'A Russian, a German, and a Frenchman' enter a Mars Bar...
1. Oh, wait, this is going to get digusting. 2. ???? 3. Let's just skip to the punch line.[NSFW}
a German engineer, a French airline pilot, and four Russians -- will spend the next 105 days living in a minimally furnished facility erected in a hanger on the outskirts of the Russian capital. The German said, 'I think we are going to learn a lot about each other.'
Good questions...but, some of them could have been answered by RTFA.
Why not remove the muzzeling of anyone issued such letters? After all if they were improperly issued letters in the first place any inducement to STFU about such a letter must also be wrong.
FTFA:
The National Security Letters Reform Act would do that, and a good deal more. While it would still permit high-ranking FBI officials to issue NSLs with temporary gag orders attached, the Bureau would have to petition a judge in order to extend that order beyond an initial 30 days. Instead of requiring NSL recipients to challenge such orders, showing there was "no reason" to think disclosure might harm public safety or the integrity of an investigation, the agency would have the burden of showing a court specific facts justifying each six-month extension of the gag.
Not ideal, but moving in the right direction.
Why not criminal prosecutions of those issuing the letters from which information was wrongly discovered?
FTFA:
The bill also establishes strict "minimization" requirements, mandating the destruction of any wrongly obtained information. While intelligence agencies often rely on "minimization" to protect the privacy of US persons, this often means only that innocent information will be retained without being indexed in a log or database for the relevant case. Anyone whose records are obtained via an NSL without adequate factual basis, or in violation of the statutory restrictions, is entitled to sue the person responsible for issuing the letter, to the tune of $50,000.
Not as harsh as you suggest, but again, moving in the right direction.(ie:redress)
Why not toss out any court case based on such wrongly discovered info?
FTFA:
Perhaps most significantly, however, the law would radically narrow the scope of National Security Letters, which can currently be used to obtain financial or telecommunications transaction records that an FBI agent asserts are "relevant" to an ongoing investigation. Under the Nadler-Flake bill, NSLs would have to certify that the target to whom the information sought pertained was believed, on the basis of "specific and articulable facts," to be a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power."
Not an 'Epic Fail', but far from ideal...again, it's moving in the right direction.
Have some patience, it took us a while to get here, so it will take us a while to climb back out.(now we are in a hole, here's to hoping we have stopped digging finally)
Be observant, be vigilant, be aware, and be active...if you really care.
I'm not usually a fan of the 'there, fixed that for you' type replies, but this one fits too well to complain or mod down.
This particular bill was reintroduced as a bipartisan effort, but was presented by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
Yes, lots of backstage political maneuvering happened here.
The important point is both houses seem to be working together on this one.(or at least enough to get it passed) That's a change, hopefully for the better.*crosses fingers*
>offtopic-personal BTW, still shooting? If you are interested, reply to rts008_AT_suddenlink_DOT.net I get to have firearms in the house next month, and plan on rebuilding a collection again!*like a little kid in candy store w/$20 dollar bill!* Long story I won't go into.;-)
Apparently, you are right, but in the parent's defense:
Now, with a new administration and a sturdier Democratic majority in place, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on Monday reintroduced the National Security Letters Reform Act.
First sentence of the second paragraph. Without further clarification being given in the entire Fine Article, it is easy to see where his comment(while biased) was not entirely wacked out.
I would put more faith in the site you linked to compared to TFA linked in the summary.
Two Thumbs Up(tm), and a standing ovation from me for: 1. The link with the info 2.* The motivation to double-check the source. That is too rare these days.
Well done!
Having said that, while information and documentation should be accurate, this is a small blip on the RADAR* overall. Wat's important here for the current discussion is the possibility of increased openness and manner of redress in regards to National Security Letters, and due process.
I'm not trying to demean you or the above applause I gave, just adding some perspective overall. You do point out by example how discussion of a topic can break down into useless partisan flamewars though.
But, sure, Republicans can sign on to bills that restore the rule of law to the USA, too.
This is apparently what happened.
In my mind, who introduces a bill carries slightly more weight in my mind than the co-sponsors.(although the more the merrier in regards to co-sponsors for a 'wanted' bill-YMMV!)
Again, well done! You have shown admirable restraint with your reply.
