"We have only Bush's word that all of these warrant-less taps involved foreign intelligence."
The Bush administration didn't break the story, the NY Times did. You have the words of whoever leaked the story which, in spite of what the author may claim, is probably a source on the intelligence committee, more likely than not a member of congress from the other side of the aisle.
"There can be only one reason why Bush would not get the warrants - because he did not think they would be approved."
Speculative, simplistic, and doubtful. As is often publicized, the FISA court has only denied one request - there should've been little fear that the taps would've been shut down by a FISA court. Could there have been other reasons involved? A desire to keep the taps as quiet as possible, fears the court had been compromised, a desire to limit those who knew about them? I don't know and neither do you - it's speculation at this point. I would certainly like to see an investigation of this, however.
"Why did Bush think these taps would not be approved? Because some of them involved only US citizens. That's right, some of these taps were of US citizens talking to other US citizens and so would have been completely illegal."
Sorry, wrong again. The use of wiretaps against U.S. citizens suspected of espionage or other illegal activities is hardly rare or illegal. The question at hand is one of the procedure used to get these wiretaps, not the taps themselves. There is also the matter of who was running them.
"That means that they are impeachable offenses."
Good luck. Perhaps this is the dream of a fringe on the democratic party, but good luck getting there. Bush may not have the highest approval ratings in the land, but as a political reality, people still do strongly support the "war on terror" (take a look at support for torture - if a majority supports the use of torture in some cases such as a "ticking time bomb" scenario, how many do you think will at least lend some support to the use of wiretaps against suspected terrorists?).
Oddly, you failed to actually respond to my comment made to the original post. Perhaps you'd like to do that instead?
terrorist adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)
You argue that the present government consists of terrorists. Perhaps - although as someone who has at least some background in security studies, I'd disagree.
You define terrorism in the broadest sense, essentially as those who "manipulate Americans' fear and terror of 'terrorist activity'...," in the government's case to "to undermine the freedoms of its very own citizens."
Let's turn that on its head:
How about all of the media reports that have blown this issue out of proportion or been - to varying degrees - sensationalist or exclude details? There's no doubt that this is a major event, but look at some of the posts you see here on Slashdot: claims that we're all under constant electronic surveillance, that 1% of phone calls are under surveillance, that thugs will soon be at our doors, etc. It's ridiculous, sensationalist, nonsense that exists simply to manipulate our fear and terror of a government that has not done any such thing. Media exists for it and, frankly, posts like yours exist for it as well. Should we label you a terrorist for attempting to manipulate peoples' fear of a huge government conspiracy that doesn't exist?
Look at the original NY Times article - 500 people at any one time, and the numbers are between 5,000 and 7,000 total if memory serves. Has this affected me in any way, shape, or form? Was I under surveillance? Only for the few international phone calls I made while outside of the country this year. Were YOU under surveillance? It's doubtful, unless you've left the country or made international phone calls. And this is only one simple case - how many media reports a day make us think we're in sudden danger of becoming citizens in an Orwellian state, victims of identity theft, sudden death from a prescription, or what have you?
So, please, before you start accusing everyone of terrorism under a certain definition, wake up and smell the roses.
After complaining about poor Apple software and lauding great third-party alternatives, the interviewer asks Woz for an example of this third party software. Woz's Response:
I couldn't give you an example. It happens just all the time. Over and over and over.
In other words, I, uh, don't really have one. But the Apple of today sucks, yo! *Returns to vigorously typing e-mails on his Lisa*
Nah, this guy isn't interested in Nazis! He's just a Mister Ed Fan! Or better yet, he's celebrating the birth of the 8 hour workday and minimum wage!. Or, how about the death of Sonny Bono? It was certainly a tragic event, but it did have an upside - no Sonny and Cher reunions, EVER. For some people, that just might be cause to celebrate.
As someone whose mom loved that music and played it constantly during his childhood... I must confesss. I am one of those people.
