"PowerPC has no capability! Intel is 32 X faster!!!"
Am I missing a joke here somewhere? The Power6 runs at speeds up to 4.7GHz and it's 2 years old! Does Intel have a chip running at 150.4 GHz that I didn't hear about?
"So you can install whatever windows your computer came with, not hook it up to the internet, use that cd to install sp3. Then plug in your internet. . . Easy as pie."
Like hell. I lost a hard drive on my Windows machine and had to go back to Windows XP (from CD, no service packs). SP3 will not install unless you have at least Windows XP-SP1. It was a PITA trying to find an SP1 or SP2 patch on the MS web site because the SPs are supposed to include all previous SPs. Anyone know how to make "Dawn of War" run under WINE?
Are you suggesting that the tens of millions of people from Mexico and South America who have illegally crossed into the United States are merely "visitors"?
I also noticed that you attacked the OP personally(and with unsubstantiated allegations) as opposed to addressing the question about "How is it bigotry . ..". If you ever have the courage or intelligence to question the fundamental assumptions upon which your politically correct world-view is based on, you might find yourself enlightened.
"Google may, at its discretion, exclude particular Books from one or more Display Uses for... non-editorial reasons."
"Google agrees to notify the Registry of any such exclusion of a Book for editorial reasons..."
How about the books they exclude for "non editorial reasons"? Do they have to notify anybody about that? I think they need to create a publicly available list of any books to which they have aquired the exclusive rights and have chosen to make unavailable.
"That's like saying your local grocery store is censoring because they choose not to carry porn, or that best buy is censoring because they don't stock certain movies."
Wrong. Your analogy falls apart because people can go to the porn store or to online sources to find the books, magazines and movies that they want. When a corporation has EXCLUSIVE rights to a particular book or film and decides to make it unavailable because of their own political agenda, then I say it's censorship. You can argue that "It's not censorship unless it's banned by the government." but it's laws (copyright) enforced by the government which would allow the suppression of certain work. Censorship by proxy.
Imagine if Monsanto bought the rights to the film "The Corporation" and then decided to make sure that it wasn't for sale for the next 50 years. Is that not censorship?
One of my favorite parts of "Atlas Shrugged" was when the Marxist economy went down the toilet and someone replaced the illuminated clock on the side of a tall building with a sign which read "Brother, You asked for it" (something like that).
When the society in the SCReW goes down the toilet (from hyper inflation, disease outbreak, armed insurrection, economic collapse or whatever) I hope the sign is going to read:
"your average corporate conglomerate is so (expletive deleted) big that no little advertising campaign or boycott will make one bit of difference."
I disagree. I also suggested "civil disobedience". Interpret that as you will. I would never advocate use of violence, but if I thought someone was POISONING my family, friends and neighbors, I could get creative in a hurry. I hope you were just using that as a hypothetical example. If you were REALLY in that situation, I think you might get over the idea that you have no recourse other than "voting" to remedy the situation.
"They just move their operations to a neighbourhood where the people are too poor or destitute to raise a fuss."
Check out what happened in BOLIVIA (plenty of poor and destitute people there) when Bechtel corporation bribed the government in an effort to turn the country's clean water supply into a for profit enterprise.
" . . . small-government [advocates] like yourself have the exact opposite problem: the belief that the government is never the answer."
I certainly don't believe that government is "never" the answer. Government should absolutely be in the business of establishing health and safety regulations, enforcing strong environmental laws, building infrastructure, providing national defense, etc. The problem is that BIG government(especially the monster in Washington DC) is so inherently corrupt that it serves to reinforce rather than combat corporate abuses. The "truth" may be somewhere in the middle but in the U.S. we're definitely beyond the happy medium on the "big government" side.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'm interested in this dialogue.
"Your posts strike me as being written by someone with little real experience in genetics . .."
Agreed that my opinions are based on qualitative sources and observation, not the hard science of genetic engineering and personal experience in the field. I do have a science background however, and my ideas are certainly not based on literary fiction.
". ..we are not creating new species. We are inserting genes, usually one at a time, into already established species."
Sorry. I was way off base on that. I realize that the GMOS are not sufficiently different from the originals to warrant classification as a new and unique species. Strike "species" and call them new "strains" in my post.
