You'd be lucky if it was only on one hard drive. Likely it is redundantly fragmented across the RAID implementation on a cabinet-sized storage array, which is then replicated to one or more backup sites on a live basis.
No, your document is not safe from access. Any storage admin who has access to the storage array and SAN has access to your file. In a mix-up with LUNs, your file can be accidentally assigned to the wrong server(s) and circulated from there. There is also little to no chance encryption was used in any part of this process.
But what are the chances of it happening? I'd give it a 10% chance over the next 20 years, due to storage array upgrades, personnel turnover, and procedural changes. Is someone going to care when they see it? Will they remember it later? Will they keep a copy? It depends on whether they recognize you and how they feel about your activities. That is what will limit any breach, not technology.
Well said. I was trying to come up with an objective piece about ICANN also, but your explanation of both sides and cautious recommendation of keeping it under the U.S.A.'s authority is better put. If I had mod points today, I'd give you a +1.
Where would the accountability be, otherwise? The U.N., where the U.S.A. is in a minority as far as freedom of speech protections? ICANN itself? As broken as the current system is, I still see it as better than any alternatives put forward so far.
That person's just angry over my pointing out in the SF Zoo tiger mauling story (remember the physicist plotting the tiger's trajectory?) that the case was suspended due to lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the brothers' parts. I also pointed out that this tiger has mauled before unprovoked. That plus the wall being several feet too low and the zoo knew this, as well as the zoo directors unsubstantiated statements (lies) to the press about what happened.
The person hates me because I had the audacity to state facts from the local paper, rather than simply believe a wild tiger could do no wrong.
After that story, I started to get weird or shady negative moderations. Usually it happens right after I get a positive moderation -- and only every couple of weeks when that person gets mod points. The overrated mods are probably an attempt to get around the metamod feature.
There's your hint. I'm guessing this message will be negatively moderated too.
The argument isn't whether one can have an SPI firewall with CALEA, it's about whether the connection to Quantico gave a free shot at the telco's internal network. The security professional discovered it is the latter (implying that the port wasn't limited somehow to CALEA-only connections). If it is the latter, then the telco is giving away unrequired information, which is illegal.
Hey, keep it up! I know I'm not the only one whom you disagree with.:) Your modding down my posts just means you have less negative mods for the others you hate.
Overrated? Really? Someone gives the post a +1 Interesting and you come along and give it a -1 Overrated? You don't think I can figure out who you are? It's not like I haven't noticed the other weird moderations I've gotten recently, and when they started. Overrated is just cowardly. And since you didn't overrate mod any of my other posts today, I figure you're either out of mod points, or you're just trying to fly below the site's radar -- which would be immensely ironic, since my post is about people who claim to be unconcerned about their privacy.
If what I write strikes a nerve, maybe you could respond with a well-reasoned reply, or move on to the next message.
In any case, my karma is excellent and has been for a long time. You're just wasting your mod points on me. It's kind of flattering.
They're told the their privacy is being abused, and they mentally convert this into their privacy not being abused, only terrorists and since when do terrorists deserve privacy?
That's a huge problem right there. Those are the same people who say "I have nothing to hide," but when you ask for all their bank statements and keys to their doors and video cameras in their house... (just keep suggesting more stuff until...) they balk.
And maybe some of the perception is that the government is this magical entity, not made up of people who are your neighbors, or that jerk that cut you off this morning, etc.
All of a sudden, those same people want their privacy. Amazing isn't it?
I once attended a lecture by a prominent local individual in L.A. who was known for speaking out against the LAPD's blanket harassment (and assaults) of people living in the poorer areas.
He said the prevailing attitude seemed to be "Catch the Bad Guy." At first, this doesn't sound like it conflicts with the LAPD's motto: "To Protect and Serve." But, he explained, there's a huge difference when you think about it: "Catch the Bad Guy" implies treating everyone in a poor fashion just to maybe catch a bad guy. "To Protect and Serve" implies that everyone is innocent, and explicitly that the police must protect everyone and serve the communities in a good fashion as a priority, rather than suspect everyone and treat them badly.
That was almost 20 years ago. The LAPD's CRASH (anti-gang) unit has since been disbanded due to multiple court rulings of unconstitutionality (the LAPD suspected pretty much every minority) and civil liability case rulings/settlements (the LAPD busted more innocent heads than gang members). The attitude is still a problem, and I've seen it with many other police officers in different cities, BUT I'm not saying it's a majority... just a very annoying minority.
