I've always been told that it's unreasonable to expect a full aid to reach you in the first 72 hours after a disaster (especially if you're in a huge shelter - getting food to thousands or tens of thousands of people at a time when infrastructure is destroyed or extremely stressed can be problematic to say the least). So, I've assembled what is called a 72 hour kit. It has:
Clothing - 1 or 2 sets of sturdy work clothing (jeans, shirt, etc.), socks, an old pair of boots/shoes, underwear, etc. Also, a good baseball cap for the sun. Mostly old clothes I don't wear any more or stuff I got from Goodwill.
Medical Kit - standard first aid kit and GOLD BOND powder. In a disaster where your clothes get wet (hurricane, flood) you will seriously want some Gold Bond to fight the chaffing or you will be useless to any relief effort in a day or two. Of course, diabetics and those on perscription medicine should keep a stash of supplies here as well.
Toiletry Kit - toothbrush, toothpaste, bar of soap + caddy, wash rag, towel, disinfectant. Mostly just older stuff I don't use any more or the wife has deemed "unpresentable" in our bathroom (well, except the toothbrush and soap... those are of course, new).
Food - enough food to keep me alive and reasonably happy for three days. I prefer stuff that doesn't need to be cooked - trail mix, granola bars, vienna sausages (when I bust out those you know it's getting bad... yuck...), etc. Some people get MREs, but I just get the grocery store stuff and replace it every once in a while.
Bottles of water - a couple of bottles of water that I rotate in and out every few months or so. I personally think two to three gallons is enough for 72 hours, but your mileage may vary.
Other essentials - pocket knife or leatherman, battery powered or crank radio, durable flashlight with lots batteries (Mag lights make decent hammers in a pinch), matches, small tool kit, etc.
All of this fits in an old backpack and sits in my closet so I can grab it and get out if I need to. All together, it probably cost less than $100, although I mostly used items I had laying around and didn't have much of a use for. The cost to rotate the trail mix and granola bars probably comes to $10/year, and I keep bottled water around the house anyways. Very low tech, but functional.
Keep in mind, it's not just hurricanes and earthquakes one should be concerned about - a semi truck that flips near your home while carrying dangerous cargo can create a need for evacuation at a moment's notice. Odds are, it will take a while for a shelter with a kitchen to be set up.
I wonder how many lives could have been saved in the recent disaster if more citizens had prepared themselves with something like this.
My old 12" PowerBook was a great machine, and I appreciated its durability and looks, but the metal case seriously cut into it's WiFi range. My wife's 12" iBook was always much better than mine. To be honest, this is one of the things that's keeping me from buying a PowerBook again and just getting an iBook until the new Intel books come out to see if Apple fixes this.
At least the Ti cover is removable - so you can keep it for the looks/protection, then take it off when you need to get in touch with a distant hot spot.
It is my understanding - which could certainly be incorrect, and I am more than willing to be corrected - that a nuclear (or nuklar, depending upon your political affiliation - I guess I'm a nuklar man myself) strike would be necessary to ensure the complete destruction of massed biological or chemical weapons under certain conditions.
It is also my understanding that conventional explosives could only serve to spread the chemical/biological agent. Therefore, the only reasonable way to neutralize the threat would be to nuke the weapons.
Am I correct on this matter? If not, like I said above, I'm certainly open to correction.
Which law, pray tell, was broken? The Senate approved the war overwhelmingly. UN stamps aren't necessary to go to war, I fail to see the legal question. If you've got some proof regarding the illegality of the war, post it.
The US PROPAGANDA MACHINE has done an excellent job at controlling public anger against the unjust Iraq war, in TOTAL contrast to the VIETNAM WAR.
Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. Look at the President's approval ratings. They're just sky high because the media is doing such a good job portraying the Iraq war in a positive light. In fact, they've done that since the beginning!
Oh, wait...
A HATE CAMPAIGN needs to start against those who are willing to fight in an UNJUST WAR. However, this needs to be done in a NON-VIOLENT way.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but "hate campaigns" are rarely non-violent affairs.
Other nations (such as CHINA and RUSSIA) should CONDEMN this illegal war, and help out with propaganda AGAINST the US.
Yes, especially since the Chinese and Russians were so eager to approve US aggression in the UN Security Council... oh, wait, they didn't. Also, to be quite frank, the Chinese and the Russian media outlets aren't exactly known for their credibility, especially since they are STATE OWNED and much more likely to be actual, real propaganda machines - unlike the independent US media (which, granted, often presents its view with bias to the right or left).