It's like a game of red light/green light, and the citizens are 'it', and blindfolded. By the time you hear gov't.'s footsteps running up on you...it's too late.
Those that ignore/don't learn history, are doomed to repeating it.
Slippery Slope arguements are fallacy's. There is no proof that one step forward equates the same thing as ensuring that someone is going to go the full nine yards, or even that if they were, they'd end up where you want to paint them as going.
He will wake up one day, wondering WTF??!!?...Then try to blame his lack of attention on everyone else. Unfortunately, most people are wearing blinders, and only pay attention to what is right in front of them; failing to notice that slippery slope just past their focal point.
Liberty, freedom, and justice all require constant vigilance. Always...Not only when affected, but always.
Keep up the good fight, sir! I'll be there beside you.(metaphorically, as I have no clue where you are at-no matter though...rts008 has your back and flanks in this fight:-)
And all I could do was sit there, somewhat amused but mostly just angry at how stupid that single statement was. The judge was quite literally saying that in the eyes of the law and in the court, this girl was an adult, but was still trying to nail her to the wall for possessing alcohol as a minor.
The legal system is severely screwed up in many ways, and recognition of ages is just one of 'em. The courts can't have it both ways -- either someone's an adult or they aren't, and it's absurd to prosecute someone as an adult for an offense that is only illegal if the offender is a minor.
I have never figured out how supporters of this mindset can rationally justify it. Honestly. Lucky for me, I was already over 21 when the drinking aged jumped from 18. I remember affected people griping about it, and had sympathy for them. At the time (and still today) my thinking was if they are considered old enough to be responsible for: taxes contracts voting chance of dying 'for your country' in military service marriage and family then something like drinking alcohol should not even enter the picture.
But like you said, applying this stupidity in this case is ridiculous.
This sums up how I see this; I feel like we have been Chewbacca Defensed:
DA finishes opening statement and sits down Defense Attorney: "Oh No!" Minor: "What?!?!?!?" Def.A.: "The DA is using the powerful 'Chewbacca Defense' offensively! It's unprecedented, it's genius!" M.: "What does that mean? I don't understand!" Def. A.: "It makes no sense! We are doomed. Just flush your future down the drain now. Doomed! It just makes no sense!"
Well established tactic in the 'war on drugs' here in Oklahoma. You will be charged with 'intent to distribute' for mere possession of even small amounts of drugs. That gives the prosecutor/DA more of a negotiating cushion for the invariable 'Let's Make a Deal' plea bargaining game that nets them revenue with low overhead.(compared to an actual fair trial_by_jury process, and risk of the case being dismissed on technicalities)
A good rule of thumb that will serve you well in the USA when dealing with courts/law enforcement:
If 'we' have declared 'war' on it, expect: some rights to be abrogated, laws and rules bent like pretzels(or outright broken and ignored), a flurry of inane and stupid laws introduced, and courts and jails to overflow.
If I'm not mistaken, there was even a well-known porn actress in the mid-to-late 1980s who lied about her age (she started at 16), though I can't remember her name at the moment.
I believe you are thinking of Traci Lords, who got a fake ID when she was 15 so she could be a pr0n actress. She was also arrested on child pr0n charges, even though her role was consensual/voluntary.
The last comparison/shootout/review of home/personal use AV software I heard about was touting NOD32 as top dog, with Avast Home and AVG Free as second and third, respectively.* I do not know if NOD32 has a free for personal use version or not, but both of the others are free for personal use.(both also have paid for business versions that are more net capable) Have also heard good things about BitDefender.
I have used both Avast and AVG(but not NOD32), and use one of the two on the rare occasion I work on friend's or family's computers. They both have worked well for all.
*This was about a year-year and a half ago. Find a reputable writeup(anantech, tom's hardware, etc. for more current info) and check them out.
update: A quick google check shows BitDefender to be in the top three ranking wherever I check, and NOD32 stays in the top six, with both of the others being in the top ten. BitDefender and NOD32 have free trials, but will set you back $25-40 USD to keep after the trial, AVG and Avast both still have free home versions.
You will not hear 'cute' or 'adorable' ever again! Can she say: "OMGZ!!!111!! I want your netbook,NOW!"???(or more likely, "I'm calling the cops, you pervert!")
