I don't see what fundemnetal liberty is being squashed here. You can go about your day as you did before, say what you want to whomever. There are just looking for terrorists. Terrorists hide among the people and use our very own communication networks (cell phones, email, etc) to coordinate and conceal there activities. Back in the early days of the Republic, such enemies wanting to attack us would need to congregate with each other, face to face. If they communicated via the posrtal service, do you think the Constitution would prohibit the government from recording who you sent letters to to see if you are communicating with known enemies of the state?
You may think that the "War on Terrorism" is just a cliche, but it is a real war, with fronts, and armed forces clashing across the planet. from insurgents in Irag, to terrorists in the london subways, to the trains of madrid, to the philipines marzist & islamic alliance to overthrow that government, cells in singapore, tankers full of vx gas set to blow to in the capital of jordan, or even the tropical resorts of bali -- only a fool would delude themselves into thinking that there isn't a war going on with people fighting and dieing in it every day.
1 thing is for sure, even Thomas Jefferson would approve, since after all he did launch a "War on Piracy" that lastest nearly 20 years.
The 4th Amendment does not protect public places or institutions belonging to state, federal, municipal entities --- ONLY PRIVATE PERSONS AND THIER PROERTY.
Furthermore, ALL public employees are bound by the US Constitution to comply with federal law, and not to interfere. If The FBI agents, want the computers so they may ENFORCE federal law.
3rdly, if the Libarian knows that there MAY BE materials on computer evidencing the nature of attack by by an Enemy of the United States, she is bound under Article 18 of the US Title code "Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities" to inform the federal government of such an attack or evidence.
4th as a employee of the state, she is also bound to uphold and report any crimes to the state.
I thought Googles Competitive Advantage was superior search technology, not how much taxes they pay. Who would have thought that local property taxes played such a big part in destroying Yahoo.
No government or agency in the United States can legally have a valid copyright. They can have trademarks and the such, but even those can be copied and sold as long as you are not representing that you are an agent of that agency.
That being said, the MTA and the rest are not the government. Thy may be quasi public, but in essence they are just non profit organizations. So There is no reason why they can't have a trademark.
The President is charged with the execution of the laws, but he has descretion in how to execute them. A law can say the president must do x, but in fact law cannot compell the president to do anything, only the constitution binds the presidents actions. So if the Congress passes a Bill giving $50 million to say your neighbor to eat burritos, than the president can say 'no', and issue an order to the treasurey to impound the funds. Its a check on law to keep it from being unreasonably enforced. Imagine if your district prosecutor had to write you a ticket for jay walking even if you broke the law to save soemone's life? Would not be very reasonable.
What the president cannot do is create law, that is the domain of congress. In that regard, he cannot create a law making something illegal like hamsters, or motorcycles, or appropriate monies.
There are things in our government that have evolved as a matter of course of time. The Supreme Courts Alledged power of "Judicial Review". The Constitution does not grant that power to the court, it just gives the court the power to say "no" to the government on a case by case basis. But since the Supreme Court gives out marching orders to all the lower courts, the power of judical exsists as a matter of convention, since a ruling of the Supreme Court will be followed (most of the time) by the lower courts.
Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..
on
Justice O'Connor Retiring
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Yes, we all now about the romaing bands of Federal Agents looking ot arbitrarily arrest people and throw then in jail for no reason at the behest of thier Glorious leader and madman George Bush. I am sure, terrorism has nothing to do with these detentions, because we know Bush just likes to imprison people for the hell of it. I still haven't figured out why there are still democrats in the senate and the house, they were suppossed to be arbitraily detained as well.
Look O'Connor's opinion, was both rediculous and stupid as well as hyperbole and a gross mischarecterization of what is going on. The Bush Administration is on solid legal ground in denying trials to terrorists, as there is precedent in detaining not only foreigners indefinitely, but also American Citizens. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government has done this before, most noteably during the Civil War, in which not only did we detain them till the end of the war, but we also burned thier homes down too! The only trial these terrorists are entitled to is one before a Military Tribunal, where will be tried According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for war crimes, right before we line up against a wall and fill'em full of lead! Hell during WW2, we summarily executed German troops that were not in their proper uniforms, you can even watch footage of the executions on the History Channel.