PROTEST against Millitary recruitment, and the armed forces.
Whatever floats your boat - it's a free country, so go out there and do it. But keep in mind, recruiters have free speech rights as well. Maybe you wouldn't recognize that in your "HATE CAMPAIGN", though.
DONT LISTEN to their propaganda about needing a STRONG ARMED FORCE. Force isn't needed when you HAVE NO ENIMIES
The US cannot afford to return to this very Pre-World War II mindset. The US has enemies. They are very real. You can argue all you want that the war in Iraq isn't fighting those enemies - and perhaps you'd be right - but to say that the US has none? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. They exist, they've hit us, and they will continue to hit us until they are neutralized through one means or another. You may disagree with the Bush or other administration's method of fighting them - and you certainly wouldn't be alone in that - but they exist whether you like it or not. A wise man would not simply bury his head in the sand.
Now, why don't you wander on back to the conspiracy theorist boards and hang out with your friends there?
"Linux is, and always will be, the OS of the future."
Or at least that seems to be the sentiment here on/.
(Note: not flaming, not flaming, not trolling, not trolling - apparently, a disclaimer like this is necessary to avoid a "Troll" or "Flamebait" rating)
Which means he'd better fire the FEMA director for this one... as a fellow Mac using Republican, I would expect no less! Either that, or beat him with his iPod.
"Or bump up the RAM a lot so I can listen to apple lossless music without killing the battery life."
I'm an iPod owner, and although I'm far from an expert on these things, I've always wondered why they don't bump the RAM on them all across the board? 32 megs (what I believe they all have, please feel free correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be far too little, and bumping it up to a reasonable amount - say, 128 megs - wouldn't cost too much, but it would greatly increase battery life when playing all kinds of music, not just lossless (assuming you stick with the same playlist, that is).
Again, if I'm wrong about the amount of RAM (which is very possible), please feel free to correct.
It seems logical to me that with more users of a particular platform, more developers will come into the market and produce more games for that platform. Not to mention more accessories, more competition that may result in prices being brought down, etc.
If you have a Sony PSP, then you'd probably be happy about this.
Personally, I don't have a handheld game system, but if I do get one it will probably be a Game Boy Advance SP, mostly so I can play all of the old nintendo games that have been released on it and relive my youth.
Welcome to Slashdot, where mods simply can't get a joke unless it has both a header and footer in big, bold letters stating "this is a joke, as in funny, as in I'm not trolling, as in please don't mod me flamebait or troll."
What you SHOULD have done is stated, "well, here goes my karma, but..." Then you would've been given a "+5, Insightful".
"The court has more power than the president. They are the only institution that can VETO both the president and congress"
You're absolutely right. The executive branch has absolutely nothing to do with the nomination of those on the court, and the legislative branch has nothing at all to do with the nomination process.
Oh, and the executive and legislative branches can't impeach members of the court. They're also entirely incapable of increasing the number of justices on the court and stacking the courts with their own nominees to ensure the court goes along with their decisions.
Oh, wait... they can do all of that. You obviously have NO understanding of American government. And there's a big difference between "VETO" and Judicial Review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Review
"Back when the court was something, they are the ones who told the police they must read rights to people. Back then, the courts said that people could not be taken by government for no reason."
So, the court is more powerful than the executive and legislative branch, but you immediately talk of "back when" the court had power? I smell a bit of a contradiction.
"Why did Rehnquist not retire? Why did he stay when he was sick?"
He was dedicated to his job, and factors of his personal life (the death of his wife over ten years ago) may certainly have played a role. He wouldn't be the first man to bury himself in work to ease the pain of his loss. In any case, by all accounts, he was capable of his job.
"Was he this sick?"
Uh, he's dead. I don't think he was faking it, if that's what you're asking.
"Why did Vincent Foster kill himself in a public park?"
Why do you ask questions that, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the topic? ADD perhaps?
If it's WRONG but the reviewers don't or more typically can't know it because it is novel, then publish it. The rightness or wrongness will be sorted out soon enough.
While I certainly agree with what you say - if the data is falsifiable, someone can and will likely come along and prove it all wrong - there are a few problems from more of a sociological point of view.
Generally, retractions, corrections, or proof that the data is false receive less press than amazing findings from a paper. Research that conatins a bias due to funding sources, for example, may be proved wrong eventually, but leave an impression in the public's mind that their results are infaliable.
