If you're playing some fps with your friend, and type "I'm going to snipe you when you least expect it, Johnny!" nobody is going to think twice.
On the other hand, if you happen to shoot your friend in the head with an M40 the following week, I think it's more than reasonable for the prosecution to want to review those records and present them to a jury as evidence of pre-meditation.
It's the jury's job to decide the meaning and/or truthfulness of evidence in a trial.
How is signing off on extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens restoring checks and balances?
I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I can't answer whether the president has that authority. Seems to me though that if the president doesn't have the authority to order the death of anybody who is a U.S. citizen, even in combat situations, then a lot of illegal shit happened during the civil war.
From TFA: They also claim that the extradition attempt is politically motivated. Any trial would be prejudiced, they say, because of Assange's political opinions - and, due a quirk of Swedish law - his gender.
Really? Assange is not going to get a fair trial because of the rampant pro-American sentiment in Sweden? Perhaps they should ask the trial be moved to a nation where women do not exist, to make sure there is no bias.
I doubt even Bush/Cheney, with all their constitutional overstepping, would have executed a Julian Assange. That entire line of thinking was started by a few very right-wing pundits who are trying to score political points. Not even actual terrorist sent to Guantanamo have been executed thus far.
Additionally, even though Obama is getting stymied on closing Guantanamo, AFAIK prisoners are no longer being sent there. On a positive note, the NY Times reports that Obama is getting high marks from constitutional law groups for not using signing statements to override Congress's authority even though he disagrees with the Guantanamo measures present in the recently passed Defense Authorization bill. It would seem our system of checks and balances has been restored.
The fact that there have been two massive power shifts in Congress in the last 4 years seems to contradict your opinion that all Americans are apathetic.
Maybe the truth is that most Americans don't support a lot of what Wikileaks is doing, or how they do it.
Seems to me, the point of exploring anything is to make discoveries and bring that knowledge back to enrich society. To "live to tell the tale," in a sense... not to mention bringing stuff back (rocks?)
Do you think we would be as proud of the Moon landings if we had only managed to send Neil and Buzz up there to hang around and take pictures for a few years until they croaked?
I agree that bypassing normal warrant procedure is not generally idea, however I think some of the claims about what this bill will cause are getting ridiculous.
First of all, it's not going to drastically change the nature of the FBI's DNA database. The only new group of people who will have their DNA forcibly sampled are people arrested of crimes who are not prosecuted, in states where this is not already the law (such a law was passed in CA in 2004)
Second, it's not like we don't already have a huge DNA database. CODIS is the largest DNA database in the world with over 5 million records. If you think such a database will lead to framing, corruption, or otherwise undermining the right to a fair trial, then all those things should be happening already.
I understand the argument that targeting certain appliances rather than overall electricity use may be unfair, but those numbers show just how big of a difference these regulations can make. Now that people are managing to switch over to CFL bulbs, TVs are the elephant in the room- literally. Your 50" plasma TV that uses twice as much energy as a 50" LCD, and also probably uses as much electricity as all the light bulbs in your house combined.
On the other, hand, things like refrigerators and water heaters (which also run 24/7) use even more energy than a TV; but in my opinion, that just means we are well within our rights to pass efficiency laws on those things too.
After all, the alternative of putting an overall limit on electricity use would really restrict consumers, whereas these laws place the burden on manufacturers. Saying "you can only use x kW-hr's per year no matter what" doesn't take into account extenuating circumstances.
I knew this party was a joke the minute I heard Rickard Falkvinge being interviewed on NPR. When asked if he believed that there should be at least some kind of system set up where artists are still compensated for their works, he said (and I'm paraphrasing) "With all these media outlets like the internet in the world, artists can no longer expect to get paid for their creativity." Hah.
For extra good measure, fit a booster rocket to it, so we can fire it off into deep space once we're done with it.
Sorry, but this is a fairly good example that you aren't properly factoring in the issues that the OP was raising. Carrying the fuel necessary to propel a craft to escape velocity increases its mass significantly. You would never do that for the sole purpose of decommissioning a craft (generally you destabilize its orbit and cause it to burn up in the atmosphere)
The logical comparison would be between this method, and just having those same solar panels on the ground. Solar radiation is only about 30% stronger in LEO (low earth orbit) vs. the surface
The additional launch, maintenance, and infrastructure costs combined with the losses due to microwave transmission may not be outweighed by the additional power generation just from having the things in space.