Good riddens to grandstanding O'Connor.
I am surprised by this decision. It had been rumoured for a week or so, but I didn't think she would do it. This is going to herald in a new much more conservative court, and is perhaps the most significant legal development in about 30 years. What makes this more significant is that with Requinst likely to retire soon as well, the next justices likely to retire are all liberals. With Bush's Presidency set to last till 2008, considering the advanced ages of those liberal Justices, that Bush may be able to make a 3rd or 4th, most likely from some natural ailment such as a heart attack.
A divided Court no more, for better or worse for another decade.
If you want to make a Constitutional Argument, than make it, otherwise don't bother talking about it. Obviously the People have rights, but they collectively delegate THOSE Rights to thier elected government (in our system), who then use those Rights, many of which are only held collectively in the first place, to create laws by which society is governs. Other rights only exist because we grant them as a matter of arbitrairy cultural preference. Why do we need unanimity instead of just a majority on jury to convict, or why do we have juries at all, since through most of history there have not been juries. If you prefer the word powers over rights you could try to make a linguistic point, but it would be a distinction without a difference
From Websters Dictionairy
Power
1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
Right
something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
Just looking at the Linguistic Inferences offered in the definitions, they seem to point to base definition, you cannot have a Power (in the sense we are talking about) without the Right to Excercise it (legally). You obviously don't have a right to something is you do not have the power to do so.
In the American System of Government those powers or rights, are held by our representatives who then use them to create laws, and are not held by anyone else until the next election, or for all intents and purposes the next successful revolution.
So if you disagree with someone in the future, how about addressing the point instead of these meaningless rhetorical rebutals without substance, or did they fail to teach you that in you "general education"?
So lets see:
Its not okay for a security gaurd to see your wife/daughter/gf, but it is okay to see you naked?
Well thats alright, and if you would rather see a women in your life end up on a hijacked plane and rammed into a building rather than spend 2 seconds walking through a scanner than thats your choice. You can choose to feel embarassed about it or not, but its your choice. There is a valid security risk, and this seems like a much better proceedure for detecting explosives and weapons than what we currently have, and whats the cost, some guy who makes 2x minimum wage (I suppose if he made 200x minimum wage that would be better) will get his jollies looking at your naughty bits? I Will you tell you this, the few hot chicks these airport screeners get to see, will be the few and far inbetween, because most of the public, for most people, need clothes on to look good, and they are going to have to look at them as well.
Overall, I am happy with this innovation travel security, and would welcome it at it earliest adoption. If some chick security gaurd/screener, wants to fanasize about me later, all the better.
As for the Constitutional Arguments, they are bit rediculous, the Constitution Clearly grants the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce, and these insterstate and international flights look like Interstate commerce to me + when you are talking about National Security from a legitiamte military threat that has ALREADY HAPPENED 4 TIMES, the Government has always deemed to have the power to deal with these problems.
So if I persecute the Dhali Lahma, I am not persecuting what he stands for? of course I am, don't be silly.
As for Dan Rather and the DNC, there is a mountain of both circumstantial and factual evidence to conclude there was indeed collusion between the 2, in violation not only of campaign laws, but of their federal broadcast licenses. If they had stated in thier broadcast that they were coordinating with the DNC, in the airing of the report, the public good would have been safe gaurded against such distorition, since the false documents would have been surely vetted before airing because of the certain fallout it would have tied to the documents if they turned out to be false. Why did this story, with the mountain of evidence and poltical implications with the strong technological link not get posted, but a story based on nothing but inuenndo by one of the most shriill members of the senate was posted almost immediately after she said it?
I think the reason why you don;t see conservatives trying to push thier agenda at Slashdot, is because they don't see slashdot as such a forum for such activities, but they will defend themselves when they have been attacked.
As I said, above, my problems are with the editors who are pushing a left wing political agenda on a site people go to for commentary on technology. If they are going to deviate from that narrow perspective on technology and push the DNC, than they should say so, and mark all the stories as such.
I am sure that even the most hardened liberals can agree that if the news coverage the public is recieving is really part of a concealed agenda, then thats wrong. If makers of canned food have to dislose the contents of their products, shouldn't the slashdot editors have to disclose their political agenda in posting stories? Shouldn't consumers of information be entitled to such "truth in labeling"?
I make no secret I am biased against Kerry, I hate the schmuck, and I come out and say it. I didn't like Dean, but he unlike Kerry said what believed, and you have to respect that. If a man stands up for what he believes, you can never take away from that, because he is genuine. Granted all politicitions waver to do what they need to survive, but there is a difference from being flexible and reed in the wind.
I for one, am sick of the obvious bias of Slashdot editors against conservative values. This is site is suppossed to be about technology, not technology and slander of Republicans.
How many articles did slashdot run about crazed liberal Dan Rather, and his attempt to undermine the US election process by coordinateing with the DNC's "[i]operation Fortunate Son[/i]" by airing forged documents provided by the Kerrry Campaign? I would think that this would have been an excellent story considering the use of self assembling netowrks of documenting authenticators over the web to disect those obvious forgeries. What we need to know, is what did Kerry know about these forgeries and when did he know it? Does this apparent collussion between CBS and the Kerry Campaign create a legal requirement for CBS to register as a Democrat 527 so unsuspecting voters won't be fooled into thinking CBS is a respectable news organization?
And since Slashdot is very concerned about US politics, you can also start covering the recently uncovered, unreleased Kerry After action report of which proves conclusively that Kerry lied to get his silver star and completely vindicates the Swift Boat Veterans.
Look, if slashdot is going to act as an advocate of the DNC, it should post such information in a disclaimer ontop of each such story, stating "We are supporting the Kerry Campaign". To not do so would be dishonest.
To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has never sued anyone for violating a patent, although they have been the target of such suits. Copyrights Yes, Patents no.
I don't think that they feel thats its in their best interests to deterring developers from working on microsoft technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see what fundemnetal liberty is being squashed here. You can go about your day as you did before, say what you want to whomever. There are just looking for terrorists. Terrorists hide among the people and use our very own communication networks (cell phones, email, etc) to coordinate and conceal there activities. Back in the early days of the Republic, such enemies wanting to attack us would need to congregate with each other, face to face. If they communicated via the posrtal service, do you think the Constitution would prohibit the government from recording who you sent letters to to see if you are communicating with known enemies of the state? You may think that the "War on Terrorism" is just a cliche, but it is a real war, with fronts, and armed forces clashing across the planet. from insurgents in Irag, to terrorists in the london subways, to the trains of madrid, to the philipines marzist & islamic alliance to overthrow that government, cells in singapore, tankers full of vx gas set to blow to in the capital of jordan, or even the tropical resorts of bali -- only a fool would delude themselves into thinking that there isn't a war going on with people fighting and dieing in it every day. 1 thing is for sure, even Thomas Jefferson would approve, since after all he did launch a "War on Piracy" that lastest nearly 20 years.
The 4th Amendment does not protect public places or institutions belonging to state, federal, municipal entities --- ONLY PRIVATE PERSONS AND THIER PROERTY.
Furthermore, ALL public employees are bound by the US Constitution to comply with federal law, and not to interfere. If The FBI agents, want the computers so they may ENFORCE federal law.
3rdly, if the Libarian knows that there MAY BE materials on computer evidencing the nature of attack by by an Enemy of the United States, she is bound under Article 18 of the US Title code "Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities" to inform the federal government of such an attack or evidence.
4th as a employee of the state, she is also bound to uphold and report any crimes to the state.
We don't need to restrict porn to a certain port, why not have a "dirty bit" in the tcp/ip wrapper instead? php_enable_porn()
I thought Googles Competitive Advantage was superior search technology, not how much taxes they pay. Who would have thought that local property taxes played such a big part in destroying Yahoo.
No government or agency in the United States can legally have a valid copyright. They can have trademarks and the such, but even those can be copied and sold as long as you are not representing that you are an agent of that agency.