As an example, let's use something extremely sensitive and political like homosexuality (please note - using this just as an example, views do not necessarily reflect those of author, using this JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, no actual data, don't post replies claiming I'm a homophobe, don't mod me down, etc.) - A major journal publishes a paper that claims to prove homosexuality is, without a doubt, linked entirely to genes. The reviewers look at the study and agree with its methods and publish it, neglecting to note that the study was funded entirely by, let's say in this case, less than reputable gay rights advocacy groups. This study, undoubtedly, receives huge amounts of press and is used by politicians to push a particular policy angle.
A year later, another study comes out which conclusively proves that the findings of the previous study were false (again, before flaming me and modding me down, please see above). The research is funded by a respectable organization with no interest in the decision, and the paper is peer reviewed, published, and accepted by the scientific community.
However, in that year's time, policy decisions have likely been made by the government and citizens have been led to believe in something that is not true (no flames, please, again see above). Yes, the scientific method worked and, yes, it proved the original research was false, but that may not matter any more - people already believe it and it's been accepted, and the public's perception on this issue will be hard to change back to the fact which has been reached by correct methods.
I agree with you that the research can be proven false in time, but there's more than simply falsifying the evidence.
Well, however this post is received, I think I've made enough "don't flame me" and "don't mod me down" comments that I've got to get some Karma out of this.
"the question is whether the FBI is, in some ways, actually influencing law enforcement and the law in other countries."
- The goal of an embassy overseas is to influence the policies of the host government and make them more friendly to those of the United States. There is nothing hidden or sinister about that. LEGAT offices focus on making local law enforcement more friendly to the US so we can expect help from them. They've had a lot of success in the past, and captured many people who have fled the US to other countries or damaged US interests overseas. If that means, say, giving Night Vision goggle or training equipment for free to a local police department and expecting a little help in return, so be it.
"Does the FBI operate by its own rules, but show the other government only what it wants the other government to know? "
- Does the US only tell other governments what we want them to know and hide what we don't want them to know? Yes. Other governments do that to us as well. It's called "classification". We practice it, as does anyone else. On a personal level - Does a married man disclose all of his ex-girlfriends and foibles to his in-laws immediately?
"Corruption of the Brazilian government by the CIA in Brazil is a strong present-day concern."
- The FBI is not the CIA. They are two agencies frequently cited as competitors and as being extremely unfriendly with each other. If you would like to discuss corruption caused by the FBI, then please cite appropriate information. The CIA and FBI operate very differently overseas. This is a smoke screen.
"The question is not what you see, but what is deliberately hidden from you.
In actuality, it is very difficult to run any organization. Organizations that have a high degree of secrecy quickly become uncontrolled."
- As someone who has held a security clearence and been inside such an organization for the past three months, I would strongly beg to differ. Perhaps in the past, but you fail to notice that the Church Committee took place between 1975 and 1976. Lots of things change in 30 years, and there is much more oversight than before. It should also be noted that much of the information in the Rockeffeler report was voluntarily researched and collected by the CIA in a document titled "the family jewels".
"I'm guessing that you, like most American citizens, have never read about the corruption mentioned here, or the many other cases of extreme corruption of the U.S. government in influencing other countries. That's why you mentioned "tinfoil hats". "
- Well, frankly, that's incorrect. Not only have I read about it and studied it intensely (Intelligence is the focus of my undergraduate studies at the moment), I've worked in this environment.
I know you think you're just talking to another dumb American, but I must beg to differ.
(I apologize in advance for any spelling errors... haven't put my contacts in yet... can't see a thing;-) )
As someone who just finished working at an embassy overseas and worked with FBI officials there, let me assure you - the local countries don't mind the help and technical assistance they receive from the LEGAT offices. Quite the opposite - LEGAT provides a great deal of training and equipment when needed, and acts as a liason with local police force.
The LEGAT agents probably weren't the ones that made the actual bust, but they were likely there to coordinate it.
Considering the damage this virus caused to US interests (businesses and citizens at home and abroad), I'd argue the US certainly had an interest in taking these guys out of commission.
The tinfoil hat crowd can, and will, say what they want, but the FBI employees I've had the chance to work with are amazing people - honest, hard working, focused on their jobs, and quite frankly, underpaid for the risks they take. I'm just glad to hear that the guys were busted.
A while back I was surfing a website that, if memory serves, belonged to some branch of Hammas or someone along those lines (yes, I know, not considered terrorists by all, please no flames along those lines).
