It's funny, WidescreenFreak, how you can be so opposed to my viewpoint, and yet somehow fail to address my post directly. What's the matter? Afraid I'll reply?
And before you think I'm trolling
Too late.
look throughout his posting history.
I could say the same for you, sunshine. Thumbing through your posting history reveals quite a bit of vitriol...the main difference seems to be yours is poorly focused.
He has a clear hatred for both of them [Fox News or the Bush Adminsitration [sic]].
Guilty as charged. I do hate them. I harbor a deep resentment for people who abuse positions of authority and trust to further their own selfish ends. I loathe and abhor liars, murderers, and thieves. It sickens me how these people have managed to dismantle what was once, unarguably, the greatest country on the planet, until it became the hollow joke it is now. And it infuriates me to know that this dismantlement is continuing and accelerating, while its once proud citizens look on in doe-eyed confusion. Yes, I hate them. I hate them for doing what no foreign power ever could have. I hate them for destroying our very way of life. Above all, I hate them because as a result of their actions, our children will inherit an America that is horribly diminished...an America that they cannot be proud of.
(Sorry...that may have run a bit long...I'll try to keep it to "30 seconds of hate" in the future.)
My argument was that there are two (or more) sides to every story and I posted a couple different sides to one particular story.
Sorry, but no. I've taken the liberty of thumbing through your posting history, and I don't see any evidence of the 'fair and balanced' posting you're claiming as an explanation here. My explanation of haste coupled with incompetence is still by far the most likely one.
As to the prez, what do you do when you have the responsibility of a country dropped in your lap, 3000 of your civilians just died in a terrorist attack, you have world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you, and several people, both on your side and the other, that say there is nothing to worry about. What do you do?
That passage is proof positive that your have either:
not have actually read the Downing Street memo,
didn't actually comprehend what you read,
- or -
read and comprehended it, but are wilfully disregarding it due to ulterior motives.
It doesn't really matter which...the fact remains that Dubya & Company distorted the facts to justify the war. Your argument about 'world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you', even if it held water, is still entirely beside the point.
BTW, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll for this.
Most probably, as there is no 'poisonous lie' mod.
It's what you learn to expect from modders who are so worried about protecting their own liberty that they will gladly trample mine.
Now you sound like WidescreenFreak. The AC who replied to his post had it right on the money: "mods != censorship", and it is most certainly not 'trampling your liberty', for Chrissake.
I doubt it. If you had, you would have known better than to post the pernicious nonsense you posted in your original comment.
Have your read any of these?
Actually, I have. Here's a couple debate tips for you, sparky:
Posting three seperate links to the same story does not make them three seperate arguments.
When posting links to a story supporting your position, make sure you read what you're linking to, to be sure it actually supports you.
Looks like in your haste to shout down the Downing Street Memo point, you grabbed the first three Google matches to 'Putin warned Iraq'. Too bad that the third match effectively demolishes your argument...I've taken the liberty of posting the text here:
President Putin really stunned the world, and especially the State Department, when he recently stated that Russian intelligence had warned Bush before the war that Saddam had oodles of terrorists in Iraq just waiting in the wings to attack America and the world. Apparently, his own government was unaware of this terrorist crisis as evidenced in this news story of 3/21/03, the day after the war started:
Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said he was astonished by a U.S. request to freeze Iraqi bank assets. "Under our legislation, we can freeze accounts if they are used to finance terrorism or money laundering activities," Kudrin said. "As far as I am aware, there are no facts linking Saddam Hussein's accounts in Russia to such activities."
And a year later on 2/27/04, in this news story from Pravda, Putin states that Iraq "...is a new territory to them [terrorists]." Doesn't that seem to mean that the terrorists weren't in Iraq before the war?
"Terrorists are 'exploring' Iraq, which is a new territory to them," President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with students in Krasnoyarsk on Friday. "This is a very dangerous process, the longer it will take place, the more dangerous it will be," said the president. Mr Putin reiterated his position to the effect that the military campaign against Iraq had not been justified. "It was a mistake. There was no need for the military operation, and subsequent events proved that," said President Putin.
From this, it's painfully obvious what's going on: Putin sees the writing on the wall, and is angling to find favor in Emperor George's eyes.
do we have a God-given right to private conversations? And the answer is clearly no.