You could classify me as a Slashdot reader who does not have a firm opinion on overall copyright law and needs to be convinced one way or another. That being said, this article has progressed 0% of the way towards that goal. It's basically several quoted paragraphs following by the writer ranting as if he's yelling at a television screen- "Oh no you didn't say that! Corporate whore!" etc.
Aside from a few anecdotal cases of copyright-related stupidity such as the iTunes song activation limit, I could not tell you anything in particular that is wrong with our overall copyright law that needs to be changed. Saying that all copyrights should be abolished sound ridiculous, and ranting about greed does nothing to advance your position either. Somebody explain to me WHAT should be changed about copyright law and WHY I should support such a change, and you will have my attention.
This is an oft-cited misconception. Los Angeles has a low overall population density because it contains uninhabited areas within the city limits, such as the San Gabriel Mountains. Wilshire Blvd, for example, is a 10 mile corridor of high rise buildings from downtown to the beach, which is why a subway extension is being planned.
Even Orange County is denser than most people think. Santa Ana, the county seat, has one of the highest population densities among large U.S. cities. This is due to a high average number of residents per household (large families). As you would expect, a big portion of OC's bus ridership comes from Santa Ana.
Please take into account that Obama and the Democrats will pursue deficit spending in the short term because we are in a recession.
Basically, when GDP is shrinking, normal economic policies go out the window because stimulating the economy to get back to positive growth will over time outweigh any negative effects normally associated with running a public debt, such as increasing interest rates.
When the recession is over, we can shift back to a more fiscally conservative model that we used in the 90s to balance the budget.
Most economists agree on these things.
3) Economic Recovery can only happen when we start imposing the same restrictions on imported goods as found on goods produced in the US (or where ever you are)
Are you advocating for a 2009 version of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff?
If so, I wish you the best of luck on that one.
How about some frigging proof before you start flinging crazy accusations? I guess you're following the rule of "Hillary is guilty until proven innocent."
1) Push for a massive renewable energy subsidy program- bring down the cost of solar and wind power, and work to phase out old plants in the order of coal, then natural gas, ending with nuclear. Pay for by removing tax subsidies for coal & oil companies; promote occupational training to move these workers over to green technology sector.
2) Sign a new international agreement on climate change, pushing not just for a reduction of CO2 emissions, but specific goals, such as 20% renewable energy by a certain year, co-op research programs for renewable energy, and international green standards on biofuel production and carbon offset programs. Further increase fuel-efficiency standards, and promote cellulosic ethanol production. Push for higher ethanol % in all gasoline supplies.
3) Pull the military out of Iraq as soon as realistically possible, leaving only the minimum number of troops necessary to guard the embassy and engage in anti-al qaeda operations if necessary.
4) Shift international focus back to Afghanistan and Pakistan; push for full U.N. cooperation in these matters; continue to pressure Pakistan for democratic reforms, and to aid in tracking down Al-Qaeda, but avoid direct military intervention at all costs. Increase humanitarian aid to Pakistan and further attempt to restore America's image in the world.
5) Attempt to scale back military programs that are deemed unnecessary for anti-terrorism operations, such as missile defense, F/A-18 Hornet, and F-22 Raptor. Redirect these funds to #4. Return to a focus on covert ops and intelligence gathering to combat Al-Qaeda, rather than military intervention. Foster more cooperation between international intel agencies to bolster credibility.
6) Reform criminal code for drug-related crimes; push for eliminating jail time for posession offenses, redirect some funding towards rehab programs. Develop new prison work programs such as telecommuting to stimulate economy and pay for prison funding.
7) Repeal tax breaks for high-income brackets. Institute bracket system on gapital gains tax similar to federal income tax. Re-institute the estate tax. Use this funding to normalize the budget.
8) Push for universal health care plans, giving every citizen option between employer-based health care, private health care, or several government plans. Work to increase taxes on profits for health insurance companies.
9) Redirect focus of space program to a long-term jointly funded Mars mission between all ISS nations. Restore short-term funding for robotic exploration missions. Skip Moon landing mission and secure more funding for technological achievement prizes.