Anyways, I was watching one of their videos that purported to show the execution via carbomb or RPG (geez... I keep hearing about how these guys use technology to spread their message, but they really need better cameramen and to use something better than a low quality Real Player video to get it across) of an informant to the Israelis, I believe.
The video went on for about four or five minutes, and had this terrible music in the background that I assumed must have been from an artist in the region. Then, I finally realized I'd heard it before when I was younger... one of my mom's favorite CDs... crap! It was YANNI! I hate Yanni!
The US or someone must have made a serious impact on their funding if they're having to use Yanni as their background music. I'm pretty sure that constitues a violation of several human rights treaties to release such vile filth for general viewing/hearing.
Where a paranoid rant written in response to a post that the author obviously didn't even read is considered "insightful".
Maybe if I just threw some more big brother references into my posts I could get more points?
He certainly had a reason to run from the police - he was in the country illegally. While I can understand his motivations, he picked a very bad moment.
The fact is he came out of a location that was being monitored for terrorist activity. While I, personally, would have pegged him as a South American or at least not a person from the Middle East or North Africa, that's because I have spent a fair amount of time in South America. I doubt the police involved had.
So, here's a guy, walking out of a place that's under observation for terrorists. They take a look at him. What's he wearing? A large coat. It's July, and warm in London (I'd say the sun was shining, but this is London) not the kind of weather you'd expect someone to be wearing a coat in. Why is he wearing a coat? Could there be something under the coat?
The subject is now monitored more closely and pursued. Where's he going? A tube station. Alarms go off in the officers heads.
So, here's what we have at this point - a man, coming out of a location being monitored for terrorist activity, who appears to the police to be a foreigner (possibly Middle Eastern to their eyes) wearing clothing that is not appropriate to the season but would be great to hide a bomb under.
Now, they get closer to the tube station and he picks up the pace as he realizes he's being followed by the police (he's not interested in having his immigration papers looked at, most likely). Some reports have him running from the police, jumping over the turnstiles, in the tube station.
So, at this point, you've got a man who could be a terrorist wearing a BBIED (body-borne improvised explosive device) rushing for a train. He half-trips, is half is pushed, and goes down. He does not respond immediately to the officers' demands (it's quite possible he doesn't understand them, depending on how well he speaks English and his mental state at the time), and the officers are faced with a decision that must be taken in a split second.
What do the officers do? He may have a bomb strapped to his body, and he's close enough to cause a great deal of civilian casualties, and a great risk to the police officers as well.
Do the police aim for the torso? No. It would not be advisable to shoot him there, as that's where the bomb could very well be, and bombs aren't known for reacting well to bullets (thanks, Sean Connery). Additionally, if he is a suicide bomber and is only wounded, he could still set off the bomb.
Do you tazer him? No. Sure, it could prevent him from setting off the bomb itself. But, even though I am not an electrical engineer, it is my understanding that many bombs would react to a jolt of a few thousand volts the same way they would react to bullets.
So, it's head shots. Lots of 'em. Fast. Take him down now before he can hurt anybody else. It's the only way to handle it. A suicide bomber, in most cases, is someone already committed to dying for a cause and who will go through with his or her mission regardless of the risk - their life is already forfeit. Force that is immediately leathal or incapacitating, without risking setting off the bomb, is the only effective means of preventing them.
Don't misunderstand me - I believe it's a tragedy what happened to your countryman and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But, given the situation, I can understand why the police did what they did. It's a terrible twist of fate, but that's the way it worked.
Actually, as I look at it more, I realize the other little differences - such as the 5,400 rpm drive - could tip the balance a bit as well.
I used to have a 12" PowerBook. Loved it. Was sad to part with it. But, I'm gonna have to go blanquito this time around.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always been told that it's unreasonable to expect a full aid to reach you in the first 72 hours after a disaster (especially if you're in a huge shelter - getting food to thousands or tens of thousands of people at a time when infrastructure is destroyed or extremely stressed can be problematic to say the least). So, I've assembled what is called a 72 hour kit. It has:
Clothing - 1 or 2 sets of sturdy work clothing (jeans, shirt, etc.), socks, an old pair of boots/shoes, underwear, etc. Also, a good baseball cap for the sun. Mostly old clothes I don't wear any more or stuff I got from Goodwill.
