like. BTW, this includes electricity. Edison used to electrocute stray dogs to show that AC electricity was dangerous. So until you stick your tongue in a light socket for science... STFU you hypocrite!
GW Bush doesn't care about American terrorists. Why aren't they in jail? Oh yea, he's too busy doing illegal wiretaps and spending crazy stupid sums of money on shiny new technology which won't work nearly as well as advertized, and forgetting that they way you catch terrorists is with smart people doing old-fashioned police work. Nope, these people are as much terrorists as any Arab or Muslim out there, and that is according to the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the Bush admin can not persue them because of people like you that are constantly accusing Bush of personally doing illegal wiretaps and spending crazy stupid sums of money on shiny new technology and then having the ACLU sue over it, preventing any administration from ever being able to any type of survelence...ever, even if it means stopping a terrorist attack like this one or one from overseas. Keep in mind, once the terrorist reaches these shores, they have free reign to call their masters over seas, as long as they use a phone that is not warranted to tap, like a "pay-as-you-go" phone. And if we can't tap the phone of someone calling Osama himself, what makes you think we can tap some nutjob in California calling someone else in California? Of course, we can't, but I guess we have people like you to thank for that... Thanks a fuckin lot!
forgetting that they way you catch terrorists is with smart people doing old-fashioned police work. See, that's the difference between people like me and you. I don't see terrorism as a legal issue that can be solved by using good old fashioned police work. I see it as a threat to national security that needs to be handled using good old fashioned military action. You don't arrest terrorists, you kill them before they have a chance to kill themselves on your neighborhood playground surrouned by kids.
Download an easy to use packet analyzer like Cain-n-Able and go to a place with wireless access and connect to the AP. Hotels are the best if you are staying there, but there is no reason you can't just sit in the parking lot. Let CnA run for any amount of time and look at how many email, web page, news or whatever passwords you receive. Then realize that someone could be doing this to you!
There's a rapidly-expanding section of the home electronics market which revolves around "devices". The reason for the parentheses is that it's difficult to know how to label these gadgets, because they don't fit easily into any pre-defined categories.
Isn't a parentheses one of these ( )? And aren't these " " called quotation marks?
Sorry, but it's hard to take an article seriously when the author doesn't know the difference.
maybe the police should learn to do their job, instead of breaking the law and violating my RIGHTS. incompetent twits. Got a small problem with authority there?
welcome to Stalin and Hitler's woodie inducing Utopia. Bushie is accomplishing what they never could. Both Hitler and Stalin killed hundreds of millions. To you, this is as bad or worse as maybe listening in on your conversation? Wow! I hope I don't sit in the next booth the next time you are in McDonalds. I'd hate for you to think that I might be listening in on your conversation.
Listening in on phones? What happens when that's not sufficient next time? Do they install cameras with audio in your home? After all, we can't afford to miss some. Nope. Gov't officials can not enter your home without a warrant. Besides, that would be intrusive, listening to my phone conversations makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. I don't even know they are listening, nor do I really care.
What if that misses something next time? Maybe they met in an open field? What then? Are we curfewed to be in our homes outside of work time? After all, we can't afford to miss some. Survelence in public is perfectly legal. If they want to follow you to a field and listen in, there is no law against that.
I think you are missing the point here. A couple of US citizens from Pakistan were just arrested with over 1000 pay-as-you-go cell phones in their van. These phones come with 40 minutes for $20, no questions asked. Now lets say that Achmed uses these phones to receive orders from Osama himself. As soon as the feds see Osama is making a call to a number in the US, they have to stop listening, go to a FISA judge and request a warrant. By the time they get the warrant, Achmed's minutes are up and he's moved to another phone, which sends the Feds back to a judge... wash, rince, repeat. There is no legal way that the Feds can monitor calls in this situation. Now if they could get a warrant to tap phone calls from particular phones overseas, regardless of who they call in the US, I'd be OK with that. But as it stands, they must request and wait for a warrant for every phone in the US, wether they know it's held by a citizen or not. With terrorists changing phones every 40 minutes, this is not feasible.
That's the whole point of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and yes they will miss some.
