It takes a certain kind of naivete to think that paper ballots can't be tampered with any more easily than electronic ballots. Elections have been manipulated at the local level countless times in the past; such legislation is just another excuse to push an anti-corporate agenda under the guise of democracy.
In other words, he's a lawyer. Presumably, his job was to either keep them from getting sued, at which he failed, or sue anyone who libels them, which seems to have succeeded. At least Homeland Security has Sovereign Immunity to fall back on.
"Unless the PC was his before the marraige, the whole PC is 'theirs' and she can install whatever she wants on it."
So presumably, if the telephone is "theirs" instead of his, she can also freely record all his phone conversations, since it would be "her" phone, too.
Why exactly would I be responsible for "murder and environmental polution"? I am neither an offending corporation nor a head of state. You, however, are an ass.
Global Warming is a theory. F=MA is a law. There is hardly universal agreement about Global Warming, while few dispute Newton's Laws (bad example, but you opened that linguistic can of worms). I attribute your unfamiliarity with dissenting opinions to your own ignorance, not mine.
I accept climate change; I don't particularly like "polution", preferring clean air for respiratory purposes. I am unsure whether climate change is due to documented cyclical phenomena or human activity. It certainly merits further research, but the implementation of luddite policy is a bit hasty IMO. You are not going to convince anyone with ad hominem attacks and the insinuation that "CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change" is so obvious as to be beneath debate.
I am a chemist (if you were a bit cleverer, you'd have picked up on my pseudonym). Please do not tell me what scientists think, know, or postulate. I read the literature.
Without the US, Australia, China and India, Kyoto is a joke. It's just a way to "enrich" the developing world--while preventing them from developing native industry--at the expense of industrialized nations, while accomplishing little in terms of reducing actual emissions of CO2.
FWIW, the back-and-forth manner in which my original comment has been modded seems to indicate that not everyone disagrees with me;)
India, China, and Brazil aren't involved in Kyoto. Together, they make up a rather nontrivial fraction of the world's population, with the former two beginning to industrialize heavily. This treaty is, has been, and will continue to be a joke.
How exactly does being a "journalist" allow one to legally be an accessory after-the-fact to the commission of a crime?
"Doing their job" in this case involves possessing knowledge of a crime committed by a specific individual, and willful failure to cooperate in the investigation of said crime. This sort of treatment of journalists is not unprecedented.
Bad example of a Democratic Revolution. They went from Monarchy to Dictatorship in about 8 years, unless you meant to imply that they're *still* fighting for democracy.
You're nearly right, as the US merely took the next logical step in the British tradition of representative democracy. But you can't look at the US if a vacuum and ignore the changes in the British Empire that preceded 1776.
*some* Republicans want "'less' government". Nixon was a big-government Republican; Reagan wasn't. No matter how much you may wish it to be so, the Republican party does not consist entirely of White Male Southern Christian Fundamentalists who think the same way any more than the Democrats are all stark raving lunatics like Howard Dean.
You can't accurately make a generalization about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. If the discussion were about African-Americans instead of Republicans, you'd have been called racist by now. Instead you're just being called a moron.
The failure of the search for WMD could just as easily have shown that spending a year talking about an invasion to get rid of WMD gave Mr. Hussein ample time to conceal or move whatever WMD he had. It also served the wonderful purpose of ruining all strategic surprise and allowing the Baathists time enough to plan an "insurgency."
Sanctions did nothing more than starve the people of Iraq and enrich Hussein's regime under the corrupt oil-for-food program.
The continuation of hostilities in Iraq merely demonstrated that the US has the will to finish what she started. Libya also got the message; Qadaffi abandoned his infant nuclear program
and FYI, WMD = Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction. Therefore, WMDs = Weapon(s) of Mass Destructions.
And FWIW, the only way to be secure against invasion by ANYONE is to develop WMD (cf. Israel, who is unlikely concerned that the US might invade).
"Untrue. FISA allowed searches to be authorized by a secret court. That court would routinely mark up warrant requests if they felt they were excessive and out of line."
No warrantless searches under FISA? Then why the introduction of a bill in 1990 to end the practice of warrantless searches allowed by FISA? What have our poor, misguided Congrefsmen been doing? Someone really must have pulled the wool over their eyes!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/con gr ess/1990_cr/h900912-search.htm http://www.fas.org /irp/congress/1990_cr/h901017-ia 1.htm
The difference between using the PATRIOT Act to catch drug traffickers instead of terrorists, IMNSHO, is no different than using, say, the RICO Act to catch financial reporters (cf. Foster Winans) instead of the "mafia". In both cases, bad people who break our laws end up in jail. What's the problem with that?