"if the insertion adds no benefit (feel free to have your own opinions on what is beneficial and what isn't, it's a personal judgement call)"
I guess that in the corporate way of thinking, creating an organism with a terminator gene is "beneficial". In any other context, I think this would be considered extremely detrimental, if not insane.
It's completely absurd to think that you can develop procedures to isolate a commercially viable GMO from the natural environment. Aren't people already planting open fields full of "Roundup Ready" corn and other GM crops?
My main point is that the genetic traits of the species in a particular ecosystem evolve incredibly slowly and in a delicate balance with other species and the natural environment. When you take an organism and add "artificial" genetic traits that did not evolve in that balance, the potential for unintended consequences . . . now, next year, or 1000 years from now . . . is enormous.
If you're not familiar with this, check out the following Wikipedia article. This species isn't even "genetically modified". It was simply bred in an artificial environment and then it "escaped" into the wild, with disastrous consequences.
" . . . if a corporation decides to poison your groundwater, or feed you steroid-laced milk, you have essentially no recourse."
Your learned helplessness mentality is pathetic. There are plenty of things that citizen activists can do to fight corporate abuses. If you have evidence that some company is poisoning your groundwater, get your neighbors together and create a negative PR shitstorm for them! Organize a boycott of the company's products. Inform media sources that carry the company's advertisements that you're going to boycott them as well. Engage in some civil disobedience. Don't sit around complaining and waiting for "the right people"(socialists?) to be elected so that they can wipe your arse for you and protect you from all the evils of the world.
That's the fundamental problem I have with socialists and pinko commies(your term). They think that big government is the answer to all of the world's problems, and that the only reason that big government is corrupt, inefficient and power hungry is that the "wrong people" have been in positions of authority. They don't seem to accept the idea that big government is an inherently corruptible institution.
The OP had it right. Things like union movements certainly faced a big challenge, but that's NOTHING compared to what the Founders and other revolutionaries have had to go through to free people from the tyranny of all-powerful government.
I wasn't talking about the last 8 years, I was talking about the recent report from the DOHS. Don't throw me into the same bucket as Limbaugh, Hannity and any of the other mainstream media arse-wipes. They're complete hypocrites, and the "concerns" that they have about this are obviously disingenuous. My principles are genuine and unwavering. I've been vehemently opposed to The Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity, military commissions, secret prisons, torture, use of violence against protestors at the RN convention, and all of the other abuses that occurred during the Bush administration.
I know that in the Bush years, law enforcement and various moles infiltrated peace activist and environmental groups, and that they used "terrorism" legislation to go after at least one of the ELF guys. However, I don't recall any official document equating politcal beliefs (e.g. peace, environmentalism,animal rights) with domestic terrorism. If there was such a document, I'd be disturbed by that too.
Sorry, I don't see your conjunction logic at all. I think you're misreading it. Here's the full excerpt for reference
--------------- Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), AND those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. --------------
The report is definitely not claiming that those who have "belief system A" AND "belief system B" (i.e. an individual or group that subscribes to both sets of beliefs) are the potential domestic terrorists. It's stating that Group A (so-called hate groups) AND Group B (advocates of limited government) are both domestic terrorist threats.
Glad that you see where I'm coming from. Don't mistake the legitimate concerns of your fellow citizens for partisan politics . . . and just IGNORE the mainstream media who have a vested interest in keeping the people divided.
Agreed, but the last thing I want is to see a bloody "police department" or "military special operations team" tracking down spammers and credit card thieves.
I guess it depends what you mean by GMOs "working" or "not working".
There is a very valid "chicken little" argument that has nothing to do with supply, demand, or profitability. Arbitrarily creating new species and releasing them into the wild is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm repeating my previous comments, but think of all the times humans have introduced non-native species to a particular ecosystem with negative consequences. Now, we've got corporations concocting new species in laboratories and unleashing them on the world??? The sky may not be falling yet, but we're definitely undermining its structural integrity.
"There's no such thing are non-GMO. Unless you're a creationist that doesn't believe in DNA and evolution don't spout such nonsense."
