Eh, it doesn't matter if this is a legacy law passed in the days of the Cold War, when the Communist Party in the U.S. actually promoted violent overthrow. All that matters is that the left-leaning elitists have someone else they can call "backward" or "ignorant".
No sense in letting facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument, right?
How much government money (in the form of grants) was spent on this study to determine that geeks don't get laid? Seriously... this is just scientific theory based on randomly collected data that is assumed to be correct in order to prove a social stereotype.
Maybe it's not that the smarter kids are having less sex, maybe it's that they are smart enough to lie about when they lost their virginity.
What kind of ignorance does it take to state that there are third party solutions for integrating Macs into Active Directory, but doesn't list a single one of them?
Thursby's ADmitMac
Centify's DirectControl
... and that's two without me even doing a search...
I'd rather buy an iPhone.
Oh, and since we're obviously advocating commercial articles, I'd like to mention that I'd be using my iPhone while driving my Honda Fit, listening to the Russ Martin Show.
None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID...
... the famous defense of a short-sighted individual.
C'mon... no matter what the arguement, when are people going to realize that there are a few million other people out there that may have a differing opinion than their own little group of friends?
I myself am a Pagan, and I believe in Intelligent Design and evolution. My beliefs are different that 95% (est.) of the rest of the U.S., but I at least give a little credence to the opinions of others...
He supports the student's right to pray in school and/or be part of an organized group for the purpose of worship and prayer.
Currently there are movements to completely ban any and all reference to any and all religion from public schools, while others are trying to get 'intelligent design' included in the curriculum. I personally think that they are both wrong.
Prayer and religion (or lack thereof) should be up to the student, not up to the school.
The sad part is that Kinky is a "common-sense" kinda guy, which is why he'll never get elected.
In his words:
"I'm for prayer in school, and for gay marriage. I'm the only candidate that is for both prayer in schools and gay marriage, and that in itself is a reason to vote for me."
All I know is he is the only candidate actually talking about border protection right now.
You misspelt "ignoring congressional refusal of presidential powers" and accidentally substituted the word "known" for the word "suspected"
You are correct... I did mistakenly use "known" when I should have used "suspected." Thank you for correcting me.
The difference between a suspected terrorist and a known terrorist can only be truly known after surveillance... or after bombs tear down a few buildings, train stations, embassies, etc.
Well, by attempting to point out the hypocracy of another, you joined his party and made it a true travesty of hypocracy. Funny how that works, huh?
Huh?
By pointing out that someone is a hypocrite, I am now joining whatever side opposes that person? That doesn't make sense. By pointing out that "affirmative action" is hypocritical, does this mean I have joined forces with the KKK? I think not.
(yes, this post is redundant, and I am willing to sacrifice karma)
... possibly... but since it's not anonymous, there's little you can do about it except pitch a fit.;)
There is NEVER a time when it is just to skip due process when it comes to matters of privacy, civil rights, property, life or liberty.
I agree. Once it has been proven that any government official has broken the law, then the steps must be taken to mete out justice. At this time, though, it has not been proven that any laws have been broken. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out several times in other comments that the FISA court has backed up the actions of President Bush.
I really don't understand why people argue through partisanship so blindly.
After re-reading my statement, I can understand how you might think that I'm coming from a hard-right Republican stance.. but that is not the case, I assure you. Partisanship has nothing to do with whether the actions were legal or not, partisanship has nothing to do with the fact that the ACLU is a left leaning organization, and partisanship has nothing to do with the fact that the Democrats don't want to limit the actual authority of the Office of the President any more than Republicans, because so many of them want to be President some day.
Partisanship would be if I said, "Bush Good, Clinton Bad." I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of vilifying one President for actions that have been taken by other Presidents. I have the same problem with vilifying Clinton over his extra-marital relations, when it is widely assumed that other Presidents have done the same thing.
The Clinton Administration realized that the FISA law did not address physical searches
So Clinton realized that he could never get a warrant, so he authorized the search and seizure of an American citizen without a warrant. OK... I got that.
But how is it a lack of respect for the law to wire tap phone calls that are being made to known terrorists?