Medical Kit - standard first aid kit and GOLD BOND powder. In a disaster where your clothes get wet (hurricane, flood) you will seriously want some Gold Bond to fight the chaffing or you will be useless to any relief effort in a day or two. Of course, diabetics and those on perscription medicine should keep a stash of supplies here as well.
Toiletry Kit - toothbrush, toothpaste, bar of soap + caddy, wash rag, towel, disinfectant. Mostly just older stuff I don't use any more or the wife has deemed "unpresentable" in our bathroom (well, except the toothbrush and soap... those are of course, new).
Food - enough food to keep me alive and reasonably happy for three days. I prefer stuff that doesn't need to be cooked - trail mix, granola bars, vienna sausages (when I bust out those you know it's getting bad... yuck...), etc. Some people get MREs, but I just get the grocery store stuff and replace it every once in a while.
Bottles of water - a couple of bottles of water that I rotate in and out every few months or so. I personally think two to three gallons is enough for 72 hours, but your mileage may vary.
Other essentials - pocket knife or leatherman, battery powered or crank radio, durable flashlight with lots batteries (Mag lights make decent hammers in a pinch), matches, small tool kit, etc.
All of this fits in an old backpack and sits in my closet so I can grab it and get out if I need to. All together, it probably cost less than $100, although I mostly used items I had laying around and didn't have much of a use for. The cost to rotate the trail mix and granola bars probably comes to $10/year, and I keep bottled water around the house anyways. Very low tech, but functional.
Keep in mind, it's not just hurricanes and earthquakes one should be concerned about - a semi truck that flips near your home while carrying dangerous cargo can create a need for evacuation at a moment's notice. Odds are, it will take a while for a shelter with a kitchen to be set up.
I wonder how many lives could have been saved in the recent disaster if more citizens had prepared themselves with something like this.
My old 12" PowerBook was a great machine, and I appreciated its durability and looks, but the metal case seriously cut into it's WiFi range. My wife's 12" iBook was always much better than mine. To be honest, this is one of the things that's keeping me from buying a PowerBook again and just getting an iBook until the new Intel books come out to see if Apple fixes this.
At least the Ti cover is removable - so you can keep it for the looks/protection, then take it off when you need to get in touch with a distant hot spot.
I'll accept that they're not going to have all of those features, but c'mon? When are they going to make them small and portable?
My prediction (which I hope is incorrect):
Grandparent's paranoid rant will be moded "insightful" or "interesting" in no time.
Parent's post, which is based in common sense, will probably be moded as "flamebait" or "troll" just as quickly.
If you were looking for karma, you should've simply posted, "I hate Bush and think everything in Farenheit 9/11 is true".
It is my understanding - which could certainly be incorrect, and I am more than willing to be corrected - that a nuclear (or nuklar, depending upon your political affiliation - I guess I'm a nuklar man myself) strike would be necessary to ensure the complete destruction of massed biological or chemical weapons under certain conditions.
It is also my understanding that conventional explosives could only serve to spread the chemical/biological agent. Therefore, the only reasonable way to neutralize the threat would be to nuke the weapons.
Am I correct on this matter? If not, like I said above, I'm certainly open to correction.
Stop the illegal war!
Which law, pray tell, was broken? The Senate approved the war overwhelmingly. UN stamps aren't necessary to go to war, I fail to see the legal question. If you've got some proof regarding the illegality of the war, post it.
The US PROPAGANDA MACHINE has done an excellent job at controlling public anger against the unjust Iraq war, in TOTAL contrast to the VIETNAM WAR.
Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. Look at the President's approval ratings. They're just sky high because the media is doing such a good job portraying the Iraq war in a positive light. In fact, they've done that since the beginning!
Oh, wait...
A HATE CAMPAIGN needs to start against those who are willing to fight in an UNJUST WAR. However, this needs to be done in a NON-VIOLENT way.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but "hate campaigns" are rarely non-violent affairs.
Other nations (such as CHINA and RUSSIA) should CONDEMN this illegal war, and help out with propaganda AGAINST the US.
Yes, especially since the Chinese and Russians were so eager to approve US aggression in the UN Security Council... oh, wait, they didn't. Also, to be quite frank, the Chinese and the Russian media outlets aren't exactly known for their credibility, especially since they are STATE OWNED and much more likely to be actual, real propaganda machines - unlike the independent US media (which, granted, often presents its view with bias to the right or left).
PROTEST against Millitary recruitment, and the armed forces.