You won't have to say anything, just turn it on.;-)
*Disclaimer* YMMV with local law enforcement/border-guard/airport security personnel however.
A good scientist doesn't say 'religion is a bunch of tripe and isn't science!', a good scientist says 'I have no evidence to support the theories proposed by creationism and believe them to be false based on evidence supporting evolution.'
A good scientist would not say this. A good scientist would say that religion isn't science. A good scientist knows the difference between scientific theory, and philosophical theory and would not confuse the two like you did.
Scientific Theory has a few requirements that philosophical theory waives:[from the wiki link] Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
* It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
* It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
And again:[same wiki link]
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [5]
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[6]
[emphasis mine]
Philosophical theories are for Philosophy and Theology classrooms, not Science classrooms.
The evidence is all around me that God is at work.
Where is the evidence? Point me to it if it's there.(don't bother with the answered prayers bit- that's faith, not evidence- no way to test or measure it-just my word against yours, and not a useful discussion)
This means that Teachers should also be just as free to "analyze, evaluate and critique Biblical explanations. After all we should give both sides equal treatment.
I believe that this is actually a step forward. If Teachers truly do teach both sides evaluating and critiquing every "fact" then I am certain students will come out understanding the truth about our evolving world.
I have two enormous problems with that. 1. This has no place in a science class. Take that discussion to Theology, or Philosophy where it belongs. There is nothing scientific about it. The schools have a hard enough time just teaching science without getting bogged down and sidetracked by this type of approach.
2. Why is only the 'Biblical' side a valid competitor to evolution? Isn't that hypocritical and close-minded? That attitude is a huge part of the whole issue, and undermines your argument. It is not seen as being free to evaluate, etc., as you were talking about; it is seen as an ultimatum.
I really have no problem with science, but it is attitudes like this which irk even the most skeptical of us. The notion that certain observations don't count because they "fit a pre-set fairy tale" is ridiculous; if the data don't match your theory, your theory is wrong, not the data.
What valid observations regarding the 'pre-set fairy tale' con be shown as supporting evidence in favor of the fairy tale are you talking about? Seriously, what observations? I challenge you to come up with any valid observations, testable theory, or supporting evidence for your fairy tale...you can't do so!
Oh, and btw, the observations and data overwhelmingly still support the theory of evolution.
Instead of being 'irked' because you don't really understand what science is about, you would be better served by an education. And yes, you do have a problem with science, or we would not be having this discussion.
I honestly dont see how one can prove or disprove either the Theory of Evolution (i'm talking macro- not micro-) [...] through the repetition of tests in a classroom.
1. Science does not try to prove anything. 2. The classroom is not suitable for the 'repetition of tests', that would be way beyond the scope and resources of the classrooms affected by this vote. What can be done though, is to present the theory, then review documented, vetted evidence, and have a discussion.(more ways to teach this, just what popped up first)
What you're talking about is best left to college+ level education.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! They will sink lower than the Marianas Trench, without provocation!
This is kdawson we're talking about, after all.
Yo' dawg, we heard you like Alzheimer', so we put a...What??!?!?!? Who are you?
Ohhhh! Shiny!
Head a splodes...or not, I forget...*goes back to editing on /.*
Have Pink Flamingo, will travel!(check out Don Ameche)
Hell, in 15 minutes, who's gonna know!
Hint: She won't!(she==yo' momma!)
'A Russian, a German, and a Frenchman' enter a Mars Bar...
1. Oh, wait, this is going to get digusting.
2. ????
3. Let's just skip to the punch line.[NSFW}
My vote would be for the Frog to be goatse'd.
Yeah, but you're missing something here.
After I'm done, I can add 'NASA Mars Expedition Lab-Rat/Test-Monkey' to my resume!
Now that's cool!
Plus, I get $20,000 USD to move out of Mom's basement for three months...maybe she will get some of my laundry done while I'm gone!
On the other hand, she will expect me to get a job when I get back. :-(
Good questions...but, some of them could have been answered by RTFA.
FTFA:
Not ideal, but moving in the right direction.
FTFA:
Not as harsh as you suggest, but again, moving in the right direction.(ie:redress)
FTFA:
Not an 'Epic Fail', but far from ideal...again, it's moving in the right direction.
Have some patience, it took us a while to get here, so it will take us a while to climb back out.(now we are in a hole, here's to hoping we have stopped digging finally)
Be observant, be vigilant, be aware, and be active...if you really care.
BTW, I do agree with your ideas.
I'm not usually a fan of the 'there, fixed that for you' type replies, but this one fits too well to complain or mod down.
This particular bill was reintroduced as a bipartisan effort, but was presented by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
Yes, lots of backstage political maneuvering happened here.
The important point is both houses seem to be working together on this one.(or at least enough to get it passed) That's a change, hopefully for the better.*crosses fingers*
>offtopic-personal ;-)
BTW, still shooting?
If you are interested, reply to rts008_AT_suddenlink_DOT.net
I get to have firearms in the house next month, and plan on rebuilding a collection again!*like a little kid in candy store w/$20 dollar bill!* Long story I won't go into.
You're deluded, it's bipartisan/tripartisan....It's Government at it's finest.
'...Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss...'(it's a shame we leave out the 'won't be fooled again' part!)
'The King/Queen is dead! Long live the King/Queen!'
Welcome to reality, this concept is not new....Now Get off my lawn!
Apparently, you are right, but in the parent's defense:
First sentence of the second paragraph.
Without further clarification being given in the entire Fine Article, it is easy to see where his comment(while biased) was not entirely wacked out.
I would put more faith in the site you linked to compared to TFA linked in the summary.
Two Thumbs Up(tm), and a standing ovation from me for:
1. The link with the info
2.* The motivation to double-check the source. That is too rare these days.
Well done!
Having said that, while information and documentation should be accurate, this is a small blip on the RADAR* overall.
Wat's important here for the current discussion is the possibility of increased openness and manner of redress in regards to National Security Letters, and due process.
I'm not trying to demean you or the above applause I gave, just adding some perspective overall. You do point out by example how discussion of a topic can break down into useless partisan flamewars though.
This is apparently what happened.
In my mind, who introduces a bill carries slightly more weight in my mind than the co-sponsors.(although the more the merrier in regards to co-sponsors for a 'wanted' bill-YMMV!)
Again, well done! You have shown admirable restraint with your reply.
*I'm not shouting, it's an acronym.
That is the goal, easier to control. Can't rock the boat!...someone might fall in and discover they love swimming!
Barely, but just so.
'Nuff said.
It did not work out too well for us last time, unfortunately.
Hear! Hear!
It's like a game of red light/green light, and the citizens are 'it', and blindfolded. By the time you hear gov't.'s footsteps running up on you...it's too late.
Those that ignore/don't learn history, are doomed to repeating it.
He will wake up one day, wondering WTF??!!?...Then try to blame his lack of attention on everyone else.
Unfortunately, most people are wearing blinders, and only pay attention to what is right in front of them; failing to notice that slippery slope just past their focal point.
Liberty, freedom, and justice all require constant vigilance. Always...Not only when affected, but always.
Keep up the good fight, sir! I'll be there beside you.(metaphorically, as I have no clue where you are at-no matter though...rts008 has your back and flanks in this fight:-)
I have never figured out how supporters of this mindset can rationally justify it. Honestly.
Lucky for me, I was already over 21 when the drinking aged jumped from 18. I remember affected people griping about it, and had sympathy for them. At the time (and still today) my thinking was if they are considered old enough to be responsible for:
taxes
contracts
voting
chance of dying 'for your country' in military service
marriage and family
then something like drinking alcohol should not even enter the picture.
But like you said, applying this stupidity in this case is ridiculous.
This sums up how I see this; I feel like we have been Chewbacca Defensed:
DA finishes opening statement and sits down
Defense Attorney: "Oh No!"
Minor: "What?!?!?!?"
Def.A.: "The DA is using the powerful 'Chewbacca Defense' offensively! It's unprecedented, it's genius!"
M.: "What does that mean? I don't understand!"
Def. A.: "It makes no sense! We are doomed. Just flush your future down the drain now. Doomed! It just makes no sense!"
Well established tactic in the 'war on drugs' here in Oklahoma. You will be charged with 'intent to distribute' for mere possession of even small amounts of drugs.
That gives the prosecutor/DA more of a negotiating cushion for the invariable 'Let's Make a Deal' plea bargaining game that nets them revenue with low overhead.(compared to an actual fair trial_by_jury process, and risk of the case being dismissed on technicalities)
A good rule of thumb that will serve you well in the USA when dealing with courts/law enforcement:
If 'we' have declared 'war' on it, expect: some rights to be abrogated, laws and rules bent like pretzels(or outright broken and ignored), a flurry of inane and stupid laws introduced, and courts and jails to overflow.
I believe you are thinking of Traci Lords, who got a fake ID when she was 15 so she could be a pr0n actress. She was also arrested on child pr0n charges, even though her role was consensual/voluntary.
The last comparison/shootout/review of home/personal use AV software I heard about was touting NOD32 as top dog, with Avast Home and AVG Free as second and third, respectively.*
I do not know if NOD32 has a free for personal use version or not, but both of the others are free for personal use.(both also have paid for business versions that are more net capable)
Have also heard good things about BitDefender.
I have used both Avast and AVG(but not NOD32), and use one of the two on the rare occasion I work on friend's or family's computers. They both have worked well for all.
*This was about a year-year and a half ago. Find a reputable writeup(anantech, tom's hardware, etc. for more current info) and check them out.
update: A quick google check shows BitDefender to be in the top three ranking wherever I check, and NOD32 stays in the top six, with both of the others being in the top ten. BitDefender and NOD32 have free trials, but will set you back $25-40 USD to keep after the trial, AVG and Avast both still have free home versions.
Well, I have to give him credit for not 'begging the question'.(could not help myself, sorry) ;-)
Just glue one of these Bad Boys to the lid!
You will not hear 'cute' or 'adorable' ever again! Can she say: "OMGZ!!!111!! I want your netbook, NOW! "???(or more likely, "I'm calling the cops, you pervert!")
You won't have to say anything, just turn it on. ;-)
*Disclaimer*
YMMV with local law enforcement/border-guard/airport security personnel however.
***Link NSFW!!!***
A good scientist would not say this. A good scientist would say that religion isn't science. A good scientist knows the difference between scientific theory, and philosophical theory and would not confuse the two like you did.
Scientific Theory has a few requirements that philosophical theory waives:[from the wiki link]
Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
* It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
* It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
And again:[same wiki link]
[emphasis mine]
Philosophical theories are for Philosophy and Theology classrooms, not Science classrooms.
Where is the evidence? Point me to it if it's there.(don't bother with the answered prayers bit- that's faith, not evidence- no way to test or measure it-just my word against yours, and not a useful discussion)
I was with you up to here:
I have two enormous problems with that.
1. This has no place in a science class.
Take that discussion to Theology, or Philosophy where it belongs. There is nothing scientific about it. The schools have a hard enough time just teaching science without getting bogged down and sidetracked by this type of approach.
2. Why is only the 'Biblical' side a valid competitor to evolution?
Isn't that hypocritical and close-minded? That attitude is a huge part of the whole issue, and undermines your argument. It is not seen as being free to evaluate, etc., as you were talking about; it is seen as an ultimatum.
Why don't you agree?
I am curious as to whether you have ever found/examined any scientific evidence to support Creationism. If so, what was it?
And yes, I have researched not only creationism in many different religions, but also many religions over the course of a few decades.
What valid observations regarding the 'pre-set fairy tale' con be shown as supporting evidence in favor of the fairy tale are you talking about? Seriously, what observations? I challenge you to come up with any valid observations, testable theory, or supporting evidence for your fairy tale...you can't do so!
Oh, and btw, the observations and data overwhelmingly still support the theory of evolution.
Instead of being 'irked' because you don't really understand what science is about, you would be better served by an education. And yes, you do have a problem with science, or we would not be having this discussion.
What are you babbling about? Your comment makes no sense.
Ah, I see the problem. Your sig explains all!*
From:"I think, therefore I am."(attributed to Voltaire)
*I suggest your sig should then be: 'I don't think, therefore I am not.'?
What a maroon!
1. Science does not try to prove anything.
2. The classroom is not suitable for the 'repetition of tests', that would be way beyond the scope and resources of the classrooms affected by this vote.
What can be done though, is to present the theory, then review documented, vetted evidence, and have a discussion.(more ways to teach this, just what popped up first)
What you're talking about is best left to college+ level education.