It's not. It's perfectly legal, and if one President has the authority, then they all have the authority until Congress changes the law.
Do you know for a fact that the phone calls of American citizens were tapped without warrant?
No, you don't.
How many of the tapped phone conversations were from non-citizens residing in the United States?
You don't know.
Can you state that a phone call was tapped without warrant that had absolutely no connection with domestic or foreign terrorism?
No, you can't.
Until you can answer these questions with fact, then the argument is moot.
Clinton did authorize a physical search, without a warrant, in the Ames case. However, existing law authorizes that in the case of suspected domestic spying.
So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?
I find it intensely interesting that people will defend the warrantless search and seizure of an American citizen by the Clinton administration, yet will villify the recording of phone conversations of people who have known links to terrorist organizations.
C'mon...
This is, once again, the far left end of the Democratic party trying to force legislation through the courts. If any Democratic Representative or Senator proposed legislation that actually limited the abilities of the President to keep American citizens safe, they'd lose the next election. If, however, they sic the ACLU on the President, they can then wait to see how the courts rule, and take their campaign stance from the result.
Maybe it's just me, but most of the time I couldn't give a flying flip about "who says what about who" in the seemingly endless comments to some stories. I read Slashdot for the articles. (no, really... I just skim past the pictures... really)
If a story is up to the standards of being picked, then publish it. Simply because some people have problems with the source doesn't mean it's not a good story or not newsworthy.
Imagine if we were to apply the same logic proposed by some here to the network news channels or to newspapers, and just toss stories by people who are known to incite comment and ridicule... Dan Rather would've been out of a job a looooong time ago, The NYTimes would all but shut down, and the Washington Post would be a single sheet of paper with movie listing.
I would consider it a method of collecting and organizing data that is voluntarily placed on the internet for all to see.
You are not restricted to using words or phrases within the article, but you should be careful to comment on the facts of the article, and to perhaps understand that there are other sources for information other than the New York Times and the Washington Post.
To compare the article in question with something from theonion.com is not only rude, but extrememly narrow-minded.
Once again, the point of the article is education, not conspiracy theory.
Actually, if you had read the article, you would have seen that Mr. Owad does not reference "invasion of privacy" at all. What he does do is help people understand how information they share online can be used to create a general profile, and even to link them to others. The point of the article is to educate people.
But, like others, you were probably just going on the snippet... I mean, why read the whole story when you can see the headlines via RSS, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, it doesn't matter if this is a legacy law passed in the days of the Cold War, when the Communist Party in the U.S. actually promoted violent overthrow. All that matters is that the left-leaning elitists have someone else they can call "backward" or "ignorant". No sense in letting facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument, right?
... because we all know no Democrat would EVAH do such a thing! ( casting my "+2 Rolled Eyes of Sarcasm" )
Maybe it's not that the smarter kids are having less sex, maybe it's that they are smart enough to lie about when they lost their virginity.
Thursby's ADmitMac
Centify's DirectControl
I'd rather buy an iPhone. Oh, and since we're obviously advocating commercial articles, I'd like to mention that I'd be using my iPhone while driving my Honda Fit, listening to the Russ Martin Show.
C'mon... no matter what the arguement, when are people going to realize that there are a few million other people out there that may have a differing opinion than their own little group of friends?
I myself am a Pagan, and I believe in Intelligent Design and evolution. My beliefs are different that 95% (est.) of the rest of the U.S., but I at least give a little credence to the opinions of others...
Currently there are movements to completely ban any and all reference to any and all religion from public schools, while others are trying to get 'intelligent design' included in the curriculum. I personally think that they are both wrong.
Prayer and religion (or lack thereof) should be up to the student, not up to the school.
In his words:
"I'm for prayer in school, and for gay marriage. I'm the only candidate that is for both prayer in schools and gay marriage, and that in itself is a reason to vote for me."
All I know is he is the only candidate actually talking about border protection right now.
I like the layout... it's clean, easy to read, and relatively unobtrusive. Good work.
You are correct... I did mistakenly use "known" when I should have used "suspected." Thank you for correcting me.
The difference between a suspected terrorist and a known terrorist can only be truly known after surveillance... or after bombs tear down a few buildings, train stations, embassies, etc.
Huh?
By pointing out that someone is a hypocrite, I am now joining whatever side opposes that person? That doesn't make sense. By pointing out that "affirmative action" is hypocritical, does this mean I have joined forces with the KKK? I think not.
(yes, this post is redundant, and I am willing to sacrifice karma)
I agree. Once it has been proven that any government official has broken the law, then the steps must be taken to mete out justice. At this time, though, it has not been proven that any laws have been broken. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out several times in other comments that the FISA court has backed up the actions of President Bush.
After re-reading my statement, I can understand how you might think that I'm coming from a hard-right Republican stance.. but that is not the case, I assure you. Partisanship has nothing to do with whether the actions were legal or not, partisanship has nothing to do with the fact that the ACLU is a left leaning organization, and partisanship has nothing to do with the fact that the Democrats don't want to limit the actual authority of the Office of the President any more than Republicans, because so many of them want to be President some day.
Partisanship would be if I said, "Bush Good, Clinton Bad." I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of vilifying one President for actions that have been taken by other Presidents. I have the same problem with vilifying Clinton over his extra-marital relations, when it is widely assumed that other Presidents have done the same thing.
Absolutely! Please, please, please let their be Congressional hearings on this matter. If the laws need to be changed, let Congress do it, not judges.
So Clinton realized that he could never get a warrant, so he authorized the search and seizure of an American citizen without a warrant. OK... I got that.
But how is it a lack of respect for the law to wire tap phone calls that are being made to known terrorists?
It's not. It's perfectly legal, and if one President has the authority, then they all have the authority until Congress changes the law.
Do you know for a fact that the phone calls of American citizens were tapped without warrant?
No, you don't.
How many of the tapped phone conversations were from non-citizens residing in the United States?
You don't know.
Can you state that a phone call was tapped without warrant that had absolutely no connection with domestic or foreign terrorism?
No, you can't.
Until you can answer these questions with fact, then the argument is moot.
So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?
I find it intensely interesting that people will defend the warrantless search and seizure of an American citizen by the Clinton administration, yet will villify the recording of phone conversations of people who have known links to terrorist organizations.
C'mon...
This is, once again, the far left end of the Democratic party trying to force legislation through the courts. If any Democratic Representative or Senator proposed legislation that actually limited the abilities of the President to keep American citizens safe, they'd lose the next election. If, however, they sic the ACLU on the President, they can then wait to see how the courts rule, and take their campaign stance from the result.
... you know, my Uncle Jim used to say that a lot of problems in the world could be solved with a .22 to the back of the head...
If a story is up to the standards of being picked, then publish it. Simply because some people have problems with the source doesn't mean it's not a good story or not newsworthy.
Imagine if we were to apply the same logic proposed by some here to the network news channels or to newspapers, and just toss stories by people who are known to incite comment and ridicule... Dan Rather would've been out of a job a looooong time ago, The NYTimes would all but shut down, and the Washington Post would be a single sheet of paper with movie listing.
You are not restricted to using words or phrases within the article, but you should be careful to comment on the facts of the article, and to perhaps understand that there are other sources for information other than the New York Times and the Washington Post.
To compare the article in question with something from theonion.com is not only rude, but extrememly narrow-minded.
Once again, the point of the article is education, not conspiracy theory.
Moron...
From now on, I'll stick to reply to those with a pubic hair or two, and the testicular fortitude to come out from behind their grandmothers DSL IP.
Actually, if you had even paid mild attention, you would know that Applefritter has a gentleman's agreement regarding a "no rumor" policy.
Besides, like the others, you would probably be better to wait and comment on something once you had actually read it.
I mean, it's like an AC trying to comment on sex... with another person, I mean.
Actually, if you had read the article, you would have seen that Mr. Owad does not reference "invasion of privacy" at all. What he does do is help people understand how information they share online can be used to create a general profile, and even to link them to others. The point of the article is to educate people. But, like others, you were probably just going on the snippet... I mean, why read the whole story when you can see the headlines via RSS, right?
... too bad Michael Jackson lost his chance to use this technology years ago...