Forgive me but I've been using rails for over a year and it would seem the parent is posting FUD. You'll have to explain yourself in more detail.
Many of the features it provides are more academic proof-of-concept implementations than well-tested, well-polished ones
Which features are you talking about?
It requires you to do a lot of things manually that could easily be done automatically
Give an example. This should be pretty easy, but I've found I'll often try and automate something and down the road it turns out to be more maintenance than if I were to have just hacked it out.
...and you still write bits of SQL in your code
I have a pretty large ecommerce app and the only raw SQL I have to write are where conditions, which arguably could have been written out in Ruby but that would probably be more work and no gain.
Also, more importantly, it doesn't provide an application layer that entirely abstracts the functionality from the interface.
I'm not sure I know what you are talking about, because my interface is for the most part completely separate from my processing. Interface goes in my views and the processing happens in my controller. Explain this please.
Finally, it's pretty much tied to MySQL, so if you use PgSQL or Oracle (and you should), then you're in for a big headache.
Pretty much tied to MySQL? It comes with connection adapters for both MySQL and PgSQL, and it works fine with both of them. This aught to be a pretty good reason not to trust anything you have said. You have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't make use of any MySQL-specific features like enums, everything is abstracted down to basic SQL.
If you're developing a more serious app, you may look at stuff like PageTemplate for the frontend, ObjectGraph for your ORM, and soap4r for services.
There hasn't been nearly as much testing and development going on with those projects. I don't know how you could say they are for "more serious apps". You would probably spend at least twice as much time developing an application with one of those.
I've been using rails for over a year, I think that would be really easy and a testament to how great a language ruby is, in addition to how great a framework rails is. The filesystem classes you will be amazed with, and you don't even have to know javascript to get some pretty amazing AJAX functionality out of your app.
I honestly couldn't think of a better way to do something like that than with Rails.
Ok, I'll play lawyer for a bit. The laws governing the 3 branches of government are not as clear cut as the one's that govern you, because so many different sides can come into play, your liberties, someone elses liberties, the liberty of one man vs. the liberty of a thousand men, life vs. liberty vs. the pursuit of happiness. It is implied that the president can do whatever he wants provided that it is in the best interests of the citizens, and that it meets the approval of congress, the judicial branch and/or public opinion. He is obligated to "protect the constitution", which is extremely vague, and was the basis for much of the controversial measures president Lincoln took during the civil war. It was written in the constitution that all people have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not "liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness", it is accepted that life supercedes liberty, and that in order to protect the constitution and see that the "laws be faithfully executed", the president did what was necessary, using his direct control over the armed forces, with the notification and consent of congress (particularly as it is done in this day and age, with a small council of intelligence authorities), during a time of "declared national emergency", in accordance with the oath he took when he went into office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". These powers have already been tested in practice time and time over. All the justification the president needs, in my opinion, is that he was protecting the lives of innocent civilians from a known threat the best way he knew. Look at it this way, when he gave the order, the NSA was *READY* to do it, this sort of action has always been in our arsenal, it is nothing new, and it probably has been utilized in the past, you just weren't supposed to know about it. Here we have a dangerous leak of confidential information that in my opinion has a worse impact on our country than the necessary invasion of privacy, instead of an orwellian style government that tromps on civil liberties, we will end up with an impotent, U.N. style government and rampant crime and civil chaos, which is a worse scenario.
Personally I don't see the relevance of this discussion. Fascism was invented by Mussolini, he coined a term for his style of governance, while you could really assign any number of labels to his his WW1 government, Fascism has earned a bad rep because it was adopted by Hitler and the nazi's.
So instead of calling America what it is, corporatized (like most other western nations including most of Europe) or Nationalist (because after all, we really ARE #1), you want to associate George W. Bush with Hitler, flag him as a liar, and stick all sorts of corruption to him and the GOP, nevermind that the media is distinctly aligned AGAINST him making it impossible for him to be a dictator.