The main point here: "Catch the Bad Guy" is an easy trap to fall into, and many may not even realize they're acting this way, or simply don't see the distinction.
The court system is slow, tedious, and money draining -- same as the legislative system. However, we're not seeing our own citizens shot at by itchy-fingered National Guardsmen anymore. I have to remain optimistic, at least about large-scale shifts of thinking...
If you read the article, you'll notice that it isn't some "wire-frame guy" but a security consultant hired to specifically address network security. So he'd have access to all the routers and their ACLs and other firewalling hardware, which would allow him to make such a judgement.
He demanded that I support the relationship of Neanderthals with other homo genus members......he attended a lecture a few years ago on the Lucy find......his insistence that he knows what he's talking about makes it impossible...
You're complaining? If only the rest of the people were that clueful.
Can you give me a specific example of what this breaks?
It breaks spam blocking.
1) One thing that spammers will do is send e-mail with a fake domain in the envelope sender field. My server checks this, and if it resolves, then that's one less tool I can use.
2) Another thing is checking a blocklist. IP address blocklists are queried using the IP address as part of a DNS lookup. Guess what happens when all of them resolve?
It also typosquats my domains (and every other business's domains) in a very non-ethical way that confuses people.
IBM sells an awful lot of software. More than hardware revenues? Care to back that up with a link?
Check out Microsoft, Google and Oracle for companies that make most of their money from software Google is *NOT* a software company. They're an advertising company. Google *sells* advertising. If you're going to attempt the "use" route, then you'll need something to refute the high costs of all that hardware and cabling in and between their data centers. As for Microsoft, did you know they sell hardware too? Although Zune, XBOX/XBOX360 isn't their primary revenue source. Oracle is the only one of those that is purely software.
Any list that doesn't split earnings/revenues/market cap between hardware and software and isn't exhaustive, isn't going to be worth it. You didn't. Why should I? At least I gave a link to the companies I listed where *you can do the research yourself*. You obviously haven't.
I'm even allowing MSFT in the discussion, because even though they are not headquartered here, they have a presence. IBM had huge facilities here, but they still have a presence here now, even though they too are not headquartered here.
I can go toe-to-toe for hardware companies here vs. any software company here you name and beat you in revenues. First stop: MSFT vs. IBM. MSFT may have twice the market cap, but IBM has twice the revenues: IBM 2007 Annual 98,787.00B, MSFT 2007 Annual 51,122.00B. And I believe what started this discussion was the assertion that software made more money than hardware -- and MSFT is your best example of software, but it loses out to IBM's hardware revenues.
The fact is that in the past as well as the present, Silicon Valley has made most of its money from hardware. Without hardware, you can't have software. Hence the nickname for Santa Clara Valley: "Silicon Valley." As in the element that chip wafers are made from....
Peer review. Good science has results that can be repeated.
If the mainstream media would stop reporting on studies that even haven't been published, that would be a good step. If the average public would stop believing anything that comes out of Fox News, without checking other news outlets, that would also be a good step.
Hell, I know an intelligent person who believes crackpots who deny global warming instead of the scientifically published and peer-reviewed super-majority, as well as believes that poor people should simply save up their money and buy in bulk from Costco instead of from the supermarket (which would thusly end a need for welfare) and can't figure out why that's a problem. Of course, this person also buys luxury and gas guzzling cars, and has always had the latest luxury items and gadgets (and has always had a safety net).
The problem is not how its presented; it's a refusal to step out of a comfort zone. This person gets told that global warming is a farce or that human-contributed global warming is pseudo-science -- therefore there's no need to give up gas-guzzler cars, conserve electricity, etc. This person gets told that welfare fraud is the majority of cases, and is also shown how the poor have lower savings rates than the rich -- therefore welfare should be cut and the poor simply need to get a job or get a better job (or two), which to this person means less taxes and more take-home pay.
Of course, maybe the (ironic) issue is that this person is great at math, but poor at managing money. A high MPG car may not be so sexy or comfortable, but going from 10-20 to 35-40MPG would sure save a lot of money immediately. Turning off the lights may be a good step toward conservation, but constantly buying new electric powered gadgets and plugging them in and leaving them on, running the air conditioning constantly, and running a 500W house fan, and leaving the windows open, (sometimes all at the same time! yes, really) and then wondering why the electric bill is several hundred dollars a month during the summer.... But inevitably it will simply get blamed on high electric rates -- not that stuff should, you know, be turned off.