Well, that's the point, isn't it. We can't afford to miss some. I also think that monitoring a call made to Afghanistan from a brand new pay-as-you-go phone is pretty reasonable. Besides, are 3000 or more lives less important than your own feeling of comfort when you think that no one is listening to your phone calls to Afghanistan? Since you will never know if you calls are monitored or not, that is all we are talking about here... a feeling.
Oh well. Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" will convict all 'normal' murderers? Or do you think we might "miss some"? Are you willing to give up that principle too?
The reason we are "innocent until proven guilty" is to prevent the innocent from being convicted and spending the remainder of thier life in prison. Comparing a life in prison to the chance that someone may over hear your phone conversation is pretty friggin rediculous, don't you think?
however not widthstanding the idea that the Gov should blanketly mine phone calls based on speaking Arabic or saying mohammed...etc is still a violation of the 4th Amendment
Are calls overseas protected under the 4'th? I could see where half the conversation might be, provided that the person on the domestic end is a citizen and provided that we are not suddenly extending Constitutional protections to citizens of the world. This could extend to any spy program we have world wide. What would be the difference between this and say, a special forces member planting a bug on an Al Quaeda member's phone in Afghanistan? What if that terrorist calls someone in the US? Does that soldier need to stop listening and wait for a warrant?
if the gov is suspicous of some person they already have ample options to obtain wire tap/ warrants there is no need for blanket unlawful wiretaps. The problem is, how do you know who is supsicions? I think calling someone in a cave in Afganistan makes you suspicios. But let's say that call is made on a "pay-as-you-go" phone. By the time you get a warrant to monitor that phone, the "suspect" has already used their free 40 minutes and moved on to another phone (they are buying them by the thousands) and now the NSA needs another warrant. (wash, rinse and repeat) Now if the NSA could get a warrant to listen to any call made to that cave in Afghanistan, domestic or not, that would be OK, but I don't think it works that way. They need a warrant for every phone tapped in the US, regardless of where teh call is made.
The idea that speaking Arabic is in and of itself "suspicous" is offensive... I speak german...(to some degree) if I call my relatives in Germany and tell them about my job and goings on in German is that somehow suspicious???? Fortunately, I don't think you need to worry as few terrorist attacks are coming from Deutchlandt.:-) Now if we were still dealing with the DDR...
When it comes to communication with a foreign country, I'd like to see the government monitor it. That's their job. Domestic monitoring is another matter, and not within the scope of the court ruling nor this subsequent discussion.
I agree with you, but this ruling does deal with calls overseas. From TFA:
They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
so you are suggesting that a new type of crime....called "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" should be created??
I never said that... maybe you should re-read my post. I said a computer data mining calls made overseas for keywords or languages that would make a phone call suspect. How does this translate to "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" being a crime?
That's the worst strawman arguement I've heard in a long time.
I would far prefer the government to get a warrant for such things. The special court set up to hear these cases is essentially a rubber-stamp anyway.
Here is what I think is happening: The gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchanges to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. Does the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants? Or, does the gov't only get warrants for the KNOWN terrorists for "manual" monitoring and hope we don't miss anyone?
there are numerous and not all that especially hard to obtain avenues to getting a warrant if someone is suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The idea the we have to surrender our rights under the 4th Amendment to fears of terror...is offensive and wrong.
OK, let's say the gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchange to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", "Osama", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. This could be an invaluable tool for the NSA or whoever and would eliminate 99.9999% of the calls to further monitoring, protecting the privacy of the rest of us. Would the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants, or just get the warrants for the KNOWN terrorists and hope we didn't miss anyone.
Of course it's unconstitutional. This is akin to the judge ruling that the sky is blue and grass is green and water is wet. I'm sure I'll be called a troll for this... but where is the word privacy in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.
In other words, it is not as clear cut as you make it seem. Any "Constitutional" reference to privacy is based on a judge's opinion back when the Feds tapped a mobsters phone. That's what your right to privacy is based on, an opinion, not the Constitution.
They can still listen in on specific suspects, NOT on the entire population/subscribers to an ISP.
Provided you know who the specific suspects are, of course. Unfortunately, according to the ACLU, you are not a suspect until you blow yourself up in a crowded plane or market.
But mostly I blame the "government" for allowing the situation with Microsoft to exist.