By your own definition, the DNC could even more accurately fit the bill. It's less of a stretch to pin the communist label onto the DNC, in my opinion, with all their support for public services, retirement and health care, and their desire for authoritarian rule over corporations for environmental and social stratification, redistribution of wealth. Fascism and Communism have a lot in common, although Communism is often associated with Stalin, Hitler operated much the same as Stalin.
Although once again, I personally see this as completely irrelevant. Whatever fascism meant to mussolini probably has very little relevance in today's world. It's all about the global marketplace, power comes in the form of technology and production these days, not military power (although the two often go hand in hand, history has shown that even the most high-tech economy can't always win battles). If you know anything at all you aught to know how the world economy operates. Corporate subsidies going to Airbus and Boeing are huge, and then there is the fine line between corporate subsidies and government contractors (or maybe not so fine?????). The auto makers in Japan wouldn't have been able to get off the ground in America if it weren't for corporate subsidies (and American auto makers wouldn't be able to STAY on the ground if it weren't for them). The Mitsubishi corporation built the Japanese fighter planes during WW2, these days it builds everything and provides a good living for hundreds of thousands of Japanese people.
The plus and minuses of corporatism are debatable, but there is no denying the fact that every country in the world participates in corporate subsidies. Everybody aught to feel a bit of pride in their own country. Does that make them all fascist? I guess so!
So lets here it from you Node3, your quotations describe just about every modern country in the world, no?
Yeah? You really think so? I suppose on top of the overwhelming vastness of other reliable evidence, reports from a few guys living in log cabins in the Alaskan wilderness would make a fine closing argument.
The reason I don't want MS to be broken up by the fed is because if that happened, operating system income may end up in the hands of foreigners, and since the United States is the greatest country in the world, I support our long lasting technological empire.
Of course this may not work out so well in the long run. I don't know and neither does anybody else, feel free to speculate. Some would even argue that the existence of a monopoly in the operating systems industry is good for the world. So long as all that good ends up in America, I'm happy.
Note that by power to search and seizure, I was implying the probable cause/warrant, but your comments about the dog walking by the car not holding up in court may hold true, you sound like you know what you're talking about. I have been sniffed on the mexico border before and figured it was perfectly legal, in fact I'd encourage it.
The laws are not so simple ortcutt. The wording in the constitution is for the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", but his duties as an executive agent require that he respond promptly to a national emergency. I would expect the president to skip the overhead of a federal judge in a time of national emergency. Like it says in that document, "Congress often gives the President considerable leeway". Members of congress knew what the President had done when he did it and it was nothing out of the ordinary. If it had seemed unusual to any of them, they would have voted to stop it. Our country relies on this executive power in times of crisis, that sort of flexibility to make quick decisions is needed in any government. It certainly won't be the courts that investigate this, it will be congress, and they will find that he acted in accordance with the laws governing HIM.
1. Yes. It was a bleeding heart plea, talking about millions of people dieing so Joe Shmoe can grow pot in his closet.
3. You're not free from government surveillance. You are however free to practice whatever religion you want to practice, no if's and's or but's. Freedom of religion is unique like that. You can't say whatever you want to say, such as "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You can't hide from whoever or for whatever reason either. If you sent an encrypted communication with details on a terrorist nuclear plot, I would hope the authorities could track it to you and torture the passcode out of you. Someday we'll be tested with a situation that will really stress this issue, it hasn't happened yet. This spying on international phone lines is small beans.
President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
One lie, versus how many? (Again, the false dichotomy of liars versus truth-tellers.)
The media tore into Clinton, I agree, but that was juicy stuff they were after! They'll eat their own if it means they'll make a fortune off of it, plus he was a lame duck. As for one lie, it was only one lie he got caught telling. There was whitewater and his last minute pardons that tarnish his credibility rating in my eyes, but yeah, Clinton did get beat up, and if it's any consolation to you I thought he did a satisfactory job as president, unlike Carter.