"Genetically Modified" has nothing to do with "Selective Breeding" or normal evolutionary processes. It involves combining the DNA of biologically incompatible species (or even partial strands of viral type DNA). It's absurd to believe that the resulting traits might naturally "evolve", and even if it were possible, it would certainly take thousands, if not millions of generations for it to occur. If Monsanto cross-pollinated some plants and produced a "Roundup Ready" species, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I believe in evolution, but I also know that it's a SLOW process, and that species in a particular ecosystem evolve in tandem to produce a delicate balance. There are countless examples of humans creating ecological problems simply by moving one species of plant or animal to a non-native ecosystem. Now, we've got companies like Monsanto producing these genetic freak species and releasing them into the environment? You don't have to be a creationist to imagine the potentially disastrous unintended consequences of such actions.
How about injecting dairy cows with chemical crap to maximize production, at the expense of the animal's health and resulting in milk that belongs in a "bio-hazard" container as opposed to a milk jug?
Not to mention Monsanto using their muscle to prevent investigative journalists from actually reporting on the story. This company gives me the creeps.
"It defines the term "rightwing extremist" on the second page . .."
Including the section:
"those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority . . . and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
The idea of rejecting Federal authority in favor of state authority is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the highest law of the land. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is also explicitly included in The Constitution. How can people who advocate this viewpoint be "right wing extremists"? It's interesting that they've gone to this much trouble to figure out which particular political beliefs might be associated with terrorism. Notice that nobody in the government will ever suggest that terrorists could be motivated by our unconditional support of Israel or any other aspect of U.S. foreign policy. Those people just "hate our freedom".
The definition of "terrorism" and "terrorists" is a CRITICAL distinction because under the Bush doctrine, and facilitated by acts of Congress, anyone that the great emperor accuses of being a "Terrorist" can be incarcerated indefinitely without access to legal counsel, with no ability to challenge his/her detention in a court of law, and without any sort of due process.
"Unless you're planning or threatening to shoot people or blow up a federal building, I don't think you have to worry about this."
Oh, bullshit. I'm not planning to do any of the above, and this Orwellian report that associates violent extremism and acts of terrorism with political beliefs chills me to the bone. It seems like the Federal government is developing this adversarial relationship with the People, and that anyone who dares to oppose them in any way is a "terrorist". I'm a vocal advocate of shrinking the Federal government and getting them back within their Constitutional constraints. Obviously that would mean that they have fewer personnel, less funding, and less power. I guess that makes me a "threat" to them, even if my methods are entirely peaceful.
"We do in fact need higher taxes in order to pay off the monstrous debt we're accumulating."
NO!!!! What we need to do is stop accumulating debt by getting renegade government spending under control!
"Only anti-Americans would still be wanting lower taxes given the huge crisis we're facing."
What happens when an anti-American comes into contact with a regular American? The so called "crisis" was manufactured by the Washington DC power brokers and their politically well connected friends. If we had the limited Federal government that The Constitution mandates, there would be no "crisis". The Federal government sucks the lifeblood out of the economy by taxing the honest hard working citizens. Then they turn around and use the money to fund imperialistic military crusades, line the pockets of the wealthy elites (bailouts, subsidies, no bid contracts, etc.) take a cut of the profits to pay the salaries and benefits of bureaucrats, and if we're lucky, maybe spend 20 cents on the dollar in actual services to the people who pay the bills.
Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be separate from the general fund. Take that off the table, and then tell me where the government is spending your tax dollars.
Foreign Wars General military spending Bailouts Interest on the national debt Welfare programs (non SS or Medicare)
Things like education, infrastructure spending, science and research funding, etc. barely make a dent.
If you feel like paying more taxes to fund U.S. imperialism, enrich the financial elites and well connected corporations and pay for welfare programs, the government is accepting donations.
Thanks for the contribution Judge Posner. I didn't know that you were a/. reader.
If your terminology imples that some of us would rather die than see our nation turn into a police state, then the U.S. Constitution IS a "suicide pact".
I'd be happy to have a discussion about what our laws governing electronic surveillance "should" be, but you are arguing an entirely different point. The reason you get down-modded is that you refuse to accept the fact that we are a nation of laws, and that the executive branch is not somehow above the law. If we simply accept the idea that the president, or some intelligence agency can operate OUTSIDE the scope of the law, and is not subject to any checks and balances from the legislative or judicial branches, the fight against government abuses is already lost. How do you "move on" and continue the "valid fight" against abuse of power if you are willing to accept the argument that the law doesn't apply? Are you going to propose a new law?