People will just refuse to believe whatever they don't like. And there isn't any good solution for it.
Do you not expect BD burners and media to come down in price?
I do. But as you say:
In a few years
I thought we were talking about right now?
The article linked in the submission talked about right now. Otherwise, it's the "do nothing" or "sit and wait" strategy. As I said in another post, maybe the better article would be about re-dubbing titles that won't be available on Blu-Ray (except I don't see that being an issue).
Another person mentioned a service could re-dub for people, but not until the cost of disks went down to $2 or so.
The only good thing about the article is the "coolness" factor of being able to do it. But I'm guessing that once you told your friends how much it cost, your friends might question your sanity.
Or just keep the HD-DVD player? Is that an option?
Well, sure. Do nothing is always an option. But I thought the topic was about converting, and if not Blu-Ray, then to a format that one can deal with later.
Some might want Blu-Ray versions instead for different special features, for the better menuing/title system, or just for the higher maximum bitrates (quality).
I suppose the thread could also be re-done as "How to convert to Blu-Ray if that title is not available in Blu-Ray format" but of all the titles I've seen, I don't think this will be a problem (take that as you wish).
Several hundred dollars just to convert. Unless one has 30 or so HD-DVDs, I recommend just buying the Blu-Ray versions and saving money.
Or one could just rip them to a hard drive and store them that way, but even then that costs money for the HD-DVD disk drive and the software (if one purchases it) -- around $200.
And I'm not even being pedantic here. The 12th district is on the northern part of the peninsula.
Congressman Mike Honda is the representative for most of "Silicon Valley" which includes San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino -- the 15th District.
Now, if you want to cover Google and Stanford, then that's the 14th District -- which includes Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City -- and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is very much alive.:)
Eisenhower got the USA into Vietnam's civil war. Yes, Kennedy and Johnson kept it going (with Johnson ramping it way up), but it was Eisenhower who initially stuck 50,000 "advisers" where they shouldn't have been, as a favor to the French who ruled Vietnam as a colony (communism domino theory, my foot). And Eisenhower screwed that up too. Because if he was so kind-hearted, why did he wait to let the French get routed at Dien Bien Phu? A great general, yes. A good politician... not so much.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've said.
If it's true that the blue laser's cost is negligible now, which your linked article does not mention at all, then I still don't expect to see a price drop because of this:
Analysts Applaud Efforts to Shrink PS3 Chips
Stringer's promise to raise Sony's overall margins to 5% by the Mar. 31 fiscal yearend appears easily within reach. And margins should continue to improve as Sony's video-game division, Sony Computer Entertainment, trims the console's manufacturing costs and revs up output.
Sony's about improving the margins (and its game division is running a loss right now) by end of March. Based on your article, I don't think we'll see a price drop (or anything significant) until April at the earliest.
I remember the biggest problem with the PS3's availability and cost was the blue laser (as it has low yields and is expensive to make). Sony was already taking a hit on cost, since a stand-alone Blu Ray player in November actually cost about the same or more.
It's nice that the cell processor is lowering in cost, but I'm not sure that it ever was a significant enough percentage of the unit cost to see a drop of more then a few tens of dollars.
This is the part where you and I seem to disagree:
The House passed Bush's re-authorization bill and when it got to the Senate, he did filibuster it that time and it stopped there. So he and other senators amended it to look more like the SAFE act and it passed the Senate
Even you say he filibustered and stopped the original reauthorization bill. Why didn't he just continue? All the most controversial parts of PATRIOT were set to expire on their own. It's not like he needed to pass another bill. Sorry, I just don't agree with you on this. He had the votes to stop it and he caved. You even say so yourself.
Filibustering is not the end all be all solution. I think most people would agree, as do I.
The vote passed with 89 ayes, so there definitely wasn't support for a filibuster. It was a republican held congress, so that didn't help things either. If Obama had tried to filibuster and failed, he would have had no bargaining power to add those amendments. This is where we differ. I believe that had the bill not been watered down, not so many Dems would have voted for it. Before the amendments, I believe there were more than 40 votes against, enough to build a coalition to filibuster it. If the filibuster wasn't viable, or there wasn't some other heavy influence, how could Sen. Obama have successfully attached those amendments?
Why amend something you supposedly dislike to make more of your colleagues vote for it? Why not just make sure it dies?