How do I come to that conclusion? Simple: ask any representative sample of Americans who believe in God (a prerequisite for believing in God-given anything), and I bet you anything that nearly all of them will tell you that God listens in on all their private conversations, and indeed on all their most secret thoughts, and that this is right and proper. Ergo, God does not recognise any right to privacy, QED.:P
Your argument allocates the power and privilege of God to the State. While I'm sure Dubya would accept and even applaud this argument, most actual believers would find this troubling.
I trust God with my innermost secrets because, to date, He has not abused this trust. The same cannot be said of the State.
But seriously, If you must stick to Windows, the only way to insure your safety is to make an image of your clean system, and periodically restore from that. I used to remove malware from systems for a living, and unless the infection was trivial, the solution was always back up the data and reinstall the OS and apps fresh. It's amusing that Ballmer and his boys had so much trouble with that malware-laden system, but it's not terribly surprising. What is surprising is that Ballmer and his boys actually tried...knowing what they know, they must have known they were on a fool's errand...
It should be clear to everyone by now that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of its citizens. Pushing for stricter controls at the governmental level is futile, since the Powers That Be have absolutely no qualms about sidestepping any troublesome rules and regulations that stand between them and their agenda.
The only way for citizens to reclaim their privacy is at the citizen level. The only solution is to start encrypting all data and communications as a matter of course. If every communication is encrypted, the government will not be able to make the argument that 'if you're encrypting, you obviously have something to hide'.
If we want privacy, crypto is the only way to have it in this day and age. If we want crypto to remain legal for citizens, we have to start excercising our right to encryption now, before it is stolen from us. If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will use crypto.
You can rail against the PROC-friendly attitude of Yahoo! (and others) all you like, but the company simply isn't going to care until you hit them where it hurts...in the pocketbook.
Kudos to the National Union of Journalists for putting their beliefs into action, but will this blow to the pocketbook be enough, or is Yahoo! even going to notice?
You misunderstand me. I was in no way implying that immigrants should be chipped...what I was trying to illustrate was that the process of chipping the general population would be eased considerably if smaller segments of the population were first targeted, making the transition more gradual. Immigrants provide an easy target for this becaue they are not citizens, and thus the majority of the citizenry care less about them then they do about themselves. Once the immigrants are chipped, focus will shift to another facet of society, such as convicted felons. Compelling arguments will be made for chipping, and that segment will then be chipped. And so on, and so on, until a large percentage of the population will be chipped. Since the segments that are being chipped will be precisely the ones who have much to gain by remaining anonymous, they will continually work to defeat the technology, by digging out the chips. The government will then address this problem by mandating that everyone be chipped, and making failure to have a chip illegal.
Microsoft Corp. said it expected Adobe Systems Inc. to file an antitrust suit in Europe after talks to use Adobe's technology broke down this week, according to the Wall Street Journal.
It's entirely reasonable for Microsoft to 'expect' a suit without Adobe having expressly issued a threat of said suit. This is why the article summary is misleading.
Your argument is nothing more than straw man flamebait, but it's late Friday afternoon, and I'm bored, so sure...I'll play:
Given that it's much easier to just shoot detractors than hold an electio
There's the flaw in your argument. It's much easier to hold a rigged election then it is to shoot detractors.
Disinformation is far easier and works far more effectively than brute force in oppressing populations. If you don't agree with this, just watch Fox and Friends for a little while.
First of all, why are you comparing an unobtrusive RFID chip with a 'tattoo on your forehead'? That's a specious comparison.
Second, what makes you think the government is going to care about how big the 'leap' from an RFID-equipped passport to the same information on an RFID chip seems to you? For one thing, this is currently being discussed for immigrants, not citizens. Second, it's voluntary. You don't want to get chipped, you don't have to...and you don't have to work in our country, either. When it comes for citizens, it will be equally voluntary, but getting along without an RFID chip will become increasingly difficult, just as it's nearly impossible to function in society today without valid ID.
Yes, it is a 'slight leap', if you take the long view. But things like this are seldom done all at once...they are usually introduced by degrees. Give the populace long enough to get used to an idea, and you can sell them almost anything.
