The point is that even setting a CRT to the highest refresh setting is not as high as a modern CFL..... by a long, long, long shot. So if CRT flicker doesn't cause you problems, there is no way a modern CFL could. Get a top and spin it or turn on a fan and see.
You can get CFL's in a range of color temperatures nowadays. They still do not have a perfect color index, but it is pretty darn good. I noticed that proofing tables have fluorescent bulbs in them, so it must be possible to get a good color index out of fluorescent bulbs if you really try.
You may also want to look into Metal Halide bulbs. MH bulbs are like a mini-arclamp. It would be nice if those fast start xenon ones they use in cars could made their way into homes. The only MH fixture I could find was from a company called MicroSun. The only disadvantage is the slow start, but since this is the living room, I am in it most of the evening. Going from 300-watt halogen to a 68-watt MH was a very nice upgrade. The MH is slightly brighter than the halogen and has a very good color index.
If you can see the flicker from a modern fluorescent bulb with electronic ballasts, then you must have super human eyes! It is pretty rare to see new fixtures with magnetic ballasts these days. Those old ballasts certainly had flicker problems. Simply turning one of those old fixtures on would create a lightening effect until the bulb fully came on. If you spun a top under them you could clearly see the rate of flicker. Spinning a top under modern fluorescent (especially multi-bulb) shows only a hint of flicker pattern. If modern bulbs bother you, than a CRT would certainly bother you. I'm assuming that you never used computers or watched TV more than a few years ago before LCD's became popular since the flicker rate would have been worse than modern fluorescent bulbs. If you did, and it didn't bother you much, then I must say that your aversion to fluorescent bulbs may be psychological.
With modern fluorescent bulbs, there is no reason not to use them. They come in warm and daylight temperatures now, so they can more closely reproduce a incandescent light or a daylight look. It is interesting to note that proofing tables (for graphic artists, printers, etc) have fluorescent lights in them. This seems to put weight behind the idea that fluorescents *can* produce good light.
Personally, I bought a 68-watt MicroSun lamp for my main living room to replace the stupid 300-watt Halogen. It's super bright and has a very good color index because it is a Metal Halide bulb.
As far as the law goes.... what happens to the bulb that has been on for 100-years at that firestation in the Bay Area?
The plaintiff's do not have any evidence that it was spying between domestic calls. I seem to recall them saying something about international calls though. That is where the NSA *does* come in since they are going to be monitoring communications in the battlefield.
1. A judge on the FISA court not the FISA court approved it.
Okay, fine. It is interesting to note that they did seem to agree on the argument.
2. Not within the FISA court powers to authorize blanket warrants so irrelevant.
It is also not within any courts powers to supervise the military. The NSA works within/supports the military. This is also the reason the NSA cannot spy on US Citizens. This is also why the FBI was going to the FISA court for warrants based on NSA leads. But this is also why the FISA court considered them "tainted" (see the WaPo article that I cited). The FISA court required the FBI to do something other than bring them information from a NSA tap.
3. Breach of Constitutional rights, so not authorizable, period.
It is also a breach for the court to involve themselves in military matters. The Constitution makes this very clear. Again, if a person in the US contacts or is contacted by a *target* of a tap, then no warrant is required. It is only when the government wants to make the person inside the US a *target* of a tap that a warrant is required. This is nothing new and is the way taps have always worked. The warrant covers the *target*. Since the courts have no say over people in a foreign battlefield, the courts cannot grant a warrant to the NSA. Converstly, the NSA has no standing in civilian courts. Thus the rub. After 9/11 it was decided that the NSA should share leads with the FBI. But how should this been done? The TSP apparently put forth rules on how this should be done. The FISA court warned that they didn't think the rules were good enough (again, WaPost article) and the FBI had to step up to get the warrants.
How does the 4th Amendment apply to individuals outside the US in a battlefield? Only *targets* of a wiretap need a warrant. Since the NSA operates under the DoD on *targets* outside the US, the 4th has never applied. Just like search warrant doesn't apply to a soldier raiding a house.