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be lucky if it was only on one hard drive. Likely it is redundantly fragmented across the RAID implementation on a cabinet-sized storage array, which is then replicated to one or more backup sites on a live basis.
No, your document is not safe from access. Any storage admin who has access to the storage array and SAN has access to your file. In a mix-up with LUNs, your file can be accidentally assigned to the wrong server(s) and circulated from there. There is also little to no chance encryption was used in any part of this process.
But what are the chances of it happening? I'd give it a 10% chance over the next 20 years, due to storage array upgrades, personnel turnover, and procedural changes. Is someone going to care when they see it? Will they remember it later? Will they keep a copy? It depends on whether they recognize you and how they feel about your activities. That is what will limit any breach, not technology.
Well said. I was trying to come up with an objective piece about ICANN also, but your explanation of both sides and cautious recommendation of keeping it under the U.S.A.'s authority is better put. If I had mod points today, I'd give you a +1.
Where would the accountability be, otherwise? The U.N., where the U.S.A. is in a minority as far as freedom of speech protections? ICANN itself? As broken as the current system is, I still see it as better than any alternatives put forward so far.
That person's just angry over my pointing out in the SF Zoo tiger mauling story (remember the physicist plotting the tiger's trajectory?) that the case was suspended due to lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the brothers' parts. I also pointed out that this tiger has mauled before unprovoked. That plus the wall being several feet too low and the zoo knew this, as well as the zoo directors unsubstantiated statements (lies) to the press about what happened.
The person hates me because I had the audacity to state facts from the local paper, rather than simply believe a wild tiger could do no wrong.
After that story, I started to get weird or shady negative moderations. Usually it happens right after I get a positive moderation -- and only every couple of weeks when that person gets mod points. The overrated mods are probably an attempt to get around the metamod feature.
There's your hint. I'm guessing this message will be negatively moderated too.
The argument isn't whether one can have an SPI firewall with CALEA, it's about whether the connection to Quantico gave a free shot at the telco's internal network. The security professional discovered it is the latter (implying that the port wasn't limited somehow to CALEA-only connections). If it is the latter, then the telco is giving away unrequired information, which is illegal.
Hey, keep it up! I know I'm not the only one whom you disagree with. :) Your modding down my posts just means you have less negative mods for the others you hate.
Overrated? Really? Someone gives the post a +1 Interesting and you come along and give it a -1 Overrated? You don't think I can figure out who you are? It's not like I haven't noticed the other weird moderations I've gotten recently, and when they started. Overrated is just cowardly. And since you didn't overrate mod any of my other posts today, I figure you're either out of mod points, or you're just trying to fly below the site's radar -- which would be immensely ironic, since my post is about people who claim to be unconcerned about their privacy.
If what I write strikes a nerve, maybe you could respond with a well-reasoned reply, or move on to the next message.
In any case, my karma is excellent and has been for a long time. You're just wasting your mod points on me. It's kind of flattering.
They're told the their privacy is being abused, and they mentally convert this into their privacy not being abused, only terrorists and since when do terrorists deserve privacy?
That's a huge problem right there. Those are the same people who say "I have nothing to hide," but when you ask for all their bank statements and keys to their doors and video cameras in their house... (just keep suggesting more stuff until...) they balk.
And maybe some of the perception is that the government is this magical entity, not made up of people who are your neighbors, or that jerk that cut you off this morning, etc.
All of a sudden, those same people want their privacy. Amazing isn't it?
I once attended a lecture by a prominent local individual in L.A. who was known for speaking out against the LAPD's blanket harassment (and assaults) of people living in the poorer areas.
He said the prevailing attitude seemed to be "Catch the Bad Guy." At first, this doesn't sound like it conflicts with the LAPD's motto: "To Protect and Serve." But, he explained, there's a huge difference when you think about it: "Catch the Bad Guy" implies treating everyone in a poor fashion just to maybe catch a bad guy. "To Protect and Serve" implies that everyone is innocent, and explicitly that the police must protect everyone and serve the communities in a good fashion as a priority, rather than suspect everyone and treat them badly.
That was almost 20 years ago. The LAPD's CRASH (anti-gang) unit has since been disbanded due to multiple court rulings of unconstitutionality (the LAPD suspected pretty much every minority) and civil liability case rulings/settlements (the LAPD busted more innocent heads than gang members). The attitude is still a problem, and I've seen it with many other police officers in different cities, BUT I'm not saying it's a majority... just a very annoying minority.