10) Direct more funding towards public transportation usage. Create tax incentives for public transit useage and carpooling; more federal dollars for bus and rail expansion. Coerce auto insurance companies to significantly reduce premiums for those who drive less, encouraging more carpooling and public transit. Promote municipal wi-fi to increase productivity in a public transit environment.
So because of 9/11, we're used to it now, and people won't be angry?.
Obviously people will be glad that a major target was not hit, but there will surely be outrage- "How did these people get on the plane- again?" "Was too much emphasis placed on just protecting the pilots?" "Why no air marshall to protect the cabin?" etc.
I like the idea of the automated landing, I'm just saying that the strategy of simply barricading the pilots often assumes that this is an indefeatable strategy, when the terrorists of course could take over the cabin and still have a good deal of leverage.
In any situation where your security focus is to simply barricade the cockpit against terrorists, you have thereby freely sacrificed the cabin. Didn't you see Air Force One?
All the aggressors have to do is start executing passengers, and the pilots (or autopilot controllers on the ground) will start listening to them real quick. Even if the autopilot is locked in already, you can be sure that the terrorists would start killing people until you find a way to turn it off.
Can you imagine the outrage that the public would have towards the government and the airline if the plane lands safely with 300 corpses?
Walking is NOT A RIGHT! It is a PRIVILEGE that is exercised on PUBLIC SIDEWALKS, in *FULL VIEW* of the public, including law enforcement drones. As such, there shall be no expectation of privacy whatsoever for anyone who walks on a public sidewalk. And the (evolutionary) idea behind faces is that they shall be visible to (other people, including) law-enforcement officials.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're playing some fps with your friend, and type "I'm going to snipe you when you least expect it, Johnny!" nobody is going to think twice.
On the other hand, if you happen to shoot your friend in the head with an M40 the following week, I think it's more than reasonable for the prosecution to want to review those records and present them to a jury as evidence of pre-meditation.
It's the jury's job to decide the meaning and/or truthfulness of evidence in a trial.
And put in practice by the Bush Administration.
By "line of thinking," I was referring to the statement that the United States should execute Julian Assange.
Now they're going to gulag #2: Bagram Prison. Same difference.
Bagram was handed over to the Afghans in Jan 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6081IN20100109
Detainees are now being held in the Parwan facility which is being described as much more humane, where the prisoners are assigned counsel and can challenge their incarceration: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2008892,00.html
How is signing off on extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens restoring checks and balances?
I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I can't answer whether the president has that authority. Seems to me though that if the president doesn't have the authority to order the death of anybody who is a U.S. citizen, even in combat situations, then a lot of illegal shit happened during the civil war.
From TFA:
They also claim that the extradition attempt is politically motivated. Any trial would be prejudiced, they say, because of Assange's political opinions - and, due a quirk of Swedish law - his gender.
Really? Assange is not going to get a fair trial because of the rampant pro-American sentiment in Sweden? Perhaps they should ask the trial be moved to a nation where women do not exist, to make sure there is no bias.
Full speed ahead on the crazy train.
I doubt even Bush/Cheney, with all their constitutional overstepping, would have executed a Julian Assange. That entire line of thinking was started by a few very right-wing pundits who are trying to score political points. Not even actual terrorist sent to Guantanamo have been executed thus far.
Additionally, even though Obama is getting stymied on closing Guantanamo, AFAIK prisoners are no longer being sent there. On a positive note, the NY Times reports that Obama is getting high marks from constitutional law groups for not using signing statements to override Congress's authority even though he disagrees with the Guantanamo measures present in the recently passed Defense Authorization bill. It would seem our system of checks and balances has been restored.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/politics/08gitmo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
The fact that there have been two massive power shifts in Congress in the last 4 years seems to contradict your opinion that all Americans are apathetic.
Maybe the truth is that most Americans don't support a lot of what Wikileaks is doing, or how they do it.
Seems to me, the point of exploring anything is to make discoveries and bring that knowledge back to enrich society. To "live to tell the tale," in a sense... not to mention bringing stuff back (rocks?)
Do you think we would be as proud of the Moon landings if we had only managed to send Neil and Buzz up there to hang around and take pictures for a few years until they croaked?
I agree that bypassing normal warrant procedure is not generally idea, however I think some of the claims about what this bill will cause are getting ridiculous.