"Substantial parts of the PATRIOT act can be used without any kind of court order."
Warrentless searches are nothing new. FISA allowed them.
"The ACLU and EFF have pages up about the PATRIOT Act,"
Without even following those links, I'm gonna guess that neither the ACLU or the EFF likes the PATRIOT Act. It's almost like they're civil-liberties activist pressure groups!
"and clearly show how the effects are not limited to "terrorists"."
I never said PATRIOT was limited to terrorists, merely that RICO and FISA were inadequate and ill-suited for foreign terrorists not acting on behalf of a foreign government.
Re: Mr. Arar, I defy you to quote the provision of the PATRIOT Act allowing for kidnapping and extradition to Syria.
"Of course, you may feel that using the PATRIOT act against pot-smugglers is excessive"
Hardly. After all, the "Millenium Bomb Plot" was foiled by a customs agent looking for drugs!
"Don't think for a minute that the PATRIOT act is about actually catching criminals."
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's actually about taking powers the government already has (and which require court orders) under RICO and FISA, and allowing them to be used as investigative tools (again with court orders) against terrorists, instead of just gangsters and spies. In other words, catching criminals.
"Oh, and about the numbers of criminals that have been caught under this law?"
More importantly, can you give me the number of people whose civil liberties have *actually* been violated (N.B. not those who "felt" they were violated) under specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act?
"And your chosen definition runs counter to the accepted interpretation handed down by the Supreme Court. And since interpretation is their job....:-)"
We can argue this all day. The Supremes vote 9-0 rather infrequently, so I've a healthy number of dissents (and probably a fair number of majorities) to support my interpretation. If the meaning were clear, then they'd likely reach unanimous decisions more often. Unfortunately, those who wrote that line are long dead, so we'll never really get at their intent. But given the language and historical context, I still think I'm right. After all, the Supremes have other tools at their disposal to interpret what has been written, rather than trying to divine framers' intent.
I'm done with this argument, but I'll leave you with another, perhaps more useful, definition of "establishment" from the OED:
"2.c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church."
"1788 PRIESTLEY Lect. Hist. v. lvii. 449 'There is no place where there are more forms of religion openly professed, and without the establishment of any of them than Pennsylvania.'"
It certainly seems that way. Of course, I also got the wrong one for "establishment," since both 2c and 8a work better here, with appropriately dated citations.
Perhaps your usage of "establishment" is more common now. However, the OED is nice enough to give us definitions from a broad range of times, with appropriate literature for context. Let us go to entry 2:
2. esp. The 'establishing' by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) {dag}a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state.
And their excerpt of choice really does it:
1706-7 Act 5 Anne c. 5 Securing Ch. Eng., Acts of Parliament now in Force for the Establishment and Preservation of the Church of England.
The Constitution, and all of written law, consists of nothing but "grammatically awkward construction[s]".
Your definition of choice is refuted by Congress' ability to charter the construction of the (Episcopal) National Cathedral.
I have no doubt about the other potential consequences of that clause of the First Amendment. My interpretation of the language used leads me to my conclusion about the framers' intent; undoubtedly, the Supreme Court has interpreted it differently on occasion;) Then again, they also use social science to formulate decisions, but that can of worms is seriously OT.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes a certain kind of naivete to think that paper ballots can't be tampered with any more easily than electronic ballots. Elections have been manipulated at the local level countless times in the past; such legislation is just another excuse to push an anti-corporate agenda under the guise of democracy.
how, exactly, is the speed of light in a vacuum a physical artifact?
If you're referring to the 133Cs, it obviously decays with time, making it a rather poor physical artifact.
...this is an indication that those responsible for nuclear reactors have their act together to a greater extent than the media.
Exactly. That is why Mike Batt settled (on the order of 10^6) with the estate of John Cage instead of proving your point in court.
In other words, he's a lawyer. Presumably, his job was to either keep them from getting sued, at which he failed, or sue anyone who libels them, which seems to have succeeded. At least Homeland Security has Sovereign Immunity to fall back on.
"Unless the PC was his before the marraige, the whole PC is 'theirs' and she can install whatever she wants on it."