By "government" I of course refer to the current administration.
Uh... M$ was making buggy software long before the "current administration" came to power. Just like the plotting for 9-11, wars between Arabs and Israelis, wars in general, global warming, hurricanes and so on all predate the current administation. I'm not saying the current admin is perfect or that previous admins are 100% to blame, but I think you need to spread that blame around.
It's bad enough people think that history began when they were born, but there is no excuse for thinking all problems began less than seven years ago, provided you can read.
Are you saying that Israeli soldiers locate their bases away from civilians and never mingle with the population? The truth is that Israel has the power to take the fight to Arab homes, if the Arabs had FA-18's with laser guided bombs they might just do the reverse. Also have a look at the body count and note the ratio of combatants/civilians dead on both sides.
You can't say that civilian areas are legit military targets because a soldier may be in the area. I am saying that Israel does not go into neighborhoods to launch artillery shells from. And No, I fully believe that if the Hezbolla had F-16's with LGB's, they would attack civilian areas. How accurate is a "suicide bomber"? More so than a lazer guided bomb. A LGB can hit a building, maybe get lucky and knock down a door or window. A "suicide bomber" can hit a closet, bathroom, kitchen, wherever a man (or child) can stand, they can hit. Do these suicide bombers go after military targets? No. They hit teen hangouts, crowded buses and campus cafeterias. They don't even go after government buildings or wait until the buses are empty. They hit them during rush hour to cause the maximum number of civilian deaths possible. It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of mind-set. Hezbolla and other jihad organizations like them are terrorists, pure and simple.
Hezbollah didn't start firing rockets a few weeks ago. They've been launching rockets into Israel for years. Until this most recent set of events, Israel would respond with an occasional air
So, how long does Israel just sit there and let rockets fall on civilians before they can respond in such a manner that will stop it once and for all?
Hezbolla is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and Canada. But the Islamic countries consider it a resistance movement, as do a number of other countries worldwide. It is not just a military organization (though it has a military wing) but also a poltical party.
Military organizations and resistance movements target the enemy's military organization and protect civilians. Terrorists target civilians and hide among them as cover. Which one is Hezbolla doing? Political parties are not armed. Governments, and terrorists organizations are. If Hezbolla is not a terrorist organization, tell me where I can find the country of Hezbol.
Sort of like the way the fake 60 Minutes article on Bush's little vacation from the Air National Guard was placed by a GOP operative trying to smear CBS and Dan Rather.
Wow! They must have some powerful friggin mind control rays because Dan Rather still thinks those docs are real, even after they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been typed up using MS Word with the default settings.
BTW, I saw the WTC Towers fall live. There was so much smoke, I was not even sure if they had fallen or not. All I could see was smoke and dust. I wasnt' sure they were gone until the smoke cleared. I had no idea that Rove could edit live video on every network in America at the same time.
He's one bad MF. Hell, I'm glad he's in charge. I'd rather he be in charge of the country than against it. If Rove can do all this while he's in charge and under the media's microscope, imagine how bad things would be if he were trying to make America look bad!!!
Two different reporters can present the same facts in different ways, eg. by describing the same group of people as terrorists or freedom fighters. Arguably there is nothing wrong with this
I have to take issue with this statement here, but only the freedom fighter vs. terrorist bit. Freedom fighters blow up legitimate military targets, such as tanks, belonging an oppressive force. Terrorists target civilians in order to inflict terror in the populace, either to break the public's will to fight, or to simply kill civilians because of a prejudice towards them. This, IMHO, is the primary difference between Israel and the rest of Arab countries attacking Israel. Granted, they both kill civilians, but terrorists do it on purpose; they target civilians. Israel targets Hezbola fighters hiding among civilians. Calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is not bias, it is a misrepresentation of the truth (also known as a lie).
Now a better example of bias would be: Ted Kennedy wants to raise taxes (Fox News). vs. Ted Kennedy wants to roll back George Bush's tax cuts (CNN).
Didn't RTFA, eh? I perused it. Looked at the pictures mostly. I got the idea. My comment was based on TFA's title as well as the slashdot title which, I admit, rarely has anything to do with TFA.