First of all, it's not going to drastically change the nature of the FBI's DNA database. The only new group of people who will have their DNA forcibly sampled are people arrested of crimes who are not prosecuted, in states where this is not already the law (such a law was passed in CA in 2004)
Second, it's not like we don't already have a huge DNA database. CODIS is the largest DNA database in the world with over 5 million records. If you think such a database will lead to framing, corruption, or otherwise undermining the right to a fair trial, then all those things should be happening already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_DNA_Index_System
The vast majority of supposedly anti-government Republicans voted for this bill too. So.... there goes that argument.
I understand the argument that targeting certain appliances rather than overall electricity use may be unfair, but those numbers show just how big of a difference these regulations can make. Now that people are managing to switch over to CFL bulbs, TVs are the elephant in the room- literally. Your 50" plasma TV that uses twice as much energy as a 50" LCD, and also probably uses as much electricity as all the light bulbs in your house combined.
On the other, hand, things like refrigerators and water heaters (which also run 24/7) use even more energy than a TV; but in my opinion, that just means we are well within our rights to pass efficiency laws on those things too.
After all, the alternative of putting an overall limit on electricity use would really restrict consumers, whereas these laws place the burden on manufacturers. Saying "you can only use x kW-hr's per year no matter what" doesn't take into account extenuating circumstances.
If only there was some sort of service whereby the TV could be delivered to your doorstep for much less money.
I knew this party was a joke the minute I heard Rickard Falkvinge being interviewed on NPR. When asked if he believed that there should be at least some kind of system set up where artists are still compensated for their works, he said (and I'm paraphrasing) "With all these media outlets like the internet in the world, artists can no longer expect to get paid for their creativity." Hah.
"He rode the tip of my rocket into orbit" sounded weird.
For extra good measure, fit a booster rocket to it, so we can fire it off into deep space once we're done with it.
Sorry, but this is a fairly good example that you aren't properly factoring in the issues that the OP was raising. Carrying the fuel necessary to propel a craft to escape velocity increases its mass significantly. You would never do that for the sole purpose of decommissioning a craft (generally you destabilize its orbit and cause it to burn up in the atmosphere)
The logical comparison would be between this method, and just having those same solar panels on the ground. Solar radiation is only about 30% stronger in LEO (low earth orbit) vs. the surface The additional launch, maintenance, and infrastructure costs combined with the losses due to microwave transmission may not be outweighed by the additional power generation just from having the things in space.
You could classify me as a Slashdot reader who does not have a firm opinion on overall copyright law and needs to be convinced one way or another. That being said, this article has progressed 0% of the way towards that goal. It's basically several quoted paragraphs following by the writer ranting as if he's yelling at a television screen- "Oh no you didn't say that! Corporate whore!" etc.
Aside from a few anecdotal cases of copyright-related stupidity such as the iTunes song activation limit, I could not tell you anything in particular that is wrong with our overall copyright law that needs to be changed. Saying that all copyrights should be abolished sound ridiculous, and ranting about greed does nothing to advance your position either. Somebody explain to me WHAT should be changed about copyright law and WHY I should support such a change, and you will have my attention.
This is an oft-cited misconception. Los Angeles has a low overall population density because it contains uninhabited areas within the city limits, such as the San Gabriel Mountains. Wilshire Blvd, for example, is a 10 mile corridor of high rise buildings from downtown to the beach, which is why a subway extension is being planned.
Even Orange County is denser than most people think. Santa Ana, the county seat, has one of the highest population densities among large U.S. cities. This is due to a high average number of residents per household (large families). As you would expect, a big portion of OC's bus ridership comes from Santa Ana.
You know, I heard that they still have this project- I think Tehran is the first city being nominated for "launch."
Please take into account that Obama and the Democrats will pursue deficit spending in the short term because we are in a recession.
Basically, when GDP is shrinking, normal economic policies go out the window because stimulating the economy to get back to positive growth will over time outweigh any negative effects normally associated with running a public debt, such as increasing interest rates. When the recession is over, we can shift back to a more fiscally conservative model that we used in the 90s to balance the budget. Most economists agree on these things.
3) Economic Recovery can only happen when we start imposing the same restrictions on imported goods as found on goods produced in the US (or where ever you are)
Are you advocating for a 2009 version of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff? If so, I wish you the best of luck on that one.