But... I... uh... didn't write the virus... nope... not me!
This reminds me of a guy I knew once who kept an opera CD in his far-too-tricked-out-for-an-old-man car stereo. Only he optimized his stereo for treble rather than bass.
Everytime a low-rider came next to his car at a stop light thumping away, he opened his windows and cranked some good ol' Italian opera out to screw with them. He told me he never could quite drown them out, but quite a few did turn down their stereos to try and figure out what the crazy old man next to them was doing...
Check google news for Ralph Yarro or his proposed CP80. Guess how many times his name shows up - once. In this article.
I'm living in Utah - Utah county, where this guy is from - right now and I've never heard of this guy.
The article says he's spent the last 3 months in D.C., but the Google News search doesn't show his name even once during his time in D.C.
Ooooh... he's made presentations to Utah representatives and senators! Wow! People from his own state listened to him for 5 minutes, amazing! Some even gave him a quick quote, supposedly! I could probably do the same thing with minimal effort.
A poster above me said this isn't even worthy of the 9th page in a high school newspaper. I agree. Then again, Deseret News is quite similar to a high school newspaper, so it's probably well placed.
Wow! I knew Bush could create hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and earthquakes, but until now I was entirely unaware that he could, almost single-handedly, cause "intergalactic" war! YEEE HAW TEXAS POWER!
It's probably because he's trying to protect all the oil on the moon... Cheney's got some Halliburton contracts to tap the reserves up there.
Bush should demand the Canadians immediately surrender all of their oil supplies, or we'll start a war with a bunch of maple-leaf bearing red and white space missiles aimed at incoming flying saucers. That'll teach 'em a lesson.
(Note - Given previous treatment from mods, I feel compelled to say that the above is not a flame or troll post. I actually voted for Bush... and, for those that consider voting for him a flame or troll then, uh... I kinda regret it in a way? How's that for covering my bases?)
The big problem here is that paper ballots can still be tampered with - ballot box stuffing, throwing out opposing ballots, even changing ballots. It's possible.
Maybe if there was some sort of (excuse the buzz word here) biometric way of tracking a vote? Paper ballots with a thumbprint? Well... that does make the whole "secret ballot" thing problematic... and everyone's finger prints would then have to be on file to vote, which probably wouldn't fly either... most polling places don't even require a picture ID as far as I know.
Maybe we should drop the idea of a secret ballot? I'm not saying we should make it a matter of public record or anything, but allow votes to be tied to names specifically. Or is that already done?
Sorry, I'll admit I'm quite ignorant about voting procedures (don't mod me down for it - please correct my ignorance), but developing a truly functional and verifiable means of voting seems nearly impossible while votes records are secret.
Frequently, professors in my classes forget minor details (what an acronmyn stands for, a specific date, etc.) and ask students to Google it for them.
One of my professors usually responds to the correction by putting on his best Scooby-Do villan impression and says, "and I would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids with Google!"
That said, it can certainly be a distraction, but it's really a matter of self-control.
I work for a university and supervise multiple public computer labs for students.
One of our employees decided it would be a brilliant idea to install a key logger on a handful of our computers. Our security software would have easily detcted/prevented the installation, but this employee had administrator passwords, allowing him to bypass the security software (since then, passwords have been restricted, which leads to massive inefficiency but higher security). He quietly disabled the security - especially anti-virus - software on these computers and let the program do its work.
The key logger was discovered approximately 6 weeks later when an icon for it randomly popped up on the desktop (I do not know the name of the key-logger software). A patron reported the strange icon, and the lab assistant reported it to management.
All 600 people who had used these computers in the last 6 weeks were notified almost immediately of the breach and instructed to change all their passwords and monitor their credit reports for suspicious activity. A lengthy FBI investigation began, and finally one employee was singled out. Luckily, there is no evidence he used any of the information he had gleaned from these computers.
This employee faced jail time, but ended up accepting a plea bargain for 5 years probation and a $5,000 fine. He has since fled the country.