You didn't think the WMD was a joke, you thought to yourself, "oh ya, those same biological weapons he used against the kurds." By the way, that question is still open whether or not it will turn out to be true. The weapons purchase from Nigeria turned out to be boggled by Joe Wilson and wife and their political agenda, too bad the CIA has been infiltrated by people with an agenda. The border with Iran and Syria was always available, bombs could still be in Syria. It's always surprising to me to find people like you who are convincd you know the real story. There are defectors that were at task building a nuclear bomb. It is also neighboring Iran's goal to build a nuclear bomb, just like it was Iraq's, or wait, do you believe them when they say they just want to generate power? When we bomb their reactor are you going to pick up your sign and protest it?
You tell me how many lies G.W. has told, and give a rational justification as to why they were lies. We found lots of chemical and biological weapons, and components and facilities for nuclear weapons, so rather than argue with you about what constitutes a lie, we can both just agree that G.W. was right on that one.
Yeah would you look at that. Just being in your vicinity gets me mod points (up or down, who cares, at least it's mod points!!!) You sure get a lot of mod points! High five!
No it's not a problem, thats his primary responsibility, that's why they call it the executive office. If there was an outbreak of disease and the best thing for the country is to blow up a city (as in the movie Outbreak) then that's what must be done, and guess who's job it is to order it? Yep, that's right, the PRESIDENT! Go get educated on U.S. Politics, the genius of the system will make sense to you eventually.
What your saying has merit, however you confuse freedom and privacy. During the revolution, King George was really limiting people's freedoms by taxing them without representation in pariament. The NSA spying on people isn't really comparable to that. You don't really have a right to do whatever you want in private, some things are more private than others, and it's just taken for granted that a phone call to Azerbaijan goes untapped.
During the world wars people were fighting for their right to live, same thing, you can't compare it to your presumed right to privacy on international phone circuits. Don't get all insane over this, you've got to calm down and think for a second.
The President has something called executive authority that he can use to do whatever he wants. He could blow up a city like in that movie Outbreak if he had to. That's what the president is for. I think 9/11 was an instance when such executive pwer was necessary.
It's not illegal, maybe controversial, definately not illegal. You have been had by a media campaign to sell a book and pull a Nixon. The media has learned well, thank you Richard Clarke.
I'd bet more Democrats feel this way than Republicans. I tend to think G.W. is about as honest as a politician can be (of course not completely honest, otherwise he would be mince meat).
I notice that it's always been the liberal media's game to try and destroy GOP candidates credibility, since Nixon, and it always works. The WMD thing is a joke, but it works, because most of the population isn't informed enough to know that the people who're calling people liars are liars themselves. Apparently you've been taken in by it also.
Clinton lied to the entire country on camera and had no problem with it, the guy is a damn good liar, lies to a grand jury, lies to his wife and kid. That's about as low as it gets in my book.
Republicans will defeat the loons in 2008, loon party starts to eat itself, splits into two competing factions, one comes back stronger than the Republicans.
How else would you envision it? Everyone just magically agreeing with each other someday?
No this is standard practice. The president has executive authority to do things like this in a state of emergency. I think it was well called for, and nobody's complaining because they got their feelings hurt. It's just more of this same old stupid philosophical debate over security vs privacy. It's just a bunch of stupid hype meant to sell copies of the journalists book. www.drudgereport.com
When I first heard this, I thought "Of course he did, it would have been foolish not to". On the one hand you have people like Michael Moore saying Bush should have leaped out of his chair, slammed down that childrens book and started organizing national defenses and what not.
Now you've got people like this, wait a few years until public unity has died down a bit, and then accuse the president of going too far. That's the problem with you liberals, you have no idea what you want, you just like to complain about everything and claim you would have done a better job. More troops in Iraq, now less troops in Iraq. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
This boils back down to the patriot act debate, whether you think privacy is more important than security. You could probably guess what I have to say about that.
It does not give the government the right to willy nilly walk a drug dog up to your car.
You're wrong, dogs are used everywhere, I've been sniffed down countless times in airports, the dog detecting bombs or drugs would be probable cause to search you. Crossing state/country borders you get sniffed. Dogs would be used more often if they weren't so damn hard to train. Many times I've read about a clandestine marijuana cultivation operation being busted simply because neighbors or police passing by could smell the marijuana. The only instance I think your point holds true is if your car is parked in your garage with the doors shut, a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Any explicit right to privacy would override the governments POWER to search and seizure. You seem to want to single out parts of my argument for criticism while completely ignoring the rest of my argument. You know very well that I understand how the constitution is structured. Like I said before, "The founding fathers knew better than to grant everybody a right to secrecy, if they had intended that to be the case they would surely have included it in the bill of rights." Had they included it in the bill of rights, it would have effectively made the government powerless, and recent judicial activity has in effect been doing that, the states think they can override the laws enacted by the federal government, like legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. In some cases state legislation is shot down with no justification such as parental consent laws, effectively taking the rights of parents to raise their children the way they want, all because of a PRESUMED right to privacy! It's "unwritten law", and you can look that up.
Slashdot Mirror
Typo: It comes with connection adapters for both PgSQL and Oracle, in addition to MySQL, and a few other databases.
Forgive me but I've been using rails for over a year and it would seem the parent is posting FUD. You'll have to explain yourself in more detail.
Many of the features it provides are more academic proof-of-concept implementations than well-tested, well-polished ones
Which features are you talking about?
It requires you to do a lot of things manually that could easily be done automatically
Give an example. This should be pretty easy, but I've found I'll often try and automate something and down the road it turns out to be more maintenance than if I were to have just hacked it out.
I have a pretty large ecommerce app and the only raw SQL I have to write are where conditions, which arguably could have been written out in Ruby but that would probably be more work and no gain.
Also, more importantly, it doesn't provide an application layer that entirely abstracts the functionality from the interface.
I'm not sure I know what you are talking about, because my interface is for the most part completely separate from my processing. Interface goes in my views and the processing happens in my controller. Explain this please.
Finally, it's pretty much tied to MySQL, so if you use PgSQL or Oracle (and you should), then you're in for a big headache.
Pretty much tied to MySQL? It comes with connection adapters for both MySQL and PgSQL, and it works fine with both of them. This aught to be a pretty good reason not to trust anything you have said. You have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't make use of any MySQL-specific features like enums, everything is abstracted down to basic SQL.
If you're developing a more serious app, you may look at stuff like PageTemplate for the frontend, ObjectGraph for your ORM, and soap4r for services.
There hasn't been nearly as much testing and development going on with those projects. I don't know how you could say they are for "more serious apps". You would probably spend at least twice as much time developing an application with one of those.
I honestly couldn't think of a better way to do something like that than with Rails.
You bastard!
Ok, I'll play lawyer for a bit. The laws governing the 3 branches of government are not as clear cut as the one's that govern you, because so many different sides can come into play, your liberties, someone elses liberties, the liberty of one man vs. the liberty of a thousand men, life vs. liberty vs. the pursuit of happiness. It is implied that the president can do whatever he wants provided that it is in the best interests of the citizens, and that it meets the approval of congress, the judicial branch and/or public opinion. He is obligated to "protect the constitution", which is extremely vague, and was the basis for much of the controversial measures president Lincoln took during the civil war. It was written in the constitution that all people have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not "liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness", it is accepted that life supercedes liberty, and that in order to protect the constitution and see that the "laws be faithfully executed", the president did what was necessary, using his direct control over the armed forces, with the notification and consent of congress (particularly as it is done in this day and age, with a small council of intelligence authorities), during a time of "declared national emergency", in accordance with the oath he took when he went into office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". These powers have already been tested in practice time and time over. All the justification the president needs, in my opinion, is that he was protecting the lives of innocent civilians from a known threat the best way he knew. Look at it this way, when he gave the order, the NSA was *READY* to do it, this sort of action has always been in our arsenal, it is nothing new, and it probably has been utilized in the past, you just weren't supposed to know about it. Here we have a dangerous leak of confidential information that in my opinion has a worse impact on our country than the necessary invasion of privacy, instead of an orwellian style government that tromps on civil liberties, we will end up with an impotent, U.N. style government and rampant crime and civil chaos, which is a worse scenario.
So instead of calling America what it is, corporatized (like most other western nations including most of Europe) or Nationalist (because after all, we really ARE #1), you want to associate George W. Bush with Hitler, flag him as a liar, and stick all sorts of corruption to him and the GOP, nevermind that the media is distinctly aligned AGAINST him making it impossible for him to be a dictator.
By your own definition, the DNC could even more accurately fit the bill. It's less of a stretch to pin the communist label onto the DNC, in my opinion, with all their support for public services, retirement and health care, and their desire for authoritarian rule over corporations for environmental and social stratification, redistribution of wealth. Fascism and Communism have a lot in common, although Communism is often associated with Stalin, Hitler operated much the same as Stalin.
Although once again, I personally see this as completely irrelevant. Whatever fascism meant to mussolini probably has very little relevance in today's world. It's all about the global marketplace, power comes in the form of technology and production these days, not military power (although the two often go hand in hand, history has shown that even the most high-tech economy can't always win battles). If you know anything at all you aught to know how the world economy operates. Corporate subsidies going to Airbus and Boeing are huge, and then there is the fine line between corporate subsidies and government contractors (or maybe not so fine?????). The auto makers in Japan wouldn't have been able to get off the ground in America if it weren't for corporate subsidies (and American auto makers wouldn't be able to STAY on the ground if it weren't for them). The Mitsubishi corporation built the Japanese fighter planes during WW2, these days it builds everything and provides a good living for hundreds of thousands of Japanese people.
The plus and minuses of corporatism are debatable, but there is no denying the fact that every country in the world participates in corporate subsidies. Everybody aught to feel a bit of pride in their own country. Does that make them all fascist? I guess so!
So lets here it from you Node3, your quotations describe just about every modern country in the world, no?
(rolls eyes)
* liberals
Yeah? You really think so? I suppose on top of the overwhelming vastness of other reliable evidence, reports from a few guys living in log cabins in the Alaskan wilderness would make a fine closing argument.
Of course this may not work out so well in the long run. I don't know and neither does anybody else, feel free to speculate. Some would even argue that the existence of a monopoly in the operating systems industry is good for the world. So long as all that good ends up in America, I'm happy.
That's the dirty truth.
Note that by power to search and seizure, I was implying the probable cause/warrant, but your comments about the dog walking by the car not holding up in court may hold true, you sound like you know what you're talking about. I have been sniffed on the mexico border before and figured it was perfectly legal, in fact I'd encourage it.
The laws are not so simple ortcutt. The wording in the constitution is for the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", but his duties as an executive agent require that he respond promptly to a national emergency. I would expect the president to skip the overhead of a federal judge in a time of national emergency. Like it says in that document, "Congress often gives the President considerable leeway". Members of congress knew what the President had done when he did it and it was nothing out of the ordinary. If it had seemed unusual to any of them, they would have voted to stop it. Our country relies on this executive power in times of crisis, that sort of flexibility to make quick decisions is needed in any government. It certainly won't be the courts that investigate this, it will be congress, and they will find that he acted in accordance with the laws governing HIM.
3. You're not free from government surveillance. You are however free to practice whatever religion you want to practice, no if's and's or but's. Freedom of religion is unique like that. You can't say whatever you want to say, such as "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You can't hide from whoever or for whatever reason either. If you sent an encrypted communication with details on a terrorist nuclear plot, I would hope the authorities could track it to you and torture the passcode out of you. Someday we'll be tested with a situation that will really stress this issue, it hasn't happened yet. This spying on international phone lines is small beans.
President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html The court wouldn't be the one to stop the President from making an EO, it would be congress, with impeachment. Dude.One lie, versus how many? (Again, the false dichotomy of liars versus truth-tellers.)
The media tore into Clinton, I agree, but that was juicy stuff they were after! They'll eat their own if it means they'll make a fortune off of it, plus he was a lame duck. As for one lie, it was only one lie he got caught telling. There was whitewater and his last minute pardons that tarnish his credibility rating in my eyes, but yeah, Clinton did get beat up, and if it's any consolation to you I thought he did a satisfactory job as president, unlike Carter.
You didn't think the WMD was a joke, you thought to yourself, "oh ya, those same biological weapons he used against the kurds." By the way, that question is still open whether or not it will turn out to be true. The weapons purchase from Nigeria turned out to be boggled by Joe Wilson and wife and their political agenda, too bad the CIA has been infiltrated by people with an agenda. The border with Iran and Syria was always available, bombs could still be in Syria. It's always surprising to me to find people like you who are convincd you know the real story. There are defectors that were at task building a nuclear bomb. It is also neighboring Iran's goal to build a nuclear bomb, just like it was Iraq's, or wait, do you believe them when they say they just want to generate power? When we bomb their reactor are you going to pick up your sign and protest it?
You tell me how many lies G.W. has told, and give a rational justification as to why they were lies. We found lots of chemical and biological weapons, and components and facilities for nuclear weapons, so rather than argue with you about what constitutes a lie, we can both just agree that G.W. was right on that one.
Yeah would you look at that. Just being in your vicinity gets me mod points (up or down, who cares, at least it's mod points!!!) You sure get a lot of mod points! High five!
No it's not a problem, thats his primary responsibility, that's why they call it the executive office. If there was an outbreak of disease and the best thing for the country is to blow up a city (as in the movie Outbreak) then that's what must be done, and guess who's job it is to order it? Yep, that's right, the PRESIDENT! Go get educated on U.S. Politics, the genius of the system will make sense to you eventually.
During the world wars people were fighting for their right to live, same thing, you can't compare it to your presumed right to privacy on international phone circuits. Don't get all insane over this, you've got to calm down and think for a second.
It's not illegal, maybe controversial, definately not illegal. You have been had by a media campaign to sell a book and pull a Nixon. The media has learned well, thank you Richard Clarke.
What need to happen is not some goofball third party candidate.
Read: Ross Perot
I notice that it's always been the liberal media's game to try and destroy GOP candidates credibility, since Nixon, and it always works. The WMD thing is a joke, but it works, because most of the population isn't informed enough to know that the people who're calling people liars are liars themselves. Apparently you've been taken in by it also.
Clinton lied to the entire country on camera and had no problem with it, the guy is a damn good liar, lies to a grand jury, lies to his wife and kid. That's about as low as it gets in my book.
How else would you envision it? Everyone just magically agreeing with each other someday?
I call bullshit Garcia. I've seen enough of you to know you're a wacko liberal.
No this is standard practice. The president has executive authority to do things like this in a state of emergency. I think it was well called for, and nobody's complaining because they got their feelings hurt. It's just more of this same old stupid philosophical debate over security vs privacy. It's just a bunch of stupid hype meant to sell copies of the journalists book. www.drudgereport.com
Now you've got people like this, wait a few years until public unity has died down a bit, and then accuse the president of going too far. That's the problem with you liberals, you have no idea what you want, you just like to complain about everything and claim you would have done a better job. More troops in Iraq, now less troops in Iraq. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
This boils back down to the patriot act debate, whether you think privacy is more important than security. You could probably guess what I have to say about that.
You're wrong, dogs are used everywhere, I've been sniffed down countless times in airports, the dog detecting bombs or drugs would be probable cause to search you. Crossing state/country borders you get sniffed. Dogs would be used more often if they weren't so damn hard to train. Many times I've read about a clandestine marijuana cultivation operation being busted simply because neighbors or police passing by could smell the marijuana. The only instance I think your point holds true is if your car is parked in your garage with the doors shut, a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Any explicit right to privacy would override the governments POWER to search and seizure. You seem to want to single out parts of my argument for criticism while completely ignoring the rest of my argument. You know very well that I understand how the constitution is structured. Like I said before, "The founding fathers knew better than to grant everybody a right to secrecy, if they had intended that to be the case they would surely have included it in the bill of rights." Had they included it in the bill of rights, it would have effectively made the government powerless, and recent judicial activity has in effect been doing that, the states think they can override the laws enacted by the federal government, like legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. In some cases state legislation is shot down with no justification such as parental consent laws, effectively taking the rights of parents to raise their children the way they want, all because of a PRESUMED right to privacy! It's "unwritten law", and you can look that up.