How about some frigging proof before you start flinging crazy accusations? I guess you're following the rule of "Hillary is guilty until proven innocent."
I am thankful that you are not a judge.
Wow, holy shit- you are either biased, naive, or both. You seriously think she's the only candidate who talks negatively about their opponents?
You have decided yourself that Hillary has this personality, and so any actions she takes can be explained by your theory. It's not proof.
Stop pushing this closet Republican crap. See the factcheck.org article debunking this: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/peas_in_a_pod.html
1) Push for a massive renewable energy subsidy program- bring down the cost of solar and wind power, and work to phase out old plants in the order of coal, then natural gas, ending with nuclear. Pay for by removing tax subsidies for coal & oil companies; promote occupational training to move these workers over to green technology sector.
2) Sign a new international agreement on climate change, pushing not just for a reduction of CO2 emissions, but specific goals, such as 20% renewable energy by a certain year, co-op research programs for renewable energy, and international green standards on biofuel production and carbon offset programs. Further increase fuel-efficiency standards, and promote cellulosic ethanol production. Push for higher ethanol % in all gasoline supplies.
3) Pull the military out of Iraq as soon as realistically possible, leaving only the minimum number of troops necessary to guard the embassy and engage in anti-al qaeda operations if necessary.
4) Shift international focus back to Afghanistan and Pakistan; push for full U.N. cooperation in these matters; continue to pressure Pakistan for democratic reforms, and to aid in tracking down Al-Qaeda, but avoid direct military intervention at all costs. Increase humanitarian aid to Pakistan and further attempt to restore America's image in the world.
5) Attempt to scale back military programs that are deemed unnecessary for anti-terrorism operations, such as missile defense, F/A-18 Hornet, and F-22 Raptor. Redirect these funds to #4. Return to a focus on covert ops and intelligence gathering to combat Al-Qaeda, rather than military intervention. Foster more cooperation between international intel agencies to bolster credibility.
6) Reform criminal code for drug-related crimes; push for eliminating jail time for posession offenses, redirect some funding towards rehab programs. Develop new prison work programs such as telecommuting to stimulate economy and pay for prison funding.
7) Repeal tax breaks for high-income brackets. Institute bracket system on gapital gains tax similar to federal income tax. Re-institute the estate tax. Use this funding to normalize the budget.
8) Push for universal health care plans, giving every citizen option between employer-based health care, private health care, or several government plans. Work to increase taxes on profits for health insurance companies.
9) Redirect focus of space program to a long-term jointly funded Mars mission between all ISS nations. Restore short-term funding for robotic exploration missions. Skip Moon landing mission and secure more funding for technological achievement prizes.
10) Direct more funding towards public transportation usage. Create tax incentives for public transit useage and carpooling; more federal dollars for bus and rail expansion. Coerce auto insurance companies to significantly reduce premiums for those who drive less, encouraging more carpooling and public transit. Promote municipal wi-fi to increase productivity in a public transit environment.
So because of 9/11, we're used to it now, and people won't be angry?.
Obviously people will be glad that a major target was not hit, but there will surely be outrage- "How did these people get on the plane- again?" "Was too much emphasis placed on just protecting the pilots?" "Why no air marshall to protect the cabin?" etc.
I like the idea of the automated landing, I'm just saying that the strategy of simply barricading the pilots often assumes that this is an indefeatable strategy, when the terrorists of course could take over the cabin and still have a good deal of leverage.
Here's the problem with that:
In any situation where your security focus is to simply barricade the cockpit against terrorists, you have thereby freely sacrificed the cabin. Didn't you see Air Force One?
All the aggressors have to do is start executing passengers, and the pilots (or autopilot controllers on the ground) will start listening to them real quick. Even if the autopilot is locked in already, you can be sure that the terrorists would start killing people until you find a way to turn it off.
Can you imagine the outrage that the public would have towards the government and the airline if the plane lands safely with 300 corpses?
Walking is NOT A RIGHT! It is a PRIVILEGE that is exercised on PUBLIC SIDEWALKS, in *FULL VIEW* of the public, including law enforcement drones. As such, there shall be no expectation of privacy whatsoever for anyone who walks on a public sidewalk. And the (evolutionary) idea behind faces is that they shall be visible to (other people, including) law-enforcement officials.
Doesn't sound so great now, does it?