You want a more OT post? The idea is interesting, but the art based on words won't work when a spammer sends a GIF image of the message. It may make for more complex images if the "artist" used something more "wordy" than just spam, such as a novel or slashdot article. Personally, I would rather see art based on various relationships such as the dynamic relationships found on myspace, for example, or some exceedingly complex database. But spam?
I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not.gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children.
Emphasis mine, but how exactly can you back up that statement? Designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, sure. Especially children? I don't think so. Click-throughs are fine, but all those sites with porn galleries and links are trying to lead you to signup pages where you purchase a membership to a site or group of sites. That's where you always end up. Otherwise why would the porn site owners bother to buy ads?
From my original post:
Seriously, how many adults look for the Whitehouse home page? Who do you think the webmasters of Whitehouse.com were trying to attract with their misleading name?
How many government teachers and librarians accidentally hit this site while trying to teach school kids about the research value of the Internet for learning about our government?
It's not just me that thinks this way. From Everything2:
It's also the website that resulted in one of the reoccurring elementary school pranks. A rather naive kid might ask another kid "Hey, how can I find out when James K. Polk was president?" The other kid would reply, "Oh simple, just go to whitehouse.com."
And, of course, from Wikipedia: In 1997, the Clinton administration sent Dan Parisi a cease and desist letter stating, "... we do not challenge your right to pursue it or to exercise your First Amendment rights, but we do challenge your right to use the White House, the President, and the First Lady as a marketing device. For adult internet users, that device is, at the least, part of a deceptive scheme. For younger Internet users, it has more disturbing consequences." The letter had no effect and the site stayed up.
In 1998 Jim Salmon was so appalled by the idea of how many kids get tricked into going to this site that he personally pointed all of his domains to that site, hoping to generate enough controversy to get people to shut the site down...
Slashdot Mirror
Humans, homo sapiens, are primates.
What is the moral difference, then between conducting medical experiments on unwilling humans and on unwilling chimpanzees or other primates?
OK, if you find me a human that flings shit at when I walk in front of his home, I'll agree that we should dice him up and see what makes him tick!
If you believe that his quest for knowledge is so important then why don't you volunteer to be part of these primate studies? They use OTHER primates because they are similiar to human primates, but a human is the PERFECT test subject. So you think that his knowledge gain is important, you could give him even MORE by using yourself. Are you going to? If you do then you have a right to say something against these "terrorists," if not you're a hypocrite.
OK, let's turn it around on you. Unless you go down and volunteer to be the subject of some type of animal study, then you can no longer use any medicine or product that was created because of the use of animal research. Are you going to? If you do, then you have the right to use any product or medicine you like. BTW, this includes electricity. Edison used to electrocute stray dogs to show that AC electricity was dangerous. So until you stick your tongue in a light socket for science... STFU you hypocrite!
GW Bush doesn't care about American terrorists. Why aren't they in jail? Oh yea, he's too busy doing illegal wiretaps and spending crazy stupid sums of money on shiny new technology which won't work nearly as well as advertized, and forgetting that they way you catch terrorists is with smart people doing old-fashioned police work.
Nope, these people are as much terrorists as any Arab or Muslim out there, and that is according to the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the Bush admin can not persue them because of people like you that are constantly accusing Bush of personally doing illegal wiretaps and spending crazy stupid sums of money on shiny new technology and then having the ACLU sue over it, preventing any administration from ever being able to any type of survelence...ever, even if it means stopping a terrorist attack like this one or one from overseas. Keep in mind, once the terrorist reaches these shores, they have free reign to call their masters over seas, as long as they use a phone that is not warranted to tap, like a "pay-as-you-go" phone. And if we can't tap the phone of someone calling Osama himself, what makes you think we can tap some nutjob in California calling someone else in California? Of course, we can't, but I guess we have people like you to thank for that... Thanks a fuckin lot!
forgetting that they way you catch terrorists is with smart people doing old-fashioned police work.
See, that's the difference between people like me and you. I don't see terrorism as a legal issue that can be solved by using good old fashioned police work. I see it as a threat to national security that needs to be handled using good old fashioned military action. You don't arrest terrorists, you kill them before they have a chance to kill themselves on your neighborhood playground surrouned by kids.