Not exactly, but it supports my assertion that the U.S. government is pursuing RFID technology for exactly these reasons. Embeded RFID chips will be more convenient, more difficult to lose, and more difficult to tamper with...given the demonstrated fact that the government is already pursuing RFID technology, and given the benefits of implantable RFID chips I outlined above, can you come up with a plausible reason they wouldn't pursue implantable RFID technology?
You don't have to get chipped, but no loyal, patriotic citizen would conceiveably refuse...ergo, if you refuse, you automatically make the 'short list' of terror suspects.
The 'short list' is only called that by comparison...everybody is on the 'long list'.
I fear that that's exactly the point they will be making. "Hey, we've been chipping immigrants for a while, and the program has yielded great benefits! The technology is proven, there's no reason we shouldn't have every U.S. citizen chipped!"
All entirely voluntary, of course...with the tacit understanding that anyone who refuses obviously has something to hide, and immediately becomes a 'terror suspect'...
...but this couldn't happen in the 'land of the free', right?
Before you go all "1984" on our asses, take a moment to stop and realize that this is the company that SELLS THE CHIPS making the proposal, NOT the government.
First they chipped the products,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was not a product. Then they chipped the livestock,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was not livestock. Then they chipped the house pets,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was not a house pet. Then they chipped the immigrants,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was not an immigrant. Then they chipped the felons,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was not a felon.
Then they chipped me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
They're asking this data be retained so that **IF A COURT ORDERED SUBPOENA IS ISSUED** the information will be available. Worried by that?
Given this administration's shocking contempt for the legal system thus far, yes, I am worried by that. They've collected enough data without having to resort to the 'headache' of due process through the courts...do we really need to make more available to them?
It's quite simple, really. Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine.
I'll ignore your reference to the Lovejoy gambit and proceed directly to your statement about terrorism. Have you read Patriot Act I and II? If you have, you'd know that the new definition of a 'domestic terrorism' is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law". You'd also know that anyone who fits this ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorism' can now be considred an 'enemy combatant' and stripped of their U.S. citizenship and rights. Under current legislation, a person could be legally held indefinitely without trial for something as innocuous as speeding.
If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.
In its current proposal, the department appears to be trying to determine whether Internet companies will voluntarily agree to keep certain information or if it will need to seek legislation to require them to do so.
Translation: Will we have to ram another law through Congress to make this happen, or can we achieve the same results through good old-fashioned coercion and intimidation? After all, if we have to pass a law, then we'll be constrained by the law's wording...but if we 'persuade' the Internet companies to retin this data for us 'voluntarily', then we can act without restraint or oversight...after all, it is 'voluntary'...
So tell me again....why do the Internet companies have to retain so much data?
From TFA (emphasis mine):
"The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers," Mr. Gonzales said in remarks at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va. "This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time," he said.
Ah yes...yet another shameless use of the 'Lovejoy Gambit'. If you oppose this data retention, you must hate children. You don't hate children, do you?
And once more from TFA:
An executive of one Internet provider that was represented at the first meeting said Mr. Gonzales began the discussion by showing slides of child pornography from the Internet. But later, one participant asked Mr. Mueller why he was interested in the Internet records. The executive said Mr. Mueller's reply was, "We want this for terrorism."
And we segue straight from the 'Lovejoy Gambit' to the '9/11 bloody shirt'. How relentlesly predictable.
Microsoft Corp. said it expected Adobe Systems Inc. to file an antitrust suit in Europe after talks to use Adobe's technology broke down this week, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Adobe hasn't 'threatened' anything. Nowhere in the story is the word 'threat' used.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny, WidescreenFreak, how you can be so opposed to my viewpoint, and yet somehow fail to address my post directly. What's the matter? Afraid I'll reply?
And before you think I'm trolling
Too late.
look throughout his posting history.
I could say the same for you, sunshine. Thumbing through your posting history reveals quite a bit of vitriol...the main difference seems to be yours is poorly focused.
He has a clear hatred for both of them [Fox News or the Bush Adminsitration [sic]].
Guilty as charged. I do hate them. I harbor a deep resentment for people who abuse positions of authority and trust to further their own selfish ends. I loathe and abhor liars, murderers, and thieves. It sickens me how these people have managed to dismantle what was once, unarguably, the greatest country on the planet, until it became the hollow joke it is now. And it infuriates me to know that this dismantlement is continuing and accelerating, while its once proud citizens look on in doe-eyed confusion. Yes, I hate them. I hate them for doing what no foreign power ever could have. I hate them for destroying our very way of life. Above all, I hate them because as a result of their actions, our children will inherit an America that is horribly diminished...an America that they cannot be proud of.
(Sorry...that may have run a bit long...I'll try to keep it to "30 seconds of hate" in the future.)
q^_^p
My argument was that there are two (or more) sides to every story and I posted a couple different sides to one particular story.
Sorry, but no. I've taken the liberty of thumbing through your posting history, and I don't see any evidence of the 'fair and balanced' posting you're claiming as an explanation here. My explanation of haste coupled with incompetence is still by far the most likely one.
As to the prez, what do you do when you have the responsibility of a country dropped in your lap, 3000 of your civilians just died in a terrorist attack, you have world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you, and several people, both on your side and the other, that say there is nothing to worry about. What do you do?
That passage is proof positive that your have either:
- or -
It doesn't really matter which...the fact remains that Dubya & Company distorted the facts to justify the war. Your argument about 'world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you', even if it held water, is still entirely beside the point.
BTW, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll for this.
Most probably, as there is no 'poisonous lie' mod.
It's what you learn to expect from modders who are so worried about protecting their own liberty that they will gladly trample mine.
Now you sound like WidescreenFreak. The AC who replied to his post had it right on the money: "mods != censorship", and it is most certainly not 'trampling your liberty', for Chrissake.
I have read the downing street memo.
I doubt it. If you had, you would have known better than to post the pernicious nonsense you posted in your original comment.
Have your read any of these?
Actually, I have. Here's a couple debate tips for you, sparky:
Looks like in your haste to shout down the Downing Street Memo point, you grabbed the first three Google matches to 'Putin warned Iraq'. Too bad that the third match effectively demolishes your argument...I've taken the liberty of posting the text here:
From this, it's painfully obvious what's going on: Putin sees the writing on the wall, and is angling to find favor in Emperor George's eyes.
do we have a God-given right to private conversations? And the answer is clearly no.
How do I come to that conclusion? Simple: ask any representative sample of Americans who believe in God (a prerequisite for believing in God-given anything), and I bet you anything that nearly all of them will tell you that God listens in on all their private conversations, and indeed on all their most secret thoughts, and that this is right and proper. Ergo, God does not recognise any right to privacy, QED.
Your argument allocates the power and privilege of God to the State. While I'm sure Dubya would accept and even applaud this argument, most actual believers would find this troubling.
I trust God with my innermost secrets because, to date, He has not abused this trust. The same cannot be said of the State.
Bush didn't lie, no matter how many times you say it. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had available.
Sounds like someone needs to educate themselves.
But seriously, If you must stick to Windows, the only way to insure your safety is to make an image of your clean system, and periodically restore from that. I used to remove malware from systems for a living, and unless the infection was trivial, the solution was always back up the data and reinstall the OS and apps fresh. It's amusing that Ballmer and his boys had so much trouble with that malware-laden system, but it's not terribly surprising. What is surprising is that Ballmer and his boys actually tried...knowing what they know, they must have known they were on a fool's errand...
They're in desparate need for a ministry responsible for PR, perhaps a Ministry of Propaganda?
They already have that.
It should be clear to everyone by now that the government cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of its citizens. Pushing for stricter controls at the governmental level is futile, since the Powers That Be have absolutely no qualms about sidestepping any troublesome rules and regulations that stand between them and their agenda.
The only way for citizens to reclaim their privacy is at the citizen level. The only solution is to start encrypting all data and communications as a matter of course. If every communication is encrypted, the government will not be able to make the argument that 'if you're encrypting, you obviously have something to hide'.
If we want privacy, crypto is the only way to have it in this day and age. If we want crypto to remain legal for citizens, we have to start excercising our right to encryption now, before it is stolen from us. If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will use crypto.
You can rail against the PROC-friendly attitude of Yahoo! (and others) all you like, but the company simply isn't going to care until you hit them where it hurts...in the pocketbook.
Kudos to the National Union of Journalists for putting their beliefs into action, but will this blow to the pocketbook be enough, or is Yahoo! even going to notice?
You misunderstand me. I was in no way implying that immigrants should be chipped...what I was trying to illustrate was that the process of chipping the general population would be eased considerably if smaller segments of the population were first targeted, making the transition more gradual. Immigrants provide an easy target for this becaue they are not citizens, and thus the majority of the citizenry care less about them then they do about themselves. Once the immigrants are chipped, focus will shift to another facet of society, such as convicted felons. Compelling arguments will be made for chipping, and that segment will then be chipped. And so on, and so on, until a large percentage of the population will be chipped. Since the segments that are being chipped will be precisely the ones who have much to gain by remaining anonymous, they will continually work to defeat the technology, by digging out the chips. The government will then address this problem by mandating that everyone be chipped, and making failure to have a chip illegal.
Voila. Welcome to the Brave New World.
http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2006-05-27_22553687
Again, from TFA: It's entirely reasonable for Microsoft to 'expect' a suit without Adobe having expressly issued a threat of said suit. This is why the article summary is misleading.
Much more detail about this phenomenon can be found here and here.
Your argument is nothing more than straw man flamebait, but it's late Friday afternoon, and I'm bored, so sure...I'll play:
Given that it's much easier to just shoot detractors than hold an electio
There's the flaw in your argument. It's much easier to hold a rigged election then it is to shoot detractors.
Disinformation is far easier and works far more effectively than brute force in oppressing populations. If you don't agree with this, just watch Fox and Friends for a little while.
Two problems:
Yes, it is a 'slight leap', if you take the long view. But things like this are seldom done all at once...they are usually introduced by degrees. Give the populace long enough to get used to an idea, and you can sell them almost anything.
Not exactly, but it supports my assertion that the U.S. government is pursuing RFID technology for exactly these reasons. Embeded RFID chips will be more convenient, more difficult to lose, and more difficult to tamper with...given the demonstrated fact that the government is already pursuing RFID technology, and given the benefits of implantable RFID chips I outlined above, can you come up with a plausible reason they wouldn't pursue implantable RFID technology?
You don't have to get chipped, but no loyal, patriotic citizen would conceiveably refuse...ergo, if you refuse, you automatically make the 'short list' of terror suspects.
The 'short list' is only called that by comparison...everybody is on the 'long list'.
I fear that that's exactly the point they will be making. "Hey, we've been chipping immigrants for a while, and the program has yielded great benefits! The technology is proven, there's no reason we shouldn't have every U.S. citizen chipped!"
All entirely voluntary, of course...with the tacit understanding that anyone who refuses obviously has something to hide, and immediately becomes a 'terror suspect'...
Before you go all "1984" on our asses, take a moment to stop and realize that this is the company that SELLS THE CHIPS making the proposal, NOT the government.
Are you sure about that?
Obviously MS expects a lawsuit because Adobe threatened them with one.
That is not at all obvious. That is jumping to conclusions.
I can't imagine any sort of legal suit that don't involve threats of some sort, can you?
As suit has not yet been filed, you're putting the cart before the horse.
(BTW, I like your
They're asking this data be retained so that **IF A COURT ORDERED SUBPOENA IS ISSUED** the information will be available. Worried by that?
Given this administration's shocking contempt for the legal system thus far, yes, I am worried by that. They've collected enough data without having to resort to the 'headache' of due process through the courts...do we really need to make more available to them?
It's quite simple, really. Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine.
I'll ignore your reference to the Lovejoy gambit and proceed directly to your statement about terrorism. Have you read Patriot Act I and II? If you have, you'd know that the new definition of a 'domestic terrorism' is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law". You'd also know that anyone who fits this ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorism' can now be considred an 'enemy combatant' and stripped of their U.S. citizenship and rights. Under current legislation, a person could be legally held indefinitely without trial for something as innocuous as speeding.
If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.
In that, you're absolutely correct.
So tell me again....why do the Internet companies have to retain so much data?
From TFA (emphasis mine): Ah yes...yet another shameless use of the 'Lovejoy Gambit'. If you oppose this data retention, you must hate children. You don't hate children, do you?
And once more from TFA: And we segue straight from the 'Lovejoy Gambit' to the '9/11 bloody shirt'. How relentlesly predictable.
From TFA (emphasis mine): Adobe hasn't 'threatened' anything. Nowhere in the story is the word 'threat' used.
I believe you misspelled 'teh intarweb'.