It is when a *lead* from a NSA tap on a foreign *target* that the FBI needs to get a warrant. That appears what the TSP was doing. It tore down the wall between the NSA and the FBI so the NSA could pass leads to the FBI. Note the FISA court would not accept "tainted" leads. That is, warrant requests that were based solely on NSA leads (see: Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data). The FISA court required the FBI to follow up on the lead before getting a FISA warrant to make the US side a *target* of a tap. It *appears* that the FISA court has agreed to the administration's legal arguments and now the FISA court will accept leads from a NSA tap and grant a warrant solely based on the lead information.
This is similar to how warrants work within the US. If a person calls a *target* of a warrant tap, their call can be monitored. They could also become the *target* of a wiretap based on a lead from the call. The difference is that the NSA have never needed a warrant to do what they do. Their missing has always been to monitor international communications.
The problem is the concentrations do not seem to add up. Considering the amount that was in the cup, the amount in the body should be much, much more. Why don't the numbers make sense?
Why multiple exposures? Why so sloppy? Why use so much? They could have used a *much*, *much*, *much* smaller amount and still have made the same statement. Why was there so much of the stuff all around, but only a small amount (by a large measure) made it into the target of the assassination? It just doesn't add up. It seems like these guys were up to something else.
Should it even be a homicide investigation or a smuggling investigation? Why would anyone poison someone with many more times the amount required to kill them with a material that is so expensive and easy to trace? There are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay easier ways to kill someone. Ways that would garner much less attention.
Why poison the person multiple times when one time would be enough? We know it's multiple times because the police believe it to be multiple exposures. How would they know this unless the decay or signatures were different between exposures?
The amount is very puzzling. The amount is a huge amount of the material. It was so much that it left a blemish in the tea cup. Something on orders of 100 watts of heat from the Po-210.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it seems to me there has to be much more to this story. What were these guys really up to?
Let me put it this way. I very much doubt that this would happen again. The US "recovered" and our rights are intact. Even if you think that Bush is trying to round up people, it is happening in a way that a lot of legal discussion is going on. If anything, people are trying to get the courts to overstep their bounds by bringing cases in civilian courts for people that are in GITMO.
The text still makes sense if you look at who the *target* of the tap is. The warrant is for the *target*. The *target* is foreign and is working under military action. It is part of the battlefield and does not require a warrant. If it did then our soldiers would have to get a warrant to invade a house in the battlefield. This of course does not happen. If the NSA is monitoring the battlefield and notices that a call terminates in the US is makes not sense to me that they would need a warrant for this. It seems to me that if the NSA gets a good leads, they should pass it immediately to the FBI. They did not do this before 9/11, but they do now. They could not get a FISA warrant because they are not invovled in a criminal presecution and really have no standing in civilian courts. They are operating under the authority of the commander in chief in the battlefield. When the NSA passes the lead to the FBI, it makes sense they would need to get a warrant because they are making a US Citizen/Person a *target* of a tap and most likely part of a criminal investigation. The NSA does not normally participate in civilian courts. This is probably why the FISA court considered FBI warrant requests coming from NSA leads as "tainted" (see the WaPo article about this). The court stated outright they would not grant a FISA warrant based solely on a NSA lead and required the FBI to do a follow up on the lead before they would grant a warrant.
If I were a defense attorney and thought that NSA information either obtained illegally or under foreign intelligence provisions was used as a basis for obtaining a warrant I would be filing motions to exclude the evidence obtained in the warranted wiretap as fast as I could write them.
The WaPo article mentions this. The judges called NSA leads "tainted." Somehow this was overcome.
I know the statement was tagged as funny, but Java is quite fast these days. Java7 will only get faster with some really spiffy JVM ideas. I don't see Python, Perl, and Ruby catching up for a while.