Download an easy to use packet analyzer like Cain-n-Able and go to a place with wireless access and connect to the AP. Hotels are the best if you are staying there, but there is no reason you can't just sit in the parking lot. Let CnA run for any amount of time and look at how many email, web page, news or whatever passwords you receive. Then realize that someone could be doing this to you!
Isn't a parentheses one of these ( )?
And aren't these " " called quotation marks?
Sorry, but it's hard to take an article seriously when the author doesn't know the difference.
maybe the police should learn to do their job, instead of breaking the law and violating my RIGHTS. incompetent twits.
Got a small problem with authority there?
welcome to Stalin and Hitler's woodie inducing Utopia. Bushie is accomplishing what they never could.
Both Hitler and Stalin killed hundreds of millions. To you, this is as bad or worse as maybe listening in on your conversation? Wow! I hope I don't sit in the next booth the next time you are in McDonalds. I'd hate for you to think that I might be listening in on your conversation.
Listening in on phones? What happens when that's not sufficient next time? Do they install cameras with audio in your home? After all, we can't afford to miss some.
Nope. Gov't officials can not enter your home without a warrant. Besides, that would be intrusive, listening to my phone conversations makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. I don't even know they are listening, nor do I really care.
What if that misses something next time? Maybe they met in an open field? What then? Are we curfewed to be in our homes outside of work time? After all, we can't afford to miss some.
Survelence in public is perfectly legal. If they want to follow you to a field and listen in, there is no law against that.
I think you are missing the point here. A couple of US citizens from Pakistan were just arrested with over 1000 pay-as-you-go cell phones in their van. These phones come with 40 minutes for $20, no questions asked. Now lets say that Achmed uses these phones to receive orders from Osama himself. As soon as the feds see Osama is making a call to a number in the US, they have to stop listening, go to a FISA judge and request a warrant. By the time they get the warrant, Achmed's minutes are up and he's moved to another phone, which sends the Feds back to a judge... wash, rince, repeat. There is no legal way that the Feds can monitor calls in this situation. Now if they could get a warrant to tap phone calls from particular phones overseas, regardless of who they call in the US, I'd be OK with that. But as it stands, they must request and wait for a warrant for every phone in the US, wether they know it's held by a citizen or not. With terrorists changing phones every 40 minutes, this is not feasible.
That's the whole point of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and yes they will miss some.
Well, that's the point, isn't it. We can't afford to miss some. I also think that monitoring a call made to Afghanistan from a brand new pay-as-you-go phone is pretty reasonable. Besides, are 3000 or more lives less important than your own feeling of comfort when you think that no one is listening to your phone calls to Afghanistan? Since you will never know if you calls are monitored or not, that is all we are talking about here... a feeling.
Oh well. Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" will convict all 'normal' murderers? Or do you think we might "miss some"? Are you willing to give up that principle too?
The reason we are "innocent until proven guilty" is to prevent the innocent from being convicted and spending the remainder of thier life in prison. Comparing a life in prison to the chance that someone may over hear your phone conversation is pretty friggin rediculous, don't you think?
however not widthstanding the idea that the Gov should blanketly mine phone calls based on speaking Arabic or saying mohammed...etc is still a violation of the 4th Amendment
:-) Now if we were still dealing with the DDR...
Are calls overseas protected under the 4'th? I could see where half the conversation might be, provided that the person on the domestic end is a citizen and provided that we are not suddenly extending Constitutional protections to citizens of the world. This could extend to any spy program we have world wide. What would be the difference between this and say, a special forces member planting a bug on an Al Quaeda member's phone in Afghanistan? What if that terrorist calls someone in the US? Does that soldier need to stop listening and wait for a warrant?
if the gov is suspicous of some person they already have ample options to obtain wire tap/ warrants there is no need for blanket unlawful wiretaps.
The problem is, how do you know who is supsicions? I think calling someone in a cave in Afganistan makes you suspicios. But let's say that call is made on a "pay-as-you-go" phone. By the time you get a warrant to monitor that phone, the "suspect" has already used their free 40 minutes and moved on to another phone (they are buying them by the thousands) and now the NSA needs another warrant. (wash, rinse and repeat) Now if the NSA could get a warrant to listen to any call made to that cave in Afghanistan, domestic or not, that would be OK, but I don't think it works that way. They need a warrant for every phone tapped in the US, regardless of where teh call is made.
The idea that speaking Arabic is in and of itself "suspicous" is offensive... I speak german...(to some degree) if I call my relatives in Germany and tell them about my job and goings on in German is that somehow suspicious????
Fortunately, I don't think you need to worry as few terrorist attacks are coming from Deutchlandt.
I agree with you, but this ruling does deal with calls overseas. From TFA:
so you are suggesting that a new type of crime....called "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" should be created??
I never said that... maybe you should re-read my post. I said a computer data mining calls made overseas for keywords or languages that would make a phone call suspect. How does this translate to "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" being a crime?
That's the worst strawman arguement I've heard in a long time.
I would far prefer the government to get a warrant for such things. The special court set up to hear these cases is essentially a rubber-stamp anyway.
Here is what I think is happening:
The gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchanges to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. Does the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants? Or, does the gov't only get warrants for the KNOWN terrorists for "manual" monitoring and hope we don't miss anyone?
there are numerous and not all that especially hard to obtain avenues to getting a warrant if someone is suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The idea the we have to surrender our rights under the 4th Amendment to fears of terror...is offensive and wrong.
OK, let's say the gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchange to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", "Osama", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. This could be an invaluable tool for the NSA or whoever and would eliminate 99.9999% of the calls to further monitoring, protecting the privacy of the rest of us. Would the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants, or just get the warrants for the KNOWN terrorists and hope we didn't miss anyone.
Of course it's unconstitutional. This is akin to the judge ruling that the sky is blue and grass is green and water is wet.
I'm sure I'll be called a troll for this... but where is the word privacy in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.
In other words, it is not as clear cut as you make it seem. Any "Constitutional" reference to privacy is based on a judge's opinion back when the Feds tapped a mobsters phone. That's what your right to privacy is based on, an opinion, not the Constitution.
They can still listen in on specific suspects, NOT on the entire population/subscribers to an ISP.
Provided you know who the specific suspects are, of course. Unfortunately, according to the ACLU, you are not a suspect until you blow yourself up in a crowded plane or market.
Great! Now I have to give my dogs a talking-to about using protection before they go to the doggie park!
I wonder if they will start having puppy prophylactics in a candy dish at pet-smart.
But mostly I blame the "government" for allowing the situation with Microsoft to exist.
By "government" I of course refer to the current administration.
Uh... M$ was making buggy software long before the "current administration" came to power. Just like the plotting for 9-11, wars between Arabs and Israelis, wars in general, global warming, hurricanes and so on all predate the current administation. I'm not saying the current admin is perfect or that previous admins are 100% to blame, but I think you need to spread that blame around.
It's bad enough people think that history began when they were born, but there is no excuse for thinking all problems began less than seven years ago, provided you can read.
Are you saying that Israeli soldiers locate their bases away from civilians and never mingle with the population? The truth is that Israel has the power to take the fight to Arab homes, if the Arabs had FA-18's with laser guided bombs they might just do the reverse. Also have a look at the body count and note the ratio of combatants/civilians dead on both sides.
You can't say that civilian areas are legit military targets because a soldier may be in the area. I am saying that Israel does not go into neighborhoods to launch artillery shells from.
And No, I fully believe that if the Hezbolla had F-16's with LGB's, they would attack civilian areas. How accurate is a "suicide bomber"? More so than a lazer guided bomb. A LGB can hit a building, maybe get lucky and knock down a door or window. A "suicide bomber" can hit a closet, bathroom, kitchen, wherever a man (or child) can stand, they can hit. Do these suicide bombers go after military targets? No. They hit teen hangouts, crowded buses and campus cafeterias. They don't even go after government buildings or wait until the buses are empty. They hit them during rush hour to cause the maximum number of civilian deaths possible. It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of mind-set. Hezbolla and other jihad organizations like them are terrorists, pure and simple.
Hezbollah didn't start firing rockets a few weeks ago. They've been launching rockets into Israel for years. Until this most recent set of events, Israel would respond with an occasional air
So, how long does Israel just sit there and let rockets fall on civilians before they can respond in such a manner that will stop it once and for all?