So presumably, if the telephone is "theirs" instead of his, she can also freely record all his phone conversations, since it would be "her" phone, too.
"...we'll continue to drive inefficient vehicles and burn coal for electrical power."
It's a shame that we never followed up on that whole "nuclear fission" thingy after WWII.
Wow.
;)
Why exactly would I be responsible for "murder and environmental polution"? I am neither an offending corporation nor a head of state. You, however, are an ass.
Global Warming is a theory. F=MA is a law. There is hardly universal agreement about Global Warming, while few dispute Newton's Laws (bad example, but you opened that linguistic can of worms). I attribute your unfamiliarity with dissenting opinions to your own ignorance, not mine.
I accept climate change; I don't particularly like "polution", preferring clean air for respiratory purposes. I am unsure whether climate change is due to documented cyclical phenomena or human activity. It certainly merits further research, but the implementation of luddite policy is a bit hasty IMO. You are not going to convince anyone with ad hominem attacks and the insinuation that "CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change" is so obvious as to be beneath debate.
I am a chemist (if you were a bit cleverer, you'd have picked up on my pseudonym). Please do not tell me what scientists think, know, or postulate. I read the literature.
Without the US, Australia, China and India, Kyoto is a joke. It's just a way to "enrich" the developing world--while preventing them from developing native industry--at the expense of industrialized nations, while accomplishing little in terms of reducing actual emissions of CO2.
FWIW, the back-and-forth manner in which my original comment has been modded seems to indicate that not everyone disagrees with me
Enough for now.
IIRC, WJC signed the protocol "back in the day."
The senate never ratified it.
So we blame Bush, right?
"The protocol looks like another UN scheme to redistribute wealth ... to me."
At least *somebody* gets it!
India, China, and Brazil aren't involved in Kyoto. Together, they make up a rather nontrivial fraction of the world's population, with the former two beginning to industrialize heavily. This treaty is, has been, and will continue to be a joke.
That would be the "USSA PATWRIOT" Act, which doesn't quite have the same cadence to it.
I've posted this earlier already, but you are also wrong, so it bears repeating:
Journalists *have* been prosecuted for failing to reveal sources when they have direct knowledge of said source having committed a crime.
How exactly does being a "journalist" allow one to legally be an accessory after-the-fact to the commission of a crime?
d -l eak.htmll /63148
"Doing their job" in this case involves possessing knowledge of a crime committed by a specific individual, and willful failure to cooperate in the investigation of said crime. This sort of treatment of journalists is not unprecedented.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/national/15cn
http://www.ifex.org/fr/content/view/ful
France?
Bad example of a Democratic Revolution. They went from Monarchy to Dictatorship in about 8 years, unless you meant to imply that they're *still* fighting for democracy.
You're nearly right, as the US merely took the next logical step in the British tradition of representative democracy. But you can't look at the US if a vacuum and ignore the changes in the British Empire that preceded 1776.
"In what way was the embaressing tale of Gannon related to open source journalism?"
Because the better example (Powerline/Rather) works in the "wrong" direction, politically!
*some* Republicans want "'less' government". Nixon was a big-government Republican; Reagan wasn't. No matter how much you may wish it to be so, the Republican party does not consist entirely of White Male Southern Christian Fundamentalists who think the same way any more than the Democrats are all stark raving lunatics like Howard Dean.
You can't accurately make a generalization about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. If the discussion were about African-Americans instead of Republicans, you'd have been called racist by now. Instead you're just being called a moron.
Moron!
The failure of the search for WMD could just as easily have shown that spending a year talking about an invasion to get rid of WMD gave Mr. Hussein ample time to conceal or move whatever WMD he had. It also served the wonderful purpose of ruining all strategic surprise and allowing the Baathists time enough to plan an "insurgency."
Sanctions did nothing more than starve the people of Iraq and enrich Hussein's regime under the corrupt oil-for-food program.
The continuation of hostilities in Iraq merely demonstrated that the US has the will to finish what she started. Libya also got the message; Qadaffi abandoned his infant nuclear program
and FYI, WMD = Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction. Therefore, WMDs = Weapon(s) of Mass Destructions.
And FWIW, the only way to be secure against invasion by ANYONE is to develop WMD (cf. Israel, who is unlikely concerned that the US might invade).