It seems to me that once Java is opened up and is included with every Linux distro out there, Java will not be perceived as large and slow anymore. It will be a simple apt-get, yum, etc away. It will just work.
Even Gonzales admitted that FISA makes tapping communications between US and a foreign country is illegal without a warrant. It is nonsense to believe somehow that just because one end of the call is someplace outside the US FISA, the First Amemdment and the Fourth Amendment are all of a sudden not applicable.
I am not sure he did admit this. It is not illegal for the police to listen in on your call if you are communicating with a person that is the *target* of a tap. The *target* is the end that requires a warrant. This is nothing new. We all know that. Now if the police suspect *you* of something and want to listen in on more of your calls, they must get a warrant to make you the *target* of the tap. The NSA has been monitoring communications for years. They have never stopped listening if a call happens to terminate within the US. The issue was that this information could not be used in criminal prosecution. The info would stay within the NSA and not go anywhere. After 9/11, many people decided this was a stupid idea. The NSA should be able to pass a lead to the FBI. For the FBI to make the person *inside* the US a *target* of a tap based on secret sources, they must get a FISA warrant. As this article points out, the FISA judge would not grant a FISA warrant to the FBI based only on a NSA lead. My understanding is this just changed a week or two ago. The FISA *will* now grant a FISA warrant on a NSA lead. In other words, the court apparently agrees with the administration's legal argument.
If you think about it, this is why the administration has used the FISA courts more, not less as has been sited over and over again.
Because those rights are supposed to be inalienable for all men.
But we already have laws that are based on long tradition on what happens with people that are captured on the battlefield. The game Capture the Flag is based on these traditions and laws. Part of this tradition is that people get put into prison until the war ends or their own country negotiates their release. In this action, we have released people to their countries by diplomatic negotiation only to recapture them later. We have to be very careful who we release when we pull them off the battlefield. This is nothing new. I really do not understand the controversy on this.
Australia has been asking that David Hicks be released for about 4 years now.
Maybe there is a reason we want to hold on to him. I am not familiar with the case, but considering we have very, very good relations with Australia it would seem very surprising to me that Australia cannot bring their man home. I will have to read up on this.
Sure sure, everybody knows that reality has a known left-wing bias.
Not bias, just hype! Way too much hype! For heaven's sake, the US rounded up Italian, German, and Japanese people during WWII and put them into camps. Guess what? The US recovered. People still have their rights. HYPE!
Some of the legal analysis I've read during the last few years had been really dumb. For example, how is it possible that people captured on the battlefield have any standing in our civilian courts? If they should not in GITMO then let their country ask for their release. This has happened and we have released people from GITMO to their government. Hasn't anyone ever played Capture the Flag?
The reporting on the NSA wiretapping has been horrible. Since when does the NSA need to get a warrant to tap foreign communications? Anyone calling or receiving a call from a *primary* tap target will get their communication listening in on. The NSA will not and should not hang up if the call terminates inside the US.
The reporting on the above examples has been horrible, why should I trust that this article is any better? I would agree that suspending habeas corpus is not a good idea. But the president does have the power to do it. It seems to me that foreign enemies on US soil do not have any right to habeas corpus. Why should they?
The issue seems to be that a recent law was passed that may have opened up the possibility of US Citizens not having the right to habeas corpus. This may or may not be true, but it wasn't the President that was responsible for passing the law, it was both congress and the president!
I see your point about regulation, but shouldn't a market be given the chance before it is regulated? We do not know for sure how customers will react to ISP tiering. We do not know how colo's and ISP's will peer without enforced neutrality.
Right now, the big content providers *do* get preferential treatment. This is already happening. I have read that Yahoo only pays for half of its bandwidth. It gets the other half for "free" because the ISP's want to peer directly to the Yahoo network and Yahoo wants to peer directly with them. This saves each side on transit costs. It also makes each service appear faster because they are decreasing latency and hops. Is this fair to the little guy that cannot directly peer?