Hezbolla is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and Canada. But the Islamic countries consider it a resistance movement, as do a number of other countries worldwide. It is not just a military organization (though it has a military wing) but also a poltical party.
Military organizations and resistance movements target the enemy's military organization and protect civilians. Terrorists target civilians and hide among them as cover. Which one is Hezbolla doing?
Political parties are not armed. Governments, and terrorists organizations are. If Hezbolla is not a terrorist organization, tell me where I can find the country of Hezbol.
Sort of like the way the fake 60 Minutes article on Bush's little vacation from the Air National Guard was placed by a GOP operative trying to smear CBS and Dan Rather.
Wow! They must have some powerful friggin mind control rays because Dan Rather still thinks those docs are real, even after they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been typed up using MS Word with the default settings.
BTW, I saw the WTC Towers fall live. There was so much smoke, I was not even sure if they had fallen or not. All I could see was smoke and dust. I wasnt' sure they were gone until the smoke cleared. I had no idea that Rove could edit live video on every network in America at the same time.
He's one bad MF. Hell, I'm glad he's in charge. I'd rather he be in charge of the country than against it. If Rove can do all this while he's in charge and under the media's microscope, imagine how bad things would be if he were trying to make America look bad!!!
Two different reporters can present the same facts in different ways, eg. by describing the same group of people as terrorists or freedom fighters. Arguably there is nothing wrong with this
I have to take issue with this statement here, but only the freedom fighter vs. terrorist bit.
Freedom fighters blow up legitimate military targets, such as tanks, belonging an oppressive force.
Terrorists target civilians in order to inflict terror in the populace, either to break the public's will to fight, or to simply kill civilians because of a prejudice towards them. This, IMHO, is the primary difference between Israel and the rest of Arab countries attacking Israel. Granted, they both kill civilians, but terrorists do it on purpose; they target civilians. Israel targets Hezbola fighters hiding among civilians. Calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is not bias, it is a misrepresentation of the truth (also known as a lie).
Now a better example of bias would be:
Ted Kennedy wants to raise taxes (Fox News).
vs.
Ted Kennedy wants to roll back George Bush's tax cuts (CNN).
Shock waves are too brief to do any meaningful heating to tissue. They'll rip off your arm if anything.
At which point, you will need some sort of tourniquet. I hear they are coming out with a "Sonic Tourniquet" that may fit the bill.
Didn't RTFA, eh?
I perused it. Looked at the pictures mostly. I got the idea. My comment was based on TFA's title as well as the slashdot title which, I admit, rarely has anything to do with TFA.
You want a more OT post?
The idea is interesting, but the art based on words won't work when a spammer sends a GIF image of the message. It may make for more complex images if the "artist" used something more "wordy" than just spam, such as a novel or slashdot article. Personally, I would rather see art based on various relationships such as the dynamic relationships found on myspace, for example, or some exceedingly complex database. But spam?
Emphasis mine, but how exactly can you back up that statement? Designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, sure. Especially children? I don't think so. Click-throughs are fine, but all those sites with porn galleries and links are trying to lead you to signup pages where you purchase a membership to a site or group of sites. That's where you always end up. Otherwise why would the porn site owners bother to buy ads?
From my original post:
How many government teachers and librarians accidentally hit this site while trying to teach school kids about the research value of the Internet for learning about our government?
It's not just me that thinks this way. From Everything2:
It's also the website that resulted in one of the reoccurring elementary school pranks. A rather naive kid might ask another kid "Hey, how can I find out when James K. Polk was president?" The other kid would reply, "Oh simple, just go to whitehouse.com."
And, of course, from Wikipedia:
In 1997, the Clinton administration sent Dan Parisi a cease and desist letter stating, "... we do not challenge your right to pursue it or to exercise your First Amendment rights, but we do challenge your right to use the White House, the President, and the First Lady as a marketing device. For adult internet users, that device is, at the least, part of a deceptive scheme. For younger Internet users, it has more disturbing consequences." The letter had no effect and the site stayed up.
In 1998 Jim Salmon was so appalled by the idea of how many kids get tricked into going to this site that he personally pointed all of his domains to that site, hoping to generate enough controversy to get people to shut the site down...
The only way to make Spam art involves carving canned ham!