Edgar Varese is widely regarded as the father of electronic music, and is best known for Poème électronique (1957).
See (http://csunix1.lvc.edu/~snyder/em/varese.html) for more information.
"Untrue. FISA allowed searches to be authorized by a secret court. That court would routinely mark up warrant requests if they felt they were excessive and out of line."
n gr ess/1990_cr/h900912-search.htmg /irp/congress/1990_cr/h901017-ia 1.htm
No warrantless searches under FISA? Then why the introduction of a bill in 1990 to end the practice of warrantless searches allowed by FISA? What have our poor, misguided Congrefsmen been doing? Someone really must have pulled the wool over their eyes!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/co
http://www.fas.or
The difference between using the PATRIOT Act to catch drug traffickers instead of terrorists, IMNSHO, is no different than using, say, the RICO Act to catch financial reporters (cf. Foster Winans) instead of the "mafia". In both cases, bad people who break our laws end up in jail. What's the problem with that?
"Substantial parts of the PATRIOT act can be used without any kind of court order."
Warrentless searches are nothing new. FISA allowed them.
"The ACLU and EFF have pages up about the PATRIOT Act,"
Without even following those links, I'm gonna guess that neither the ACLU or the EFF likes the PATRIOT Act. It's almost like they're civil-liberties activist pressure groups!
"and clearly show how the effects are not limited to "terrorists"."
I never said PATRIOT was limited to terrorists, merely that RICO and FISA were inadequate and ill-suited for foreign terrorists not acting on behalf of a foreign government.
Re: Mr. Arar, I defy you to quote the provision of the PATRIOT Act allowing for kidnapping and extradition to Syria.
"Of course, you may feel that using the PATRIOT act against pot-smugglers is excessive"
Hardly. After all, the "Millenium Bomb Plot" was foiled by a customs agent looking for drugs!
"Don't think for a minute that the PATRIOT act is about actually catching criminals."
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's actually about taking powers the government already has (and which require court orders) under RICO and FISA, and allowing them to be used as investigative tools (again with court orders) against terrorists, instead of just gangsters and spies. In other words, catching criminals.
"Oh, and about the numbers of criminals that have been caught under this law?"
More importantly, can you give me the number of people whose civil liberties have *actually* been violated (N.B. not those who "felt" they were violated) under specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act?
"And your chosen definition runs counter to the accepted interpretation handed down by the Supreme Court. And since interpretation is their job.... :-)"
We can argue this all day. The Supremes vote 9-0 rather infrequently, so I've a healthy number of dissents (and probably a fair number of majorities) to support my interpretation. If the meaning were clear, then they'd likely reach unanimous decisions more often. Unfortunately, those who wrote that line are long dead, so we'll never really get at their intent. But given the language and historical context, I still think I'm right. After all, the Supremes have other tools at their disposal to interpret what has been written, rather than trying to divine framers' intent.
I'm done with this argument, but I'll leave you with another, perhaps more useful, definition of "establishment" from the OED:
"2.c. Now usually, the conferring on a particular religious body the position of a state church."
"1788 PRIESTLEY Lect. Hist. v. lvii. 449 'There is no place where there are more forms of religion openly professed, and without the establishment of any of them than Pennsylvania.'"
It certainly seems that way. Of course, I also got the wrong one for "establishment," since both 2c and 8a work better here, with appropriately dated citations.
Perhaps your usage of "establishment" is more common now. However, the OED is nice enough to give us definitions from a broad range of times, with appropriate literature for context. Let us go to entry 2:
;) Then again, they also use social science to formulate decisions, but that can of worms is seriously OT.
2. esp. The 'establishing' by law (a church, religion, form of worship). (See ESTABLISH v. 7.) {dag}a. In early use, the settling or ordering in a particular manner, the regulating and upholding of the constitution and ordinances of the church recognized by the state.
And their excerpt of choice really does it:
1706-7 Act 5 Anne c. 5 Securing Ch. Eng., Acts of Parliament now in Force for the Establishment and Preservation of the Church of England.
The Constitution, and all of written law, consists of nothing but "grammatically awkward construction[s]".
Your definition of choice is refuted by Congress' ability to charter the construction of the (Episcopal) National Cathedral.
I have no doubt about the other potential consequences of that clause of the First Amendment. My interpretation of the language used leads me to my conclusion about the framers' intent; undoubtedly, the Supreme Court has interpreted it differently on occasion