For all we know colo's will start offering premium peering for the little guy. You can be small, but you could pay an extra fee each month to get premium routing to ISP's and be just like the big guys.
I say, let the market work. If we see a problem, then pass laws. Trying to pass a law before the problem fully manifests itself can cause stupid laws that hinder progress.
It's not needed anymore because this ruling allows for FISA warrants based purely on NSA leads with no FBI follow up. The NSA will do what it has always done, target foreign communications for tapping. If they happen on interesting communication that terminates in the US, they can pass this information to the FBI and a warrant will be granted. The FBI can now make the US side a target of a tap.
Does that sound like a rubber stamp to you? The judge was putting the FBI on notice. They will not grant a warrant based solely on a NSA lead. With this new ruling that is not true anymore. A simple NSA lead is all that will be required for the FBI to get a FISA warrant.
The NSA has monitored communications for years and years and years. The TARGETS of the tapping were foreign communications. If the foreign communication terminated in the US, they could still listen in on it, just like the police could listen in if you called a person that was subject to a tap (suspected criminal). You could become the subject of a tap if you said something that the police wanted to follow up on. They of course would have to go back to the court and get another warrant for you.
This is how the TSP worked. The NSA did what they always do. If they got a domestic lead they would pass it to the FBI so the FBI could follow up and potentially get a FISA warrant. The FBI is subject to civilian courts, the NSA is not.
But they did get a FISA warrant. The FBI would have to get the FISA warrant if the NSA generated a lead on the domestic side of the tapped communication. The domestic side wasn't the TARGET of the tap. Thus the NSA never needs a warrant. This has always been the case.
You call can be tapped without a warrant if you call some criminal suspect. That is because the TARGET of the tap is not you, the suspect is. This is how the TSP worked. The targets if the NSA taps were outside the US and considered part of the battlefield. If they needed to follow up domestically the FBI would get the information from the NSA and start their own investigation.
This ruling expands the program and does not require the FBI to further the investigation. The FISA will grant the warrant based purely on NSA intel.
Since when did US civilian courts need to grant warrants for the NSA to target foreign individuals for wiretapping? The NSA has been doing this ever since its creation. What the TSP did is allow the NSA to pass leads to the FBI. The FBI would get the lead and file for a FISA warrant to make the domestic side a wiretap TARGET.
Remember if you call a number that has a tap on it, the police can listen in on your conversation. You are not the target, the person you are calling is. This is the same for the NSA. The idea was to remove the wall so the leads the NSA would discover would get passed on to the FBI. The FISA judges would still require something other than a pure NSA lead to grant the warrant (see: Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data.
What is funny about this ruling is that the FISA court is now said that all it needs is a NSA lead. This is a lower requirement than what the TSP was doing.
The reason it is not being renewed is because it is not needed anymore. All the FISA court needs is a NSA lead to grant a warrant now. Previously the FISA judges required some sort of additional information from a FBI investigation.
AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).
Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what they do with foreign communications.
This is exactly what Marx was saying. It what his theory is based on (the idea proceeded him). My understanding is that Marx did not give any model of *government* to what he saw as oppression. He just that it is wrong and gave a bunch of examples of how it is wrong and tried to formulate an economic system based on the labour theory. This theory has been totally obliterated. This is exactly why you state that even nations that many people still think of as communist, are not anymore. It is because the theory did not work out. Communism as an economic theory is dead.
The main question put forth right now is what is the dominate forcing for global warming. Initially CO2 was the sole blame, but there could be more to it. What role does the Sun play? What role has cleaning up particulates (from burning coal, wood, and cars) changed global temp? What about water? Land use (e.g. megacities -- Los Angeles, etc)?
With some models, significantly decreasing man-made CO2 levels will only change the outcome fractions of a degree over a 50 year period.
Communism has not been destroyed as a theory and as I mentioned it works every day in almost every country. The theory that communism would be beneficial if we increased the size of the communist cells to gigantic proportions has been pretty well demonstrated, but that is not the same thing at all. Like it or not the traditional atomic family meets all the classic criteria for being a communist cell.