The main point here: "Catch the Bad Guy" is an easy trap to fall into, and many may not even realize they're acting this way, or simply don't see the distinction.
The court system is slow, tedious, and money draining -- same as the legislative system. However, we're not seeing our own citizens shot at by itchy-fingered National Guardsmen anymore. I have to remain optimistic, at least about large-scale shifts of thinking...
If you read the article, you'll notice that it isn't some "wire-frame guy" but a security consultant hired to specifically address network security. So he'd have access to all the routers and their ACLs and other firewalling hardware, which would allow him to make such a judgement.
I understood that part. I just wish more people would try to at least be as informed.
He demanded that I support the relationship of Neanderthals with other homo genus members... ...he attended a lecture a few years ago on the Lucy find... ...his insistence that he knows what he's talking about makes it impossible...
You're complaining? If only the rest of the people were that clueful.
(Did I miss some type of joke here?)
Can you give me a specific example of what this breaks?
It breaks spam blocking.
1) One thing that spammers will do is send e-mail with a fake domain in the envelope sender field. My server checks this, and if it resolves, then that's one less tool I can use.
2) Another thing is checking a blocklist. IP address blocklists are queried using the IP address as part of a DNS lookup. Guess what happens when all of them resolve?
It also typosquats my domains (and every other business's domains) in a very non-ethical way that confuses people.
IBM sells an awful lot of software.
More than hardware revenues? Care to back that up with a link?
Check out Microsoft, Google and Oracle for companies that make most of their money from software
Google is *NOT* a software company. They're an advertising company. Google *sells* advertising. If you're going to attempt the "use" route, then you'll need something to refute the high costs of all that hardware and cabling in and between their data centers. As for Microsoft, did you know they sell hardware too? Although Zune, XBOX/XBOX360 isn't their primary revenue source. Oracle is the only one of those that is purely software.
Any list that doesn't split earnings/revenues/market cap between hardware and software and isn't exhaustive, isn't going to be worth it.
You didn't. Why should I? At least I gave a link to the companies I listed where *you can do the research yourself*. You obviously haven't.
I'm even allowing MSFT in the discussion, because even though they are not headquartered here, they have a presence. IBM had huge facilities here, but they still have a presence here now, even though they too are not headquartered here.
I can go toe-to-toe for hardware companies here vs. any software company here you name and beat you in revenues. First stop: MSFT vs. IBM. MSFT may have twice the market cap, but IBM has twice the revenues: IBM 2007 Annual 98,787.00B, MSFT 2007 Annual 51,122.00B. And I believe what started this discussion was the assertion that software made more money than hardware -- and MSFT is your best example of software, but it loses out to IBM's hardware revenues.
The fact is that in the past as well as the present, Silicon Valley has made most of its money from hardware. Without hardware, you can't have software. Hence the nickname for Santa Clara Valley: "Silicon Valley." As in the element that chip wafers are made from....
Silicon Valley has and continues to derive the vast majority of its income from intellectual property protections for its software.
Silicon Valley makes most of its money from hardware. That was just a short list off the top of my head. Notice that they're all valued in the billions, 10's of billions, and 100's of billions.
Peer review. Good science has results that can be repeated.
If the mainstream media would stop reporting on studies that even haven't been published, that would be a good step. If the average public would stop believing anything that comes out of Fox News, without checking other news outlets, that would also be a good step.
Hell, I know an intelligent person who believes crackpots who deny global warming instead of the scientifically published and peer-reviewed super-majority, as well as believes that poor people should simply save up their money and buy in bulk from Costco instead of from the supermarket (which would thusly end a need for welfare) and can't figure out why that's a problem. Of course, this person also buys luxury and gas guzzling cars, and has always had the latest luxury items and gadgets (and has always had a safety net).
The problem is not how its presented; it's a refusal to step out of a comfort zone. This person gets told that global warming is a farce or that human-contributed global warming is pseudo-science -- therefore there's no need to give up gas-guzzler cars, conserve electricity, etc. This person gets told that welfare fraud is the majority of cases, and is also shown how the poor have lower savings rates than the rich -- therefore welfare should be cut and the poor simply need to get a job or get a better job (or two), which to this person means less taxes and more take-home pay.