Moral of the story - these things are quite serious when installed on the right computer, and those that install them in person could receive jail time. Now, even one hint of a key logger appearing on a computer in the labs is enough to drag in all of our technical staff at any hour to heavily investigate and reimage all nearby computers. We'd rather not have to go through any more investigations with the FBI.
"Islamist" as discussed above was the definition I was using. The term "Islamist" does not refer to Muslims as a whole and, to be honest, it's hard to fit a small but diverse group into a one-word term.
Infidel (noun) - a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
It's a frequently used word which comes from French. The usage is correct.
As far as the Irish, why on earth would I mention them in a post about ISRAEL. Perhaps you're not up to date on world events, but the IRA has not been attacking Israeli settlements, Islamists have.
Before you post meaningless, off-topic nonsense on slashdot, you may want to give it some thought.
1) Cause billions of dollars of damage in less than an hour's time and shut down an entire industry for days.
2) Generally result from malicious intent from people who have declared they will not be happy until millions of Americans are dead
3) Paralyze an entire nation's ability to move people and goods
4) Happen as the result of an accident
Also, please provide a source for your 400,000 dead in past four years statistic. Statistics I've found from 1998 say around 49,000 died in North America from car accidents that year. Sounds like you're pulling your numbers out of thin air.
For a time, the massive bunker's only inhabitant was Margaret Thatcher's previously unknown geek son, who wasted away his days coding, playing D&D with his online friends, and playing scrabble against himself while sheepishly avoiding the opposite sex.
He is noted to have posted on many USENET boards, "oh yeah? Well you should see MY mom's basement, where I live. It's soooo much cooler than yours."
Many of these posts exhibit the biggest problem with the "pro-science" movement in the US - it's condecending, rude, and fails to have any understanding of the opposing point of view. Please note that the same problems exist on the "anti-science" side as well, but that is no excuse and it will not help get your point across.
Calling people idiots, backwards, rednecks, etc. for their beliefs WILL NOT HELP YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT OR THE WAR. Neither will calling their beliefs "fairy tales", calling their leaders names, or mocking them in any other way. What does this do? It galvanizes this group, it does not marginalize it. It's made it grow and become more daring rather than made it shrink and become docile. DON'T DO IT. How often do these same people say that Bush is doing the same thing with Iraqi insurgents or the Muslim world in general? Can't you see that it won't help in this either?
I'll be open - I'm religious myself. But I believe in evolution. I see no contradiction between my religion and evolutionism, much as I use other gifts of modern science such as, well... computers, medicine, and others. I still hold strong beliefs on abortion, I'm ambivalent about embryonic stem cell research (entirely undecided, but leaning towards an "I don't really care" or "yes"). I think there's room for open classroom discussion in public schools on this and other controversial issues - let's avoid the censorship, it's OK to solicit student opinions on the matter - but the science teacher should ultimately teach what is widely accepted scientific theory - evolution exists. It is a science class after all.
I hope I'm not alone in these beliefs, and I hope those who are pro-science oriented will at least try to be polite to those they disagree with. If you're polite with them, the problem will likely subside and they will be marginalized. If you continue to treat them rudely and deride their opinions, it will come back to haunt you.
For example, Michael Moore isn't winning any votes for the Democratic party. He's just preaching to the choir and getting rich off of it while angering his opponents and, ultimately, contributing to failures for the Democrats at the ballot box. Don't do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"We have only Bush's word that all of these warrant-less taps involved foreign intelligence."
The Bush administration didn't break the story, the NY Times did. You have the words of whoever leaked the story which, in spite of what the author may claim, is probably a source on the intelligence committee, more likely than not a member of congress from the other side of the aisle.
"There can be only one reason why Bush would not get the warrants - because he did not think they would be approved."