I can hardly believe we're actually talking about "warrantless wiretaps" and someone isn't already under arrest and facing charges. The original FISA law granted fairly broad powers to law enforcement for eavesdropping in matters related to national security, but it also makes it a CRIME to conduct "warrantless wiretapping" and also subjects the spies to civil liabilities.
I don't follow your "transparency" and "review" argument at all. The whole point of this law is that some investigations related to national security require secrecy, and therefore there is a need to bypass the traditional court system. As far as "review", what are we supposed to review if there is no legal procedure? Isn't "review" exactly what the executive branch is preventing us from doing by refusing to disclose the details?
It is not a "privilege" of the government to conduct warrantless eavesdropping, and our civil liberties are not subject to sacrifice based on technological advances. FISA already allows for "warrantless wiretapping" for an excessively long time period, so you argument about "getting a warrant before every snoop" doesn't hold water. You can argue the exact details, but the absolutely critical point of FISA is that at least someone has oversight of what the executive branch is doing.
I will absolutely maintain my "fundamentalist" position of No Warrant, No Tap.
"What Dave Bowman should have said was "My God, it's full of galaxies!""
Yeah, OK.
His on-board computer has just killed all the other members of the human crew on his mission. He's all by himself hundreds of millions of miles from earth realizing that he can't possibly survive the journey back. He's about to land his spacecraft on an object of alien origin that's about the size of a skyscraper . . . suddenly the surface falls away, he's looking down an infinite corridor that defies perspective and he begins accelerating with a force of a million gravities. He manages to blurt out one short sentence, and you're bashing the guy because he wasn't 100% technically accurate in his terminology????
Slashdot Mirror
"PowerPC has no capability! Intel is 32 X faster!!!"
Am I missing a joke here somewhere? The Power6 runs at speeds up to 4.7GHz and it's 2 years old! Does Intel have a chip running at 150.4 GHz that I didn't hear about?
Power 7 comes out in 2010.
32X ? LOL
"The key advantage of a newspaper is that you can glance and decide what to read very quickly"
Right. I see the text "New York Times" and decide very quickly that it's not worth reading.
"So you can install whatever windows your computer came with, not hook it up to the internet, use that cd to install sp3. Then plug in your internet. . . Easy as pie."
Like hell. I lost a hard drive on my Windows machine and had to go back to Windows XP (from CD, no service packs). SP3 will not install unless you have at least Windows XP-SP1. It was a PITA trying to find an SP1 or SP2 patch on the MS web site because the SPs are supposed to include all previous SPs. Anyone know how to make "Dawn of War" run under WINE?
"Canadian or European visitor . . ."
Are you suggesting that the tens of millions of people from Mexico and South America who have illegally crossed into the United States are merely "visitors"?
I also noticed that you attacked the OP personally(and with unsubstantiated allegations) as opposed to addressing the question about "How is it bigotry . . .". If you ever have the courage or intelligence to question the fundamental assumptions upon which your politically correct world-view is based on, you might find yourself enlightened.
"Google may, at its discretion, exclude particular Books from one or more Display Uses for ... non-editorial reasons."
"Google agrees to notify the Registry of any such exclusion of a Book for editorial reasons ..."
How about the books they exclude for "non editorial reasons"? Do they have to notify anybody about that? I think they need to create a publicly available list of any books to which they have aquired the exclusive rights and have chosen to make unavailable.
"That's like saying your local grocery store is censoring because they choose not to carry porn, or that best buy is censoring because they don't stock certain movies."
Wrong. Your analogy falls apart because people can go to the porn store or to online sources to find the books, magazines and movies that they want. When a corporation has EXCLUSIVE rights to a particular book or film and decides to make it unavailable because of their own political agenda, then I say it's censorship. You can argue that "It's not censorship unless it's banned by the government." but it's laws (copyright) enforced by the government which would allow the suppression of certain work. Censorship by proxy.
Imagine if Monsanto bought the rights to the film "The Corporation" and then decided to make sure that it wasn't for sale for the next 50 years. Is that not censorship?
One of my favorite parts of "Atlas Shrugged" was when the Marxist economy went down the toilet and someone replaced the illuminated clock on the side of a tall building with a sign which read "Brother, You asked for it" (something like that).
When the society in the SCReW goes down the toilet (from hyper inflation, disease outbreak, armed insurrection, economic collapse or whatever) I hope the sign is going to read:
"That could never happen here."