Of course, maybe the (ironic) issue is that this person is great at math, but poor at managing money. A high MPG car may not be so sexy or comfortable, but going from 10-20 to 35-40MPG would sure save a lot of money immediately. Turning off the lights may be a good step toward conservation, but constantly buying new electric powered gadgets and plugging them in and leaving them on, running the air conditioning constantly, and running a 500W house fan, and leaving the windows open, (sometimes all at the same time! yes, really) and then wondering why the electric bill is several hundred dollars a month during the summer.... But inevitably it will simply get blamed on high electric rates -- not that stuff should, you know, be turned off.
People will just refuse to believe whatever they don't like. And there isn't any good solution for it.
Do you not expect BD burners and media to come down in price?
I do. But as you say:
In a few years
I thought we were talking about right now?
The article linked in the submission talked about right now. Otherwise, it's the "do nothing" or "sit and wait" strategy. As I said in another post, maybe the better article would be about re-dubbing titles that won't be available on Blu-Ray (except I don't see that being an issue).
Another person mentioned a service could re-dub for people, but not until the cost of disks went down to $2 or so.
The only good thing about the article is the "coolness" factor of being able to do it. But I'm guessing that once you told your friends how much it cost, your friends might question your sanity.
Or just keep the HD-DVD player? Is that an option?
Well, sure. Do nothing is always an option. But I thought the topic was about converting, and if not Blu-Ray, then to a format that one can deal with later.
Some might want Blu-Ray versions instead for different special features, for the better menuing/title system, or just for the higher maximum bitrates (quality).
I suppose the thread could also be re-done as "How to convert to Blu-Ray if that title is not available in Blu-Ray format" but of all the titles I've seen, I don't think this will be a problem (take that as you wish).
Several hundred dollars just to convert. Unless one has 30 or so HD-DVDs, I recommend just buying the Blu-Ray versions and saving money.
Or one could just rip them to a hard drive and store them that way, but even then that costs money for the HD-DVD disk drive and the software (if one purchases it) -- around $200.
And what's your time worth?
And I'm not even being pedantic here. The 12th district is on the northern part of the peninsula.
:)
Congressman Mike Honda is the representative for most of "Silicon Valley" which includes San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino -- the 15th District.
Now, if you want to cover Google and Stanford, then that's the 14th District -- which includes Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City -- and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is very much alive.
Silicon Valley is well represented already.
Eisenhower got the USA into Vietnam's civil war. Yes, Kennedy and Johnson kept it going (with Johnson ramping it way up), but it was Eisenhower who initially stuck 50,000 "advisers" where they shouldn't have been, as a favor to the French who ruled Vietnam as a colony (communism domino theory, my foot). And Eisenhower screwed that up too. Because if he was so kind-hearted, why did he wait to let the French get routed at Dien Bien Phu? A great general, yes. A good politician... not so much.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've said.
It was hard to infer all of that from your previous message. Fair enough.
Sony's about improving the margins (and its game division is running a loss right now) by end of March. Based on your article, I don't think we'll see a price drop (or anything significant) until April at the earliest.
I remember the biggest problem with the PS3's availability and cost was the blue laser (as it has low yields and is expensive to make). Sony was already taking a hit on cost, since a stand-alone Blu Ray player in November actually cost about the same or more.
It's nice that the cell processor is lowering in cost, but I'm not sure that it ever was a significant enough percentage of the unit cost to see a drop of more then a few tens of dollars.
This is the part where you and I seem to disagree:
The House passed Bush's re-authorization bill and when it got to the Senate, he did filibuster it that time and it stopped there. So he and other senators amended it to look more like the SAFE act and it passed the Senate
Even you say he filibustered and stopped the original reauthorization bill. Why didn't he just continue? All the most controversial parts of PATRIOT were set to expire on their own. It's not like he needed to pass another bill. Sorry, I just don't agree with you on this. He had the votes to stop it and he caved. You even say so yourself.
Filibustering is not the end all be all solution.
I think most people would agree, as do I.
The vote passed with 89 ayes, so there definitely wasn't support for a filibuster. It was a republican held congress, so that didn't help things either. If Obama had tried to filibuster and failed, he would have had no bargaining power to add those amendments.
This is where we differ. I believe that had the bill not been watered down, not so many Dems would have voted for it. Before the amendments, I believe there were more than 40 votes against, enough to build a coalition to filibuster it. If the filibuster wasn't viable, or there wasn't some other heavy influence, how could Sen. Obama have successfully attached those amendments?
Why amend something you supposedly dislike to make more of your colleagues vote for it? Why not just make sure it dies?