Speculative, simplistic, and doubtful. As is often publicized, the FISA court has only denied one request - there should've been little fear that the taps would've been shut down by a FISA court. Could there have been other reasons involved? A desire to keep the taps as quiet as possible, fears the court had been compromised, a desire to limit those who knew about them? I don't know and neither do you - it's speculation at this point. I would certainly like to see an investigation of this, however.
"Why did Bush think these taps would not be approved? Because some of them involved only US citizens. That's right, some of these taps were of US citizens talking to other US citizens and so would have been completely illegal."
Sorry, wrong again. The use of wiretaps against U.S. citizens suspected of espionage or other illegal activities is hardly rare or illegal. The question at hand is one of the procedure used to get these wiretaps, not the taps themselves. There is also the matter of who was running them.
"That means that they are impeachable offenses."
Good luck. Perhaps this is the dream of a fringe on the democratic party, but good luck getting there. Bush may not have the highest approval ratings in the land, but as a political reality, people still do strongly support the "war on terror" (take a look at support for torture - if a majority supports the use of torture in some cases such as a "ticking time bomb" scenario, how many do you think will at least lend some support to the use of wiretaps against suspected terrorists?).
Oddly, you failed to actually respond to my comment made to the original post. Perhaps you'd like to do that instead?
terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)
You argue that the present government consists of terrorists. Perhaps - although as someone who has at least some background in security studies, I'd disagree.
You define terrorism in the broadest sense, essentially as those who "manipulate Americans' fear and terror of 'terrorist activity'...," in the government's case to "to undermine the freedoms of its very own citizens."
Let's turn that on its head:
How about all of the media reports that have blown this issue out of proportion or been - to varying degrees - sensationalist or exclude details? There's no doubt that this is a major event, but look at some of the posts you see here on Slashdot: claims that we're all under constant electronic surveillance, that 1% of phone calls are under surveillance, that thugs will soon be at our doors, etc. It's ridiculous, sensationalist, nonsense that exists simply to manipulate our fear and terror of a government that has not done any such thing. Media exists for it and, frankly, posts like yours exist for it as well. Should we label you a terrorist for attempting to manipulate peoples' fear of a huge government conspiracy that doesn't exist?
Look at the original NY Times article - 500 people at any one time, and the numbers are between 5,000 and 7,000 total if memory serves. Has this affected me in any way, shape, or form? Was I under surveillance? Only for the few international phone calls I made while outside of the country this year. Were YOU under surveillance? It's doubtful, unless you've left the country or made international phone calls. And this is only one simple case - how many media reports a day make us think we're in sudden danger of becoming citizens in an Orwellian state, victims of identity theft, sudden death from a prescription, or what have you?
So, please, before you start accusing everyone of terrorism under a certain definition, wake up and smell the roses.
I couldn't give you an example. It happens just all the time. Over and over and over.
In other words, I, uh, don't really have one. But the Apple of today sucks, yo! *Returns to vigorously typing e-mails on his Lisa*
Dear sweet mercy... thanks to the milk I was drinking when I read that, my keyboard literally came within an inch of its life!
Here's hoping you get some mod points for your effort!
Well, as they say:
What has more brains than Kurt Cobain?
The ceiling...
So sorry, so sorry...
Now I'll NEVER figure out what Kurt Cobain was saying!
As someone whose mom loved that music and played it constantly during his childhood... I must confesss. I am one of those people.
But... I... uh... didn't write the virus... nope... not me!
I GOT YOU BABE!
This reminds me of a guy I knew once who kept an opera CD in his far-too-tricked-out-for-an-old-man car stereo. Only he optimized his stereo for treble rather than bass.
Everytime a low-rider came next to his car at a stop light thumping away, he opened his windows and cranked some good ol' Italian opera out to screw with them. He told me he never could quite drown them out, but quite a few did turn down their stereos to try and figure out what the crazy old man next to them was doing...
Check google news for Ralph Yarro or his proposed CP80. Guess how many times his name shows up - once. In this article.