"Wow. You're desperately naive, aren't you?"
No.
"your average corporate conglomerate is so (expletive deleted) big that no little advertising campaign or boycott will make one bit of difference."
I disagree. I also suggested "civil disobedience". Interpret that as you will. I would never advocate use of violence, but if I thought someone was POISONING my family, friends and neighbors, I could get creative in a hurry. I hope you were just using that as a hypothetical example. If you were REALLY in that situation, I think you might get over the idea that you have no recourse other than "voting" to remedy the situation.
"They just move their operations to a neighbourhood where the people are too poor or destitute to raise a fuss."
Check out what happened in BOLIVIA (plenty of poor and destitute people there) when Bechtel corporation bribed the government in an effort to turn the country's clean water supply into a for profit enterprise.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/thestory.html
" . . . small-government [advocates] like yourself have the exact opposite problem: the belief that the government is never the answer."
I certainly don't believe that government is "never" the answer. Government should absolutely be in the business of establishing health and safety regulations, enforcing strong environmental laws, building infrastructure, providing national defense, etc. The problem is that BIG government(especially the monster in Washington DC) is so inherently corrupt that it serves to reinforce rather than combat corporate abuses. The "truth" may be somewhere in the middle but in the U.S. we're definitely beyond the happy medium on the "big government" side.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'm interested in this dialogue.
"Your posts strike me as being written by someone with little real experience in genetics . . ."
Agreed that my opinions are based on qualitative sources and observation, not the hard science of genetic engineering and personal experience in the field. I do have a science background however, and my ideas are certainly not based on literary fiction.
". . .we are not creating new species. We are inserting genes, usually one at a time, into already established species."
Sorry. I was way off base on that. I realize that the GMOS are not sufficiently different from the originals to warrant classification as a new and unique species. Strike "species" and call them new "strains" in my post.
"if the insertion adds no benefit (feel free to have your own opinions on what is beneficial and what isn't, it's a personal judgement call)"
I guess that in the corporate way of thinking, creating an organism with a terminator gene is "beneficial". In any other context, I think this would be considered extremely detrimental, if not insane.
It's completely absurd to think that you can develop procedures to isolate a commercially viable GMO from the natural environment. Aren't people already planting open fields full of "Roundup Ready" corn and other GM crops?
My main point is that the genetic traits of the species in a particular ecosystem evolve incredibly slowly and in a delicate balance with other species and the natural environment. When you take an organism and add "artificial" genetic traits that did not evolve in that balance, the potential for unintended consequences . . . now, next year, or 1000 years from now . . . is enormous.
If you're not familiar with this, check out the following Wikipedia article. This species isn't even "genetically modified". It was simply bred in an artificial environment and then it "escaped" into the wild, with disastrous consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caulerpa_taxifolia
Would you argue that something like this could NEVER happen with a GMO?
" . . . if a corporation decides to poison your groundwater, or feed you steroid-laced milk, you have essentially no recourse."
Your learned helplessness mentality is pathetic. There are plenty of things that citizen activists can do to fight corporate abuses. If you have evidence that some company is poisoning your groundwater, get your neighbors together and create a negative PR shitstorm for them! Organize a boycott of the company's products. Inform media sources that carry the company's advertisements that you're going to boycott them as well. Engage in some civil disobedience. Don't sit around complaining and waiting for "the right people"(socialists?) to be elected so that they can wipe your arse for you and protect you from all the evils of the world.
That's the fundamental problem I have with socialists and pinko commies(your term). They think that big government is the answer to all of the world's problems, and that the only reason that big government is corrupt, inefficient and power hungry is that the "wrong people" have been in positions of authority. They don't seem to accept the idea that big government is an inherently corruptible institution.
The OP had it right. Things like union movements certainly faced a big challenge, but that's NOTHING compared to what the Founders and other revolutionaries have had to go through to free people from the tyranny of all-powerful government.
I wasn't talking about the last 8 years, I was talking about the recent report from the DOHS. Don't throw me into the same bucket as Limbaugh, Hannity and any of the other mainstream media arse-wipes. They're complete hypocrites, and the "concerns" that they have about this are obviously disingenuous. My principles are genuine and unwavering. I've been vehemently opposed to The Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity, military commissions, secret prisons, torture, use of violence against protestors at the RN convention, and all of the other abuses that occurred during the Bush administration.