It has been destroyed. It most definitely has. They don't even teach it in China anymore. Even Vietnam is going free market. The idea that making money off some one's labor is somehow a form of oppression is ridiculous. The labour theory of economics is totally and completely unworkable. It is not based on reality. Your idea that a family is somehow a theory of economics is also not realistic. The idea that some people voluntarily band together to work out some sort of problem is not communism.
The two ideas are mutually exclusive. You either see the exchange of payment for labour as part of a free market or you see it as a form of oppression that must be stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that even setting a CRT to the highest refresh setting is not as high as a modern CFL ..... by a long, long, long shot. So if CRT flicker doesn't cause you problems, there is no way a modern CFL could. Get a top and spin it or turn on a fan and see.
I'm assuming these people never look at a CRT either.
You can get CFL's in a range of color temperatures nowadays. They still do not have a perfect color index, but it is pretty darn good. I noticed that proofing tables have fluorescent bulbs in them, so it must be possible to get a good color index out of fluorescent bulbs if you really try.
You may also want to look into Metal Halide bulbs. MH bulbs are like a mini-arclamp. It would be nice if those fast start xenon ones they use in cars could made their way into homes. The only MH fixture I could find was from a company called MicroSun. The only disadvantage is the slow start, but since this is the living room, I am in it most of the evening. Going from 300-watt halogen to a 68-watt MH was a very nice upgrade. The MH is slightly brighter than the halogen and has a very good color index.
If you can see the flicker from a modern fluorescent bulb with electronic ballasts, then you must have super human eyes! It is pretty rare to see new fixtures with magnetic ballasts these days. Those old ballasts certainly had flicker problems. Simply turning one of those old fixtures on would create a lightening effect until the bulb fully came on. If you spun a top under them you could clearly see the rate of flicker. Spinning a top under modern fluorescent (especially multi-bulb) shows only a hint of flicker pattern. If modern bulbs bother you, than a CRT would certainly bother you. I'm assuming that you never used computers or watched TV more than a few years ago before LCD's became popular since the flicker rate would have been worse than modern fluorescent bulbs. If you did, and it didn't bother you much, then I must say that your aversion to fluorescent bulbs may be psychological.
With modern fluorescent bulbs, there is no reason not to use them. They come in warm and daylight temperatures now, so they can more closely reproduce a incandescent light or a daylight look. It is interesting to note that proofing tables (for graphic artists, printers, etc) have fluorescent lights in them. This seems to put weight behind the idea that fluorescents *can* produce good light.
Personally, I bought a 68-watt MicroSun lamp for my main living room to replace the stupid 300-watt Halogen. It's super bright and has a very good color index because it is a Metal Halide bulb.
As far as the law goes.... what happens to the bulb that has been on for 100-years at that firestation in the Bay Area?
The plaintiff's do not have any evidence that it was spying between domestic calls. I seem to recall them saying something about international calls though. That is where the NSA *does* come in since they are going to be monitoring communications in the battlefield.
1. A judge on the FISA court not the FISA court approved it.
Okay, fine. It is interesting to note that they did seem to agree on the argument.
2. Not within the FISA court powers to authorize blanket warrants so irrelevant.
It is also not within any courts powers to supervise the military. The NSA works within/supports the military. This is also the reason the NSA cannot spy on US Citizens. This is also why the FBI was going to the FISA court for warrants based on NSA leads. But this is also why the FISA court considered them "tainted" (see the WaPo article that I cited). The FISA court required the FBI to do something other than bring them information from a NSA tap.
3. Breach of Constitutional rights, so not authorizable, period.
It is also a breach for the court to involve themselves in military matters. The Constitution makes this very clear. Again, if a person in the US contacts or is contacted by a *target* of a tap, then no warrant is required. It is only when the government wants to make the person inside the US a *target* of a tap that a warrant is required. This is nothing new and is the way taps have always worked. The warrant covers the *target*. Since the courts have no say over people in a foreign battlefield, the courts cannot grant a warrant to the NSA. Converstly, the NSA has no standing in civilian courts. Thus the rub. After 9/11 it was decided that the NSA should share leads with the FBI. But how should this been done? The TSP apparently put forth rules on how this should be done. The FISA court warned that they didn't think the rules were good enough (again, WaPost article) and the FBI had to step up to get the warrants.
How does the 4th Amendment apply to individuals outside the US in a battlefield? Only *targets* of a wiretap need a warrant. Since the NSA operates under the DoD on *targets* outside the US, the 4th has never applied. Just like search warrant doesn't apply to a soldier raiding a house.
It is when a *lead* from a NSA tap on a foreign *target* that the FBI needs to get a warrant. That appears what the TSP was doing. It tore down the wall between the NSA and the FBI so the NSA could pass leads to the FBI. Note the FISA court would not accept "tainted" leads. That is, warrant requests that were based solely on NSA leads (see: Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data). The FISA court required the FBI to follow up on the lead before getting a FISA warrant to make the US side a *target* of a tap. It *appears* that the FISA court has agreed to the administration's legal arguments and now the FISA court will accept leads from a NSA tap and grant a warrant solely based on the lead information.
This is similar to how warrants work within the US. If a person calls a *target* of a warrant tap, their call can be monitored. They could also become the *target* of a wiretap based on a lead from the call. The difference is that the NSA have never needed a warrant to do what they do. Their missing has always been to monitor international communications.
The problem is the concentrations do not seem to add up. Considering the amount that was in the cup, the amount in the body should be much, much more. Why don't the numbers make sense?
Why multiple exposures? Why so sloppy? Why use so much? They could have used a *much*, *much*, *much* smaller amount and still have made the same statement. Why was there so much of the stuff all around, but only a small amount (by a large measure) made it into the target of the assassination? It just doesn't add up. It seems like these guys were up to something else.
Should it even be a homicide investigation or a smuggling investigation? Why would anyone poison someone with many more times the amount required to kill them with a material that is so expensive and easy to trace? There are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay easier ways to kill someone. Ways that would garner much less attention.
Why poison the person multiple times when one time would be enough? We know it's multiple times because the police believe it to be multiple exposures. How would they know this unless the decay or signatures were different between exposures?
The amount is very puzzling. The amount is a huge amount of the material. It was so much that it left a blemish in the tea cup. Something on orders of 100 watts of heat from the Po-210.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but it seems to me there has to be much more to this story. What were these guys really up to?
I am not saying it was right.
Let me put it this way. I very much doubt that this would happen again. The US "recovered" and our rights are intact. Even if you think that Bush is trying to round up people, it is happening in a way that a lot of legal discussion is going on. If anything, people are trying to get the courts to overstep their bounds by bringing cases in civilian courts for people that are in GITMO.
The text still makes sense if you look at who the *target* of the tap is. The warrant is for the *target*. The *target* is foreign and is working under military action. It is part of the battlefield and does not require a warrant. If it did then our soldiers would have to get a warrant to invade a house in the battlefield. This of course does not happen. If the NSA is monitoring the battlefield and notices that a call terminates in the US is makes not sense to me that they would need a warrant for this. It seems to me that if the NSA gets a good leads, they should pass it immediately to the FBI. They did not do this before 9/11, but they do now. They could not get a FISA warrant because they are not invovled in a criminal presecution and really have no standing in civilian courts. They are operating under the authority of the commander in chief in the battlefield. When the NSA passes the lead to the FBI, it makes sense they would need to get a warrant because they are making a US Citizen/Person a *target* of a tap and most likely part of a criminal investigation. The NSA does not normally participate in civilian courts. This is probably why the FISA court considered FBI warrant requests coming from NSA leads as "tainted" (see the WaPo article about this). The court stated outright they would not grant a FISA warrant based solely on a NSA lead and required the FBI to do a follow up on the lead before they would grant a warrant.
If I were a defense attorney and thought that NSA information either obtained illegally or under foreign intelligence provisions was used as a basis for obtaining a warrant I would be filing motions to exclude the evidence obtained in the warranted wiretap as fast as I could write them.
The WaPo article mentions this. The judges called NSA leads "tainted." Somehow this was overcome.
I know the statement was tagged as funny, but Java is quite fast these days. Java7 will only get faster with some really spiffy JVM ideas. I don't see Python, Perl, and Ruby catching up for a while.
It seems to me that once Java is opened up and is included with every Linux distro out there, Java will not be perceived as large and slow anymore. It will be a simple apt-get, yum, etc away. It will just work.
Even Gonzales admitted that FISA makes tapping communications between US and a foreign country is illegal without a warrant. It is nonsense to believe somehow that just because one end of the call is someplace outside the US FISA, the First Amemdment and the Fourth Amendment are all of a sudden not applicable.
I am not sure he did admit this. It is not illegal for the police to listen in on your call if you are communicating with a person that is the *target* of a tap. The *target* is the end that requires a warrant. This is nothing new. We all know that. Now if the police suspect *you* of something and want to listen in on more of your calls, they must get a warrant to make you the *target* of the tap. The NSA has been monitoring communications for years. They have never stopped listening if a call happens to terminate within the US. The issue was that this information could not be used in criminal prosecution. The info would stay within the NSA and not go anywhere. After 9/11, many people decided this was a stupid idea. The NSA should be able to pass a lead to the FBI. For the FBI to make the person *inside* the US a *target* of a tap based on secret sources, they must get a FISA warrant. As this article points out, the FISA judge would not grant a FISA warrant to the FBI based only on a NSA lead. My understanding is this just changed a week or two ago. The FISA *will* now grant a FISA warrant on a NSA lead. In other words, the court apparently agrees with the administration's legal argument.
If you think about it, this is why the administration has used the FISA courts more, not less as has been sited over and over again.
Because those rights are supposed to be inalienable for all men.
But we already have laws that are based on long tradition on what happens with people that are captured on the battlefield. The game Capture the Flag is based on these traditions and laws. Part of this tradition is that people get put into prison until the war ends or their own country negotiates their release. In this action, we have released people to their countries by diplomatic negotiation only to recapture them later. We have to be very careful who we release when we pull them off the battlefield. This is nothing new. I really do not understand the controversy on this.
Australia has been asking that David Hicks be released for about 4 years now.
Maybe there is a reason we want to hold on to him. I am not familiar with the case, but considering we have very, very good relations with Australia it would seem very surprising to me that Australia cannot bring their man home. I will have to read up on this.
Sure sure, everybody knows that reality has a known left-wing bias.
Not bias, just hype! Way too much hype! For heaven's sake, the US rounded up Italian, German, and Japanese people during WWII and put them into camps. Guess what? The US recovered. People still have their rights. HYPE!
Some of the legal analysis I've read during the last few years had been really dumb. For example, how is it possible that people captured on the battlefield have any standing in our civilian courts? If they should not in GITMO then let their country ask for their release. This has happened and we have released people from GITMO to their government. Hasn't anyone ever played Capture the Flag?
The reporting on the NSA wiretapping has been horrible. Since when does the NSA need to get a warrant to tap foreign communications? Anyone calling or receiving a call from a *primary* tap target will get their communication listening in on. The NSA will not and should not hang up if the call terminates inside the US.
The reporting on the above examples has been horrible, why should I trust that this article is any better? I would agree that suspending habeas corpus is not a good idea. But the president does have the power to do it. It seems to me that foreign enemies on US soil do not have any right to habeas corpus. Why should they?
The issue seems to be that a recent law was passed that may have opened up the possibility of US Citizens not having the right to habeas corpus. This may or may not be true, but it wasn't the President that was responsible for passing the law, it was both congress and the president!
I see your point about regulation, but shouldn't a market be given the chance before it is regulated? We do not know for sure how customers will react to ISP tiering. We do not know how colo's and ISP's will peer without enforced neutrality.
Right now, the big content providers *do* get preferential treatment. This is already happening. I have read that Yahoo only pays for half of its bandwidth. It gets the other half for "free" because the ISP's want to peer directly to the Yahoo network and Yahoo wants to peer directly with them. This saves each side on transit costs. It also makes each service appear faster because they are decreasing latency and hops. Is this fair to the little guy that cannot directly peer?
For all we know colo's will start offering premium peering for the little guy. You can be small, but you could pay an extra fee each month to get premium routing to ISP's and be just like the big guys.
I say, let the market work. If we see a problem, then pass laws. Trying to pass a law before the problem fully manifests itself can cause stupid laws that hinder progress.
It's not needed anymore because this ruling allows for FISA warrants based purely on NSA leads with no FBI follow up. The NSA will do what it has always done, target foreign communications for tapping. If they happen on interesting communication that terminates in the US, they can pass this information to the FBI and a warrant will be granted. The FBI can now make the US side a target of a tap.
c le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html.
Nothing has changed except the bar was lowered. Previously the FISA court required *more* information from the FBI beyond a simple lead from the NSA. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
What the court is saying is that not only was the TSP legal, but they now make it easier to make the US side a target of a tap.
Read this:
c le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Does that sound like a rubber stamp to you? The judge was putting the FBI on notice. They will not grant a warrant based solely on a NSA lead. With this new ruling that is not true anymore. A simple NSA lead is all that will be required for the FBI to get a FISA warrant.
The NSA has monitored communications for years and years and years. The TARGETS of the tapping were foreign communications. If the foreign communication terminated in the US, they could still listen in on it, just like the police could listen in if you called a person that was subject to a tap (suspected criminal). You could become the subject of a tap if you said something that the police wanted to follow up on. They of course would have to go back to the court and get another warrant for you.
This is how the TSP worked. The NSA did what they always do. If they got a domestic lead they would pass it to the FBI so the FBI could follow up and potentially get a FISA warrant. The FBI is subject to civilian courts, the NSA is not.
But they did get a FISA warrant. The FBI would have to get the FISA warrant if the NSA generated a lead on the domestic side of the tapped communication. The domestic side wasn't the TARGET of the tap. Thus the NSA never needs a warrant. This has always been the case.
You call can be tapped without a warrant if you call some criminal suspect. That is because the TARGET of the tap is not you, the suspect is. This is how the TSP worked. The targets if the NSA taps were outside the US and considered part of the battlefield. If they needed to follow up domestically the FBI would get the information from the NSA and start their own investigation.
This ruling expands the program and does not require the FBI to further the investigation. The FISA will grant the warrant based purely on NSA intel.
Since when did US civilian courts need to grant warrants for the NSA to target foreign individuals for wiretapping? The NSA has been doing this ever since its creation. What the TSP did is allow the NSA to pass leads to the FBI. The FBI would get the lead and file for a FISA warrant to make the domestic side a wiretap TARGET.
Remember if you call a number that has a tap on it, the police can listen in on your conversation. You are not the target, the person you are calling is. This is the same for the NSA. The idea was to remove the wall so the leads the NSA would discover would get passed on to the FBI. The FISA judges would still require something other than a pure NSA lead to grant the warrant (see: Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data.
What is funny about this ruling is that the FISA court is now said that all it needs is a NSA lead. This is a lower requirement than what the TSP was doing.
The reason it is not being renewed is because it is not needed anymore. All the FISA court needs is a NSA lead to grant a warrant now. Previously the FISA judges required some sort of additional information from a FBI investigation.
Check out this link:
3 250
.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/
AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see
Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what they do with foreign communications.
This is exactly what Marx was saying. It what his theory is based on (the idea proceeded him). My understanding is that Marