Indeed, a recent guest on the daily show (I believe the gentleman who broke the original story) said that the government's argument is basically that they can't go to the courts because the shear volume of their taps would require too much of the judiciary and end up backlogging their requests.
Tracing calls inbound or outbound to known terrorist phone numbers, in itself is probable-cause, no?
I'd say it is. I don't think anyone would disagree. Either you're intentionally missing the point in order to troll or you're just ignorant.
The point is the NSA needs A WARRANT to do the tap. Hell, FISA lets them get a retroactive warrant for up to 72 hours after the fact. What is stopping Bush & Co. from getting a warrant from a secret court that has never denied a single warrant application in all of 2004? Its very likely that they had no probable cause to monitor these people.
The way I see it equal protection means equal protection of federal laws, not state laws. Reading it more broadly to mean all laws would make the US a unitary state, which is certainly not the case (nor was the intent of the amendment).
Congratulations! You have successfully begged the question! Abortion is not murder unless you assume abortion is murder.
As to the rest of your post, I, an advocate of abortion rights, do not believe that the 9th amendment protects such a right. I am of the opinion that abortion is a state issue (see Amdendment 10).
A federal law (or possibly an overreaching executive order) will be needed to eliminate business method patents. IIRC, some court decision made it so that business method patents are just as valid as mechanical ones.
I'm reminded of when FBI agents knocked on my door and asked questions about my neighbor who had applied to work at WPAFB. My girlfriend let them know she didn't know much about him (we lived in an apartment and we were new) but never had any problems with his conduct, so she wouldn't have any problem reccomending that he be granted his position. At that point one of the agents said:
"You say you don't know him, but you trust him to national security matters?"
She replied:
"I don't know you, but I kinda have to trust you, now don't I?"
Government offers health care, more people lose health care.
Correlation does not imply causality.
The poor get bad health care and the middle class get none? This is fair and equitable?
No. The only fair and equitable way to ration* health care is one where everyone who needs care gets it, regardless of ability to pay.
*Health care will always be rationed. Currently, we ration it based on ability to pay. The only fair and equitable way to ration is based on need. Dying? You go to the front of the line. Botox? Wait a few years or go to another country.
So, what... do we declassify everything every two years just to make sure it's all completely benign by everyone's standards, everywhere?
I used the number '2' because US Congressional elections are every 2 years. When new people are in the mix, the trust resets and the government has to earn it all over again.
As for the rest of your response, I don't know what it is in respsonse to, because all I said was trusting your government isn't a good idea. Secrecy in some things is, of course, necessary.
Most of us aren't upset with regular submitters who submit good stories. I don't even mind the "Carl Balik from WSJ" or "Steve from Hexus" people who are literally promoting their content on slashdot. Its the people like Roland who are using slashdot to drive up their ad hits without adding anything substantive to the story. The WSJ and Hexus actually did the reporting/made the story. Roland did not.
If you like to reward submitters by allowing them to promote their sites, they can always put their URL in the proper area. If Roland or other types continue to do this, then you can always change the link to the real story, but leave his homepage link in the story.
It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that.
There is also no proof that they have a good reason. Trusting your government is not a good idea, at least not until they've earned it, and then only two years at a time.
And besides, maybe if they did force everyone to use DRM, it would stop the whole "buy 10,000 email addresses for $10" kind of privacy violations we see rampantly all over the US.
An example of "cure the patient by killing him" if I've ever seen one.
Instead of seeing terrorists everywhere and trying to avoid every possible 'attack', deal with the reasons for people to turn into terrorists.
Doing research as to why people become terrorists does not increase Halliburton's bottom line. Declaring that terrorists "hate our freedom" enables us to increase Halliburton's bottom line.
I agree completely. I was just working under the assumption the King of the Hill would be sticking around while Futurama might end up just being on Adult Swim.
The problem is drinking and driving, so why not take away their license?
More concisely, the problem is driving while under the influence. Take away their license and they'll probably just drive w/o a license. Take away their alcohol and they'll probably drive w/o drinking. Of course, anyone with 3+ DUIs is likely an alcoholic and needs professional counseling before the fact. To keep them from alcohol, make it a misdemeanor to sell or give alcohol to anyone who was found to have a problem with DUIs.
While no person should be subjected to such torture, no matter their crime, I would hope that you agree someone who is caught driving with a BAL of ~0.10 three times should be kept away from the rest of us.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets 3 DUIs should be forbidden from consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives. These people have abused their freedom to use alcohol and cannot be trusted to use it ever again. For all I care, they can get sloshed all they want on private property, but the moment they appear on the road behind a wheel, they become everyone's problem.
You forget that these shows don't bring in as much profit as $REALITY_SHOW. Reality TV is incredibly profitable (low talent / production costs, etc.) which is why that genre has been forced down our collective throats for the past 4 years. Networks don't care if a show is "good" they care only if it is profitable, and maximally(?) so at that.
I can recall when 4pm football games almost never ran past 7pm. King of the Hill was always shown in its 7:30 time slot and Futurama was only pre-empted a couple of times. Now, as you say, King of the Hill is being pre-empted more often than not.
If Fox was smart, they'd kill off "The War at Home" and put King of the Hill in that place, making for a full 2 hrs of cartoons on Sunday nights. If games are running longer due to instant replay or, more likely, increased adverts, then they need to quit leaving the 7:30 time slot open for a program that is pre-empted more often than not.
As much as I and other socialist-leaning types would like to believe that, it simply isn't true. Capitalism, per-se, isn't the problem, but our (America's) style of state corporatism which socializes risks and privatizes profits.
Capitalism is an economic theory that says the economy will be most efficient when private enterprise competes in a free market. It is much a theory as is socialism or communism in that its implementation is not the same as its theory. It makes assumptions that are not always true (perfect knowlege of a market) just like other theories, but most people tend to think it works better than the alternatives.
The problem with our implementation of capitalism is that we attempt to bend the economy to act like our theory instead of coming up with a new theory. Its as if Einstein would have decided not that Newton's Laws didn't hold for large values of v, but that the Universe was wrong and should be changed to match the theory on the books. Almost by definition there is no such thing as a market failure, yet they happen. Solution? Make the world more like the theory of capitalism, rather than change the theory to fit our world.
I would be more in tune to capitalism if it more fit the theory (assuming Wealth of Nations can be assumed to be the general theory). But of course, more people would be in tune to socialism and/or communism if those fit the theory as well. I am of the opinion that people should be able to live under social and economic systems that they believe in. Our AnCap friend dada21 is not happy living in his current state. It would be nice if he and all the Anarcho-capitalists could live in their own country and put their theories into action. The communists could live in communes and the socialists could have their all-encompassing welfare state. I, for one, would love to live and work in a kibbutz-like structure, but I have a problem making you live and work in such a place.
Those of us in the midwest are having trouble going to school. I recall my ECF score on the FAFSA being 0 two years ago. That is, the government, after looking at how much my family and I made, decided we couldn't afford to put any of our money towards education expenses. I literally got the best grant/loan package anyone could ever get and I still had trouble paying living expenses even though I have a roommate and we both work half time.
I believe that the using/copying/etc of any sort of "intellectual property" should be legal for non-commerical uses. I would say that copyright should look more like the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license.
Slashdot Mirror
No Democrat calls his party the "Democrat Party". Lets review together:
A Republican belongs to the Republican Party.
A Democrat belongs to the Democratic Party.
"Republican" is both a noun and an adjective. "Democrat" is not an adjective. "Democratic" is.
That aside, the tone and style is quite obvious that this post is a troll or was written by a 12-year old.
Indeed, a recent guest on the daily show (I believe the gentleman who broke the original story) said that the government's argument is basically that they can't go to the courts because the shear volume of their taps would require too much of the judiciary and end up backlogging their requests.
Tracing calls inbound or outbound to known terrorist phone numbers, in itself is probable-cause, no?
I'd say it is. I don't think anyone would disagree. Either you're intentionally missing the point in order to troll or you're just ignorant.
The point is the NSA needs A WARRANT to do the tap. Hell, FISA lets them get a retroactive warrant for up to 72 hours after the fact. What is stopping Bush & Co. from getting a warrant from a secret court that has never denied a single warrant application in all of 2004? Its very likely that they had no probable cause to monitor these people.
Just another non-issue.
Apparently the 4th amendment is a "non-issue".
I was never good at tennis!
The way I see it equal protection means equal protection of federal laws, not state laws. Reading it more broadly to mean all laws would make the US a unitary state, which is certainly not the case (nor was the intent of the amendment).
The right to murder an unborn child
Congratulations! You have successfully begged the question! Abortion is not murder unless you assume abortion is murder.
As to the rest of your post, I, an advocate of abortion rights, do not believe that the 9th amendment protects such a right. I am of the opinion that abortion is a state issue (see Amdendment 10).
A federal law (or possibly an overreaching executive order) will be needed to eliminate business method patents. IIRC, some court decision made it so that business method patents are just as valid as mechanical ones.
I'm reminded of when FBI agents knocked on my door and asked questions about my neighbor who had applied to work at WPAFB. My girlfriend let them know she didn't know much about him (we lived in an apartment and we were new) but never had any problems with his conduct, so she wouldn't have any problem reccomending that he be granted his position. At that point one of the agents said:
"You say you don't know him, but you trust him to national security matters?"
She replied:
"I don't know you, but I kinda have to trust you, now don't I?"
Government offers health care, more people lose health care.
Correlation does not imply causality.
The poor get bad health care and the middle class get none? This is fair and equitable?
No. The only fair and equitable way to ration* health care is one where everyone who needs care gets it, regardless of ability to pay.
*Health care will always be rationed. Currently, we ration it based on ability to pay. The only fair and equitable way to ration is based on need. Dying? You go to the front of the line. Botox? Wait a few years or go to another country.
So, what... do we declassify everything every two years just to make sure it's all completely benign by everyone's standards, everywhere?
I used the number '2' because US Congressional elections are every 2 years. When new people are in the mix, the trust resets and the government has to earn it all over again.
As for the rest of your response, I don't know what it is in respsonse to, because all I said was trusting your government isn't a good idea. Secrecy in some things is, of course, necessary.
Most of us aren't upset with regular submitters who submit good stories. I don't even mind the "Carl Balik from WSJ" or "Steve from Hexus" people who are literally promoting their content on slashdot. Its the people like Roland who are using slashdot to drive up their ad hits without adding anything substantive to the story. The WSJ and Hexus actually did the reporting/made the story. Roland did not.
If you like to reward submitters by allowing them to promote their sites, they can always put their URL in the proper area. If Roland or other types continue to do this, then you can always change the link to the real story, but leave his homepage link in the story.
It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that.
There is also no proof that they have a good reason. Trusting your government is not a good idea, at least not until they've earned it, and then only two years at a time.
And besides, maybe if they did force everyone to use DRM, it would stop the whole "buy 10,000 email addresses for $10" kind of privacy violations we see rampantly all over the US.
An example of "cure the patient by killing him" if I've ever seen one.
Instead of seeing terrorists everywhere and trying to avoid every possible 'attack', deal with the reasons for people to turn into terrorists.
Doing research as to why people become terrorists does not increase Halliburton's bottom line. Declaring that terrorists "hate our freedom" enables us to increase Halliburton's bottom line.
Dude, he's an Anarcho-capitalist. He's pretty much against ALL LAWS.
I agree completely. I was just working under the assumption the King of the Hill would be sticking around while Futurama might end up just being on Adult Swim.
The problem is drinking and driving, so why not take away their license?
More concisely, the problem is driving while under the influence. Take away their license and they'll probably just drive w/o a license. Take away their alcohol and they'll probably drive w/o drinking. Of course, anyone with 3+ DUIs is likely an alcoholic and needs professional counseling before the fact. To keep them from alcohol, make it a misdemeanor to sell or give alcohol to anyone who was found to have a problem with DUIs.
While no person should be subjected to such torture, no matter their crime, I would hope that you agree someone who is caught driving with a BAL of ~0.10 three times should be kept away from the rest of us.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets 3 DUIs should be forbidden from consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives. These people have abused their freedom to use alcohol and cannot be trusted to use it ever again. For all I care, they can get sloshed all they want on private property, but the moment they appear on the road behind a wheel, they become everyone's problem.
You forget that these shows don't bring in as much profit as $REALITY_SHOW. Reality TV is incredibly profitable (low talent / production costs, etc.) which is why that genre has been forced down our collective throats for the past 4 years. Networks don't care if a show is "good" they care only if it is profitable, and maximally(?) so at that.
I can recall when 4pm football games almost never ran past 7pm. King of the Hill was always shown in its 7:30 time slot and Futurama was only pre-empted a couple of times. Now, as you say, King of the Hill is being pre-empted more often than not.
If Fox was smart, they'd kill off "The War at Home" and put King of the Hill in that place, making for a full 2 hrs of cartoons on Sunday nights. If games are running longer due to instant replay or, more likely, increased adverts, then they need to quit leaving the 7:30 time slot open for a program that is pre-empted more often than not.
As much as I and other socialist-leaning types would like to believe that, it simply isn't true. Capitalism, per-se, isn't the problem, but our (America's) style of state corporatism which socializes risks and privatizes profits.
Capitalism is an economic theory that says the economy will be most efficient when private enterprise competes in a free market. It is much a theory as is socialism or communism in that its implementation is not the same as its theory. It makes assumptions that are not always true (perfect knowlege of a market) just like other theories, but most people tend to think it works better than the alternatives.
The problem with our implementation of capitalism is that we attempt to bend the economy to act like our theory instead of coming up with a new theory. Its as if Einstein would have decided not that Newton's Laws didn't hold for large values of v, but that the Universe was wrong and should be changed to match the theory on the books. Almost by definition there is no such thing as a market failure, yet they happen. Solution? Make the world more like the theory of capitalism, rather than change the theory to fit our world.
I would be more in tune to capitalism if it more fit the theory (assuming Wealth of Nations can be assumed to be the general theory). But of course, more people would be in tune to socialism and/or communism if those fit the theory as well. I am of the opinion that people should be able to live under social and economic systems that they believe in. Our AnCap friend dada21 is not happy living in his current state. It would be nice if he and all the Anarcho-capitalists could live in their own country and put their theories into action. The communists could live in communes and the socialists could have their all-encompassing welfare state. I, for one, would love to live and work in a kibbutz-like structure, but I have a problem making you live and work in such a place.
IIRC, its (assuming you were referencing Futurama):
Shall I pre-warm sir's crack-pipe?
Those of us in the midwest are having trouble going to school. I recall my ECF score on the FAFSA being 0 two years ago. That is, the government, after looking at how much my family and I made, decided we couldn't afford to put any of our money towards education expenses. I literally got the best grant/loan package anyone could ever get and I still had trouble paying living expenses even though I have a roommate and we both work half time.
I believe that the using/copying/etc of any sort of "intellectual property" should be legal for non-commerical uses. I would say that copyright should look more like the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license.
I'll be impressed when I can buy a cell phone that actually makes calls without dropping out every 30 seconds.
Yeah, the house changed it to 1 month and the Senate just passed it (20:07 Eastern)*.
*Meaning John Warner sat at the chair, possibly the only one in the room, and made a unanymous consent agreement agreeing with the amendment.