I know that in the Bush years, law enforcement and various moles infiltrated peace activist and environmental groups, and that they used "terrorism" legislation to go after at least one of the ELF guys. However, I don't recall any official document equating politcal beliefs (e.g. peace, environmentalism,animal rights) with domestic terrorism. If there was such a document, I'd be disturbed by that too.
Sorry, I don't see your conjunction logic at all. I think you're misreading it. Here's the full excerpt for reference
---------------
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), AND those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
--------------
The report is definitely not claiming that those who have "belief system A" AND "belief system B" (i.e. an individual or group that subscribes to both sets of beliefs) are the potential domestic terrorists. It's stating that Group A (so-called hate groups) AND Group B (advocates of limited government) are both domestic terrorist threats.
Glad that you see where I'm coming from. Don't mistake the legitimate concerns of your fellow citizens for partisan politics . . . and just IGNORE the mainstream media who have a vested interest in keeping the people divided.
Cheers
Agreed, but the last thing I want is to see a bloody "police department" or "military special operations team" tracking down spammers and credit card thieves.
I guess it depends what you mean by GMOs "working" or "not working".
There is a very valid "chicken little" argument that has nothing to do with supply, demand, or profitability. Arbitrarily creating new species and releasing them into the wild is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm repeating my previous comments, but think of all the times humans have introduced non-native species to a particular ecosystem with negative consequences. Now, we've got corporations concocting new species in laboratories and unleashing them on the world??? The sky may not be falling yet, but we're definitely undermining its structural integrity.
"There's no such thing are non-GMO. Unless you're a creationist that doesn't believe in DNA and evolution don't spout such nonsense."
"Genetically Modified" has nothing to do with "Selective Breeding" or normal evolutionary processes. It involves combining the DNA of biologically incompatible species (or even partial strands of viral type DNA). It's absurd to believe that the resulting traits might naturally "evolve", and even if it were possible, it would certainly take thousands, if not millions of generations for it to occur. If Monsanto cross-pollinated some plants and produced a "Roundup Ready" species, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I believe in evolution, but I also know that it's a SLOW process, and that species in a particular ecosystem evolve in tandem to produce a delicate balance. There are countless examples of humans creating ecological problems simply by moving one species of plant or animal to a non-native ecosystem. Now, we've got companies like Monsanto producing these genetic freak species and releasing them into the environment? You don't have to be a creationist to imagine the potentially disastrous unintended consequences of such actions.
"taste" of monsanto's evilness? LOL
How about injecting dairy cows with chemical crap to maximize production, at the expense of the animal's health and resulting in milk that belongs in a "bio-hazard" container as opposed to a milk jug?
See "The Corporation": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225
Not to mention Monsanto using their muscle to prevent investigative journalists from actually reporting on the story. This company gives me the creeps.
A priest and a rabbi are walking down the street and they see some little kids playing frisbee in a park.
The priest says "Hey, let's go screw those little kids."
The rabbi says "Out of what, the frisbee?"
(You did say "ALL")
"It defines the term "rightwing extremist" on the second page . . ."
Including the section:
"those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority . . . and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
The idea of rejecting Federal authority in favor of state authority is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the highest law of the land. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is also explicitly included in The Constitution. How can people who advocate this viewpoint be "right wing extremists"? It's interesting that they've gone to this much trouble to figure out which particular political beliefs might be associated with terrorism. Notice that nobody in the government will ever suggest that terrorists could be motivated by our unconditional support of Israel or any other aspect of U.S. foreign policy. Those people just "hate our freedom".
The definition of "terrorism" and "terrorists" is a CRITICAL distinction because under the Bush doctrine, and facilitated by acts of Congress, anyone that the great emperor accuses of being a "Terrorist" can be incarcerated indefinitely without access to legal counsel, with no ability to challenge his/her detention in a court of law, and without any sort of due process.
"Unless you're planning or threatening to shoot people or blow up a federal building, I don't think you have to worry about this."
Oh, bullshit. I'm not planning to do any of the above, and this Orwellian report that associates violent extremism and acts of terrorism with political beliefs chills me to the bone. It seems like the Federal government is developing this adversarial relationship with the People, and that anyone who dares to oppose them in any way is a "terrorist". I'm a vocal advocate of shrinking the Federal government and getting them back within their Constitutional constraints. Obviously that would mean that they have fewer personnel, less funding, and less power. I guess that makes me a "threat" to them, even if my methods are entirely peaceful.