Whatever floats your boat - it's a free country, so go out there and do it. But keep in mind, recruiters have free speech rights as well. Maybe you wouldn't recognize that in your "HATE CAMPAIGN", though.
DONT LISTEN to their propaganda about needing a STRONG ARMED FORCE. Force isn't needed when you HAVE NO ENIMIES
The US cannot afford to return to this very Pre-World War II mindset. The US has enemies. They are very real. You can argue all you want that the war in Iraq isn't fighting those enemies - and perhaps you'd be right - but to say that the US has none? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. They exist, they've hit us, and they will continue to hit us until they are neutralized through one means or another. You may disagree with the Bush or other administration's method of fighting them - and you certainly wouldn't be alone in that - but they exist whether you like it or not. A wise man would not simply bury his head in the sand.
Now, why don't you wander on back to the conspiracy theorist boards and hang out with your friends there?
"By default, a game based on a movie has to suck."
Personally, I thought ET was absolutely awesome...
"Linux is, and always will be, the OS of the future."
/.
Or at least that seems to be the sentiment here on
(Note: not flaming, not flaming, not trolling, not trolling - apparently, a disclaimer like this is necessary to avoid a "Troll" or "Flamebait" rating)
What a pity that Think Geek stopped selling those "I am Enabled" shirts. Sounds like the market for those is about to increase... ;-)
George W. Bush IS himself a mac user.
Which means he'd better fire the FEMA director for this one... as a fellow Mac using Republican, I would expect no less! Either that, or beat him with his iPod.
"Or bump up the RAM a lot so I can listen to apple lossless music without killing the battery life."
I'm an iPod owner, and although I'm far from an expert on these things, I've always wondered why they don't bump the RAM on them all across the board? 32 megs (what I believe they all have, please feel free correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be far too little, and bumping it up to a reasonable amount - say, 128 megs - wouldn't cost too much, but it would greatly increase battery life when playing all kinds of music, not just lossless (assuming you stick with the same playlist, that is).
Again, if I'm wrong about the amount of RAM (which is very possible), please feel free to correct.
My iPod Mini is just so large, bulky, and thick! It's about time Apple did something to make audio players small and portable!
It seems logical to me that with more users of a particular platform, more developers will come into the market and produce more games for that platform. Not to mention more accessories, more competition that may result in prices being brought down, etc.
If you have a Sony PSP, then you'd probably be happy about this.
Personally, I don't have a handheld game system, but if I do get one it will probably be a Game Boy Advance SP, mostly so I can play all of the old nintendo games that have been released on it and relive my youth.
Welcome to Slashdot, where mods simply can't get a joke unless it has both a header and footer in big, bold letters stating "this is a joke, as in funny, as in I'm not trolling, as in please don't mod me flamebait or troll."
What you SHOULD have done is stated, "well, here goes my karma, but..." Then you would've been given a "+5, Insightful".
Where sarcasm simply does not exist. (Above post was a joke, repeat, a joke... probably not a funny joke, but not meant as flamebait... joke!)
This is Bush's fault. Who else could it be?
2 &page=&sortby=&sorttime=&way=
Then again, this means the probe obviously was running on OS X:
http://www.maczoom.com/showphoto.php?photo=6&cat=
So, instead of a BSOD, they just got a sad mac and some sick chime sounds.
"The court has more power than the president. They are the only institution that can VETO both the president and congress"
You're absolutely right. The executive branch has absolutely nothing to do with the nomination of those on the court, and the legislative branch has nothing at all to do with the nomination process.
Oh, and the executive and legislative branches can't impeach members of the court. They're also entirely incapable of increasing the number of justices on the court and stacking the courts with their own nominees to ensure the court goes along with their decisions.
Oh, wait... they can do all of that. You obviously have NO understanding of American government. And there's a big difference between "VETO" and Judicial Review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Review
"Back when the court was something, they are the ones who told the police they must read rights to people. Back then, the courts said that people could not be taken by government for no reason."
So, the court is more powerful than the executive and legislative branch, but you immediately talk of "back when" the court had power? I smell a bit of a contradiction.
"Why did Rehnquist not retire? Why did he stay when he was sick?"
He was dedicated to his job, and factors of his personal life (the death of his wife over ten years ago) may certainly have played a role. He wouldn't be the first man to bury himself in work to ease the pain of his loss. In any case, by all accounts, he was capable of his job.
"Was he this sick?"
Uh, he's dead. I don't think he was faking it, if that's what you're asking.
"Why did Vincent Foster kill himself in a public park?"
Why do you ask questions that, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the topic? ADD perhaps?
If it's WRONG but the reviewers don't or more typically can't know it because it is novel, then publish it. The rightness or wrongness will be sorted out soon enough.
While I certainly agree with what you say - if the data is falsifiable, someone can and will likely come along and prove it all wrong - there are a few problems from more of a sociological point of view.
Generally, retractions, corrections, or proof that the data is false receive less press than amazing findings from a paper. Research that conatins a bias due to funding sources, for example, may be proved wrong eventually, but leave an impression in the public's mind that their results are infaliable.
As an example, let's use something extremely sensitive and political like homosexuality (please note - using this just as an example, views do not necessarily reflect those of author, using this JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, no actual data, don't post replies claiming I'm a homophobe, don't mod me down, etc.) - A major journal publishes a paper that claims to prove homosexuality is, without a doubt, linked entirely to genes. The reviewers look at the study and agree with its methods and publish it, neglecting to note that the study was funded entirely by, let's say in this case, less than reputable gay rights advocacy groups. This study, undoubtedly, receives huge amounts of press and is used by politicians to push a particular policy angle.
A year later, another study comes out which conclusively proves that the findings of the previous study were false (again, before flaming me and modding me down, please see above). The research is funded by a respectable organization with no interest in the decision, and the paper is peer reviewed, published, and accepted by the scientific community.
However, in that year's time, policy decisions have likely been made by the government and citizens have been led to believe in something that is not true (no flames, please, again see above). Yes, the scientific method worked and, yes, it proved the original research was false, but that may not matter any more - people already believe it and it's been accepted, and the public's perception on this issue will be hard to change back to the fact which has been reached by correct methods.
I agree with you that the research can be proven false in time, but there's more than simply falsifying the evidence.
Well, however this post is received, I think I've made enough "don't flame me" and "don't mod me down" comments that I've got to get some Karma out of this.
Yes, I have read the Church report...
;-) )
"the question is whether the FBI is, in some ways, actually influencing law enforcement and the law in other countries."
- The goal of an embassy overseas is to influence the policies of the host government and make them more friendly to those of the United States. There is nothing hidden or sinister about that. LEGAT offices focus on making local law enforcement more friendly to the US so we can expect help from them. They've had a lot of success in the past, and captured many people who have fled the US to other countries or damaged US interests overseas. If that means, say, giving Night Vision goggle or training equipment for free to a local police department and expecting a little help in return, so be it.
"Does the FBI operate by its own rules, but show the other government only what it wants the other government to know? "
- Does the US only tell other governments what we want them to know and hide what we don't want them to know? Yes. Other governments do that to us as well. It's called "classification". We practice it, as does anyone else. On a personal level - Does a married man disclose all of his ex-girlfriends and foibles to his in-laws immediately?
"Corruption of the Brazilian government by the CIA in Brazil is a strong present-day concern."
- The FBI is not the CIA. They are two agencies frequently cited as competitors and as being extremely unfriendly with each other. If you would like to discuss corruption caused by the FBI, then please cite appropriate information. The CIA and FBI operate very differently overseas. This is a smoke screen.
"The question is not what you see, but what is deliberately hidden from you.
In actuality, it is very difficult to run any organization. Organizations that have a high degree of secrecy quickly become uncontrolled."
- As someone who has held a security clearence and been inside such an organization for the past three months, I would strongly beg to differ. Perhaps in the past, but you fail to notice that the Church Committee took place between 1975 and 1976. Lots of things change in 30 years, and there is much more oversight than before. It should also be noted that much of the information in the Rockeffeler report was voluntarily researched and collected by the CIA in a document titled "the family jewels".
"I'm guessing that you, like most American citizens, have never read about the corruption mentioned here, or the many other cases of extreme corruption of the U.S. government in influencing other countries. That's why you mentioned "tinfoil hats". "
- Well, frankly, that's incorrect. Not only have I read about it and studied it intensely (Intelligence is the focus of my undergraduate studies at the moment), I've worked in this environment.
I know you think you're just talking to another dumb American, but I must beg to differ.
(I apologize in advance for any spelling errors... haven't put my contacts in yet... can't see a thing
As someone who just finished working at an embassy overseas and worked with FBI officials there, let me assure you - the local countries don't mind the help and technical assistance they receive from the LEGAT offices. Quite the opposite - LEGAT provides a great deal of training and equipment when needed, and acts as a liason with local police force.
The LEGAT agents probably weren't the ones that made the actual bust, but they were likely there to coordinate it.
Considering the damage this virus caused to US interests (businesses and citizens at home and abroad), I'd argue the US certainly had an interest in taking these guys out of commission.
The tinfoil hat crowd can, and will, say what they want, but the FBI employees I've had the chance to work with are amazing people - honest, hard working, focused on their jobs, and quite frankly, underpaid for the risks they take. I'm just glad to hear that the guys were busted.
A while back I was surfing a website that, if memory serves, belonged to some branch of Hammas or someone along those lines (yes, I know, not considered terrorists by all, please no flames along those lines).
Anyways, I was watching one of their videos that purported to show the execution via carbomb or RPG (geez... I keep hearing about how these guys use technology to spread their message, but they really need better cameramen and to use something better than a low quality Real Player video to get it across) of an informant to the Israelis, I believe.
The video went on for about four or five minutes, and had this terrible music in the background that I assumed must have been from an artist in the region. Then, I finally realized I'd heard it before when I was younger... one of my mom's favorite CDs... crap! It was YANNI! I hate Yanni!
The US or someone must have made a serious impact on their funding if they're having to use Yanni as their background music. I'm pretty sure that constitues a violation of several human rights treaties to release such vile filth for general viewing/hearing.
Where a paranoid rant written in response to a post that the author obviously didn't even read is considered "insightful". Maybe if I just threw some more big brother references into my posts I could get more points?
But the situation was doomed from the start.
He certainly had a reason to run from the police - he was in the country illegally. While I can understand his motivations, he picked a very bad moment.
The fact is he came out of a location that was being monitored for terrorist activity. While I, personally, would have pegged him as a South American or at least not a person from the Middle East or North Africa, that's because I have spent a fair amount of time in South America. I doubt the police involved had.
So, here's a guy, walking out of a place that's under observation for terrorists. They take a look at him. What's he wearing? A large coat. It's July, and warm in London (I'd say the sun was shining, but this is London) not the kind of weather you'd expect someone to be wearing a coat in. Why is he wearing a coat? Could there be something under the coat?
The subject is now monitored more closely and pursued. Where's he going? A tube station. Alarms go off in the officers heads.
So, here's what we have at this point - a man, coming out of a location being monitored for terrorist activity, who appears to the police to be a foreigner (possibly Middle Eastern to their eyes) wearing clothing that is not appropriate to the season but would be great to hide a bomb under.
Now, they get closer to the tube station and he picks up the pace as he realizes he's being followed by the police (he's not interested in having his immigration papers looked at, most likely). Some reports have him running from the police, jumping over the turnstiles, in the tube station.
So, at this point, you've got a man who could be a terrorist wearing a BBIED (body-borne improvised explosive device) rushing for a train. He half-trips, is half is pushed, and goes down. He does not respond immediately to the officers' demands (it's quite possible he doesn't understand them, depending on how well he speaks English and his mental state at the time), and the officers are faced with a decision that must be taken in a split second.
What do the officers do? He may have a bomb strapped to his body, and he's close enough to cause a great deal of civilian casualties, and a great risk to the police officers as well.
Do the police aim for the torso? No. It would not be advisable to shoot him there, as that's where the bomb could very well be, and bombs aren't known for reacting well to bullets (thanks, Sean Connery). Additionally, if he is a suicide bomber and is only wounded, he could still set off the bomb.
Do you tazer him? No. Sure, it could prevent him from setting off the bomb itself. But, even though I am not an electrical engineer, it is my understanding that many bombs would react to a jolt of a few thousand volts the same way they would react to bullets.
So, it's head shots. Lots of 'em. Fast. Take him down now before he can hurt anybody else. It's the only way to handle it. A suicide bomber, in most cases, is someone already committed to dying for a cause and who will go through with his or her mission regardless of the risk - their life is already forfeit. Force that is immediately leathal or incapacitating, without risking setting off the bomb, is the only effective means of preventing them.
Don't misunderstand me - I believe it's a tragedy what happened to your countryman and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But, given the situation, I can understand why the police did what they did. It's a terrible twist of fate, but that's the way it worked.
Don't you just click OK and continue?
Actually, as I look at it more, I realize the other little differences - such as the 5,400 rpm drive - could tip the balance a bit as well. I used to have a 12" PowerBook. Loved it. Was sad to part with it. But, I'm gonna have to go blanquito this time around.