That being said, the MTA and the rest are not the government. Thy may be quasi public, but in essence they are just non profit organizations. So There is no reason why they can't have a trademark.
The President is charged with the execution of the laws, but he has descretion in how to execute them. A law can say the president must do x, but in fact law cannot compell the president to do anything, only the constitution binds the presidents actions. So if the Congress passes a Bill giving $50 million to say your neighbor to eat burritos, than the president can say 'no', and issue an order to the treasurey to impound the funds. Its a check on law to keep it from being unreasonably enforced. Imagine if your district prosecutor had to write you a ticket for jay walking even if you broke the law to save soemone's life? Would not be very reasonable.
What the president cannot do is create law, that is the domain of congress. In that regard, he cannot create a law making something illegal like hamsters, or motorcycles, or appropriate monies.
There are things in our government that have evolved as a matter of course of time. The Supreme Courts Alledged power of "Judicial Review". The Constitution does not grant that power to the court, it just gives the court the power to say "no" to the government on a case by case basis. But since the Supreme Court gives out marching orders to all the lower courts, the power of judical exsists as a matter of convention, since a ruling of the Supreme Court will be followed (most of the time) by the lower courts.
Yes, we all now about the romaing bands of Federal Agents looking ot arbitrarily arrest people and throw then in jail for no reason at the behest of thier Glorious leader and madman George Bush. I am sure, terrorism has nothing to do with these detentions, because we know Bush just likes to imprison people for the hell of it. I still haven't figured out why there are still democrats in the senate and the house, they were suppossed to be arbitraily detained as well.
Look O'Connor's opinion, was both rediculous and stupid as well as hyperbole and a gross mischarecterization of what is going on. The Bush Administration is on solid legal ground in denying trials to terrorists, as there is precedent in detaining not only foreigners indefinitely, but also American Citizens. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government has done this before, most noteably during the Civil War, in which not only did we detain them till the end of the war, but we also burned thier homes down too! The only trial these terrorists are entitled to is one before a Military Tribunal, where will be tried According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for war crimes, right before we line up against a wall and fill'em full of lead! Hell during WW2, we summarily executed German troops that were not in their proper uniforms, you can even watch footage of the executions on the History Channel.
Good riddens to grandstanding O'Connor.
I am surprised by this decision. It had been rumoured for a week or so, but I didn't think she would do it. This is going to herald in a new much more conservative court, and is perhaps the most significant legal development in about 30 years. What makes this more significant is that with Requinst likely to retire soon as well, the next justices likely to retire are all liberals. With Bush's Presidency set to last till 2008, considering the advanced ages of those liberal Justices, that Bush may be able to make a 3rd or 4th, most likely from some natural ailment such as a heart attack.
A divided Court no more, for better or worse for another decade.
can we say Straw Man?
If you want to make a Constitutional Argument, than make it, otherwise don't bother talking about it. Obviously the People have rights, but they collectively delegate THOSE Rights to thier elected government (in our system), who then use those Rights, many of which are only held collectively in the first place, to create laws by which society is governs. Other rights only exist because we grant them as a matter of arbitrairy cultural preference. Why do we need unanimity instead of just a majority on jury to convict, or why do we have juries at all, since through most of history there have not been juries. If you prefer the word powers over rights you could try to make a linguistic point, but it would be a distinction without a difference
From Websters Dictionairy
Power
1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right
Right
something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
Just looking at the Linguistic Inferences offered in the definitions, they seem to point to base definition, you cannot have a Power (in the sense we are talking about) without the Right to Excercise it (legally). You obviously don't have a right to something is you do not have the power to do so.
In the American System of Government those powers or rights, are held by our representatives who then use them to create laws, and are not held by anyone else until the next election, or for all intents and purposes the next successful revolution.
So if you disagree with someone in the future, how about addressing the point instead of these meaningless rhetorical rebutals without substance, or did they fail to teach you that in you "general education"?
So lets see:
Its not okay for a security gaurd to see your wife/daughter/gf, but it is okay to see you naked?
Well thats alright, and if you would rather see a women in your life end up on a hijacked plane and rammed into a building rather than spend 2 seconds walking through a scanner than thats your choice. You can choose to feel embarassed about it or not, but its your choice. There is a valid security risk, and this seems like a much better proceedure for detecting explosives and weapons than what we currently have, and whats the cost, some guy who makes 2x minimum wage (I suppose if he made 200x minimum wage that would be better) will get his jollies looking at your naughty bits? I Will you tell you this, the few hot chicks these airport screeners get to see, will be the few and far inbetween, because most of the public, for most people, need clothes on to look good, and they are going to have to look at them as well.
Overall, I am happy with this innovation travel security, and would welcome it at it earliest adoption. If some chick security gaurd/screener, wants to fanasize about me later, all the better.
As for the Constitutional Arguments, they are bit rediculous, the Constitution Clearly grants the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce, and these insterstate and international flights look like Interstate commerce to me + when you are talking about National Security from a legitiamte military threat that has ALREADY HAPPENED 4 TIMES, the Government has always deemed to have the power to deal with these problems.
So if I persecute the Dhali Lahma, I am not persecuting what he stands for? of course I am, don't be silly.
As for Dan Rather and the DNC, there is a mountain of both circumstantial and factual evidence to conclude there was indeed collusion between the 2, in violation not only of campaign laws, but of their federal broadcast licenses. If they had stated in thier broadcast that they were coordinating with the DNC, in the airing of the report, the public good would have been safe gaurded against such distorition, since the false documents would have been surely vetted before airing because of the certain fallout it would have tied to the documents if they turned out to be false. Why did this story, with the mountain of evidence and poltical implications with the strong technological link not get posted, but a story based on nothing but inuenndo by one of the most shriill members of the senate was posted almost immediately after she said it?
I think the reason why you don;t see conservatives trying to push thier agenda at Slashdot, is because they don't see slashdot as such a forum for such activities, but they will defend themselves when they have been attacked.
As I said, above, my problems are with the editors who are pushing a left wing political agenda on a site people go to for commentary on technology. If they are going to deviate from that narrow perspective on technology and push the DNC, than they should say so, and mark all the stories as such. I am sure that even the most hardened liberals can agree that if the news coverage the public is recieving is really part of a concealed agenda, then thats wrong. If makers of canned food have to dislose the contents of their products, shouldn't the slashdot editors have to disclose their political agenda in posting stories? Shouldn't consumers of information be entitled to such "truth in labeling"?
I make no secret I am biased against Kerry, I hate the schmuck, and I come out and say it. I didn't like Dean, but he unlike Kerry said what believed, and you have to respect that. If a man stands up for what he believes, you can never take away from that, because he is genuine. Granted all politicitions waver to do what they need to survive, but there is a difference from being flexible and reed in the wind.
I for one, am sick of the obvious bias of Slashdot editors against conservative values. This is site is suppossed to be about technology, not technology and slander of Republicans. How many articles did slashdot run about crazed liberal Dan Rather, and his attempt to undermine the US election process by coordinateing with the DNC's "[i]operation Fortunate Son[/i]" by airing forged documents provided by the Kerrry Campaign? I would think that this would have been an excellent story considering the use of self assembling netowrks of documenting authenticators over the web to disect those obvious forgeries. What we need to know, is what did Kerry know about these forgeries and when did he know it? Does this apparent collussion between CBS and the Kerry Campaign create a legal requirement for CBS to register as a Democrat 527 so unsuspecting voters won't be fooled into thinking CBS is a respectable news organization? And since Slashdot is very concerned about US politics, you can also start covering the recently uncovered, unreleased Kerry After action report of which proves conclusively that Kerry lied to get his silver star and completely vindicates the Swift Boat Veterans. Look, if slashdot is going to act as an advocate of the DNC, it should post such information in a disclaimer ontop of each such story, stating "We are supporting the Kerry Campaign". To not do so would be dishonest.
To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has never sued anyone for violating a patent, although they have been the target of such suits. Copyrights Yes, Patents no. I don't think that they feel thats its in their best interests to deterring developers from working on microsoft technologies.