Look more like LSD arrays than LED arrays.
Cool stuff regardless.
"We do in fact need higher taxes in order to pay off the monstrous debt we're accumulating."
NO!!!! What we need to do is stop accumulating debt by getting renegade government spending under control!
"Only anti-Americans would still be wanting lower taxes given the huge crisis we're facing."
What happens when an anti-American comes into contact with a regular American? The so called "crisis" was manufactured by the Washington DC power brokers and their politically well connected friends. If we had the limited Federal government that The Constitution mandates, there would be no "crisis". The Federal government sucks the lifeblood out of the economy by taxing the honest hard working citizens. Then they turn around and use the money to fund imperialistic military crusades, line the pockets of the wealthy elites (bailouts, subsidies, no bid contracts, etc.) take a cut of the profits to pay the salaries and benefits of bureaucrats, and if we're lucky, maybe spend 20 cents on the dollar in actual services to the people who pay the bills.
Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be separate from the general fund. Take that off the table, and then tell me where the government is spending your tax dollars.
Foreign Wars
General military spending
Bailouts
Interest on the national debt
Welfare programs (non SS or Medicare)
Things like education, infrastructure spending, science and research funding, etc. barely make a dent.
If you feel like paying more taxes to fund U.S. imperialism, enrich the financial elites and well connected corporations and pay for welfare programs, the government is accepting donations.
"Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact."
Thanks for the contribution Judge Posner. I didn't know that you were a /. reader.
If your terminology imples that some of us would rather die than see our nation turn into a police state, then the U.S. Constitution IS a "suicide pact".
I'd be happy to have a discussion about what our laws governing electronic surveillance "should" be, but you are arguing an entirely different point. The reason you get down-modded is that you refuse to accept the fact that we are a nation of laws, and that the executive branch is not somehow above the law. If we simply accept the idea that the president, or some intelligence agency can operate OUTSIDE the scope of the law, and is not subject to any checks and balances from the legislative or judicial branches, the fight against government abuses is already lost. How do you "move on" and continue the "valid fight" against abuse of power if you are willing to accept the argument that the law doesn't apply? Are you going to propose a new law?
" . . .unless those who criticize warrantless wiretaps can enunciate a valid alternative . . ."
It's called the FISA court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
I can hardly believe we're actually talking about "warrantless wiretaps" and someone isn't already under arrest and facing charges. The original FISA law granted fairly broad powers to law enforcement for eavesdropping in matters related to national security, but it also makes it a CRIME to conduct "warrantless wiretapping" and also subjects the spies to civil liabilities.
I don't follow your "transparency" and "review" argument at all. The whole point of this law is that some investigations related to national security require secrecy, and therefore there is a need to bypass the traditional court system. As far as "review", what are we supposed to review if there is no legal procedure? Isn't "review" exactly what the executive branch is preventing us from doing by refusing to disclose the details?
It is not a "privilege" of the government to conduct warrantless eavesdropping, and our civil liberties are not subject to sacrifice based on technological advances. FISA already allows for "warrantless wiretapping" for an excessively long time period, so you argument about "getting a warrant before every snoop" doesn't hold water. You can argue the exact details, but the absolutely critical point of FISA is that at least someone has oversight of what the executive branch is doing.
I will absolutely maintain my "fundamentalist" position of No Warrant, No Tap.
"I don't know of any moves afoot to restrict gun rights."
If you actually care to learn, check out HR45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
"Is slashdot considered Science Fiction?"
Only the comments on stories in the "Science" section.
"What Dave Bowman should have said was "My God, it's full of galaxies!""
Yeah, OK.
His on-board computer has just killed all the other members of the human crew on his mission. He's all by himself hundreds of millions of miles from earth realizing that he can't possibly survive the journey back. He's about to land his spacecraft on an object of alien origin that's about the size of a skyscraper . . . suddenly the surface falls away, he's looking down an infinite corridor that defies perspective and he begins accelerating with a force of a million gravities. He manages to blurt out one short sentence, and you're bashing the guy because he wasn't 100% technically accurate in his terminology????
Glad you're not my boss.