I'm living in Utah - Utah county, where this guy is from - right now and I've never heard of this guy.
The article says he's spent the last 3 months in D.C., but the Google News search doesn't show his name even once during his time in D.C.
Ooooh... he's made presentations to Utah representatives and senators! Wow! People from his own state listened to him for 5 minutes, amazing! Some even gave him a quick quote, supposedly! I could probably do the same thing with minimal effort.
A poster above me said this isn't even worthy of the 9th page in a high school newspaper. I agree. Then again, Deseret News is quite similar to a high school newspaper, so it's probably well placed.
Wow! I knew Bush could create hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and earthquakes, but until now I was entirely unaware that he could, almost single-handedly, cause "intergalactic" war! YEEE HAW TEXAS POWER!
It's probably because he's trying to protect all the oil on the moon... Cheney's got some Halliburton contracts to tap the reserves up there.
Bush should demand the Canadians immediately surrender all of their oil supplies, or we'll start a war with a bunch of maple-leaf bearing red and white space missiles aimed at incoming flying saucers. That'll teach 'em a lesson.
(Note - Given previous treatment from mods, I feel compelled to say that the above is not a flame or troll post. I actually voted for Bush... and, for those that consider voting for him a flame or troll then, uh... I kinda regret it in a way? How's that for covering my bases?)
The big problem here is that paper ballots can still be tampered with - ballot box stuffing, throwing out opposing ballots, even changing ballots. It's possible.
Maybe if there was some sort of (excuse the buzz word here) biometric way of tracking a vote? Paper ballots with a thumbprint? Well... that does make the whole "secret ballot" thing problematic... and everyone's finger prints would then have to be on file to vote, which probably wouldn't fly either... most polling places don't even require a picture ID as far as I know.
Maybe we should drop the idea of a secret ballot? I'm not saying we should make it a matter of public record or anything, but allow votes to be tied to names specifically. Or is that already done?
Sorry, I'll admit I'm quite ignorant about voting procedures (don't mod me down for it - please correct my ignorance), but developing a truly functional and verifiable means of voting seems nearly impossible while votes records are secret.
Frequently, professors in my classes forget minor details (what an acronmyn stands for, a specific date, etc.) and ask students to Google it for them.
One of my professors usually responds to the correction by putting on his best Scooby-Do villan impression and says, "and I would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids with Google!"
That said, it can certainly be a distraction, but it's really a matter of self-control.
I work for a university and supervise multiple public computer labs for students.
One of our employees decided it would be a brilliant idea to install a key logger on a handful of our computers. Our security software would have easily detcted/prevented the installation, but this employee had administrator passwords, allowing him to bypass the security software (since then, passwords have been restricted, which leads to massive inefficiency but higher security). He quietly disabled the security - especially anti-virus - software on these computers and let the program do its work.
The key logger was discovered approximately 6 weeks later when an icon for it randomly popped up on the desktop (I do not know the name of the key-logger software). A patron reported the strange icon, and the lab assistant reported it to management.
All 600 people who had used these computers in the last 6 weeks were notified almost immediately of the breach and instructed to change all their passwords and monitor their credit reports for suspicious activity. A lengthy FBI investigation began, and finally one employee was singled out. Luckily, there is no evidence he used any of the information he had gleaned from these computers.
This employee faced jail time, but ended up accepting a plea bargain for 5 years probation and a $5,000 fine. He has since fled the country.
Moral of the story - these things are quite serious when installed on the right computer, and those that install them in person could receive jail time. Now, even one hint of a key logger appearing on a computer in the labs is enough to drag in all of our technical staff at any hour to heavily investigate and reimage all nearby computers. We'd rather not have to go through any more investigations with the FBI.
"Islamist" as discussed above was the definition I was using. The term "Islamist" does not refer to Muslims as a whole and, to be honest, it's hard to fit a small but diverse group into a one-word term.
Infidel (noun) - a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
It's a frequently used word which comes from French. The usage is correct.
As far as the Irish, why on earth would I mention them in a post about ISRAEL. Perhaps you're not up to date on world events, but the IRA has not been attacking Israeli settlements, Islamists have.
Before you post meaningless, off-topic nonsense on slashdot, you may want to give it some thought.
Here's the problem: many Islamists - particularly the type they're trying to detect - do not consider lying to an infidel to actually be lying.*
Lie detectors generally depend on the person being scanned to be more or less honest with themself. If they aren't, then no dice.
This won't work.
* - Info from a poli sci professor I have this semester who worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 10 years... sorry, too lazy to find a link
Let's hope it has a key ignition... pulling one of those stupid cords can't be fun in zero-g...
I use iChat (OS X 10.4) for AIM and haven't had any bots appear. Well, so far.
I see apes like that all the time here on campus. But we don't have a fancy name for them - here they're called, "offensive linemen."
The traffic accidents of which you speak did not:
1) Cause billions of dollars of damage in less than an hour's time and shut down an entire industry for days.
2) Generally result from malicious intent from people who have declared they will not be happy until millions of Americans are dead
3) Paralyze an entire nation's ability to move people and goods
4) Happen as the result of an accident
Also, please provide a source for your 400,000 dead in past four years statistic. Statistics I've found from 1998 say around 49,000 died in North America from car accidents that year. Sounds like you're pulling your numbers out of thin air.
Hey, they could have come up with some nonsense about how the trilogy was really just pro-Nazi propaganda. I guess George gets things relatively easy.
For a time, the massive bunker's only inhabitant was Margaret Thatcher's previously unknown geek son, who wasted away his days coding, playing D&D with his online friends, and playing scrabble against himself while sheepishly avoiding the opposite sex.
He is noted to have posted on many USENET boards, "oh yeah? Well you should see MY mom's basement, where I live. It's soooo much cooler than yours."
You should also avoid using the passive voice. Instead of "a satellite was launched", you should say "x team launched a satellite".
Sorry... so sorry... my poli sci professor beat this into my head and I can't help but correct! No offense!
How long will the power last when the zombies arrive? As usual, Straight Dope has an answer!
Many of these posts exhibit the biggest problem with the "pro-science" movement in the US - it's condecending, rude, and fails to have any understanding of the opposing point of view. Please note that the same problems exist on the "anti-science" side as well, but that is no excuse and it will not help get your point across.
Calling people idiots, backwards, rednecks, etc. for their beliefs WILL NOT HELP YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT OR THE WAR. Neither will calling their beliefs "fairy tales", calling their leaders names, or mocking them in any other way. What does this do? It galvanizes this group, it does not marginalize it. It's made it grow and become more daring rather than made it shrink and become docile. DON'T DO IT. How often do these same people say that Bush is doing the same thing with Iraqi insurgents or the Muslim world in general? Can't you see that it won't help in this either?
I'll be open - I'm religious myself. But I believe in evolution. I see no contradiction between my religion and evolutionism, much as I use other gifts of modern science such as, well... computers, medicine, and others. I still hold strong beliefs on abortion, I'm ambivalent about embryonic stem cell research (entirely undecided, but leaning towards an "I don't really care" or "yes"). I think there's room for open classroom discussion in public schools on this and other controversial issues - let's avoid the censorship, it's OK to solicit student opinions on the matter - but the science teacher should ultimately teach what is widely accepted scientific theory - evolution exists. It is a science class after all.
I hope I'm not alone in these beliefs, and I hope those who are pro-science oriented will at least try to be polite to those they disagree with. If you're polite with them, the problem will likely subside and they will be marginalized. If you continue to treat them rudely and deride their opinions, it will come back to haunt you.
For example, Michael Moore isn't winning any votes for the Democratic party. He's just preaching to the choir and getting rich off of it while angering his opponents and, ultimately, contributing to failures for the Democrats at the ballot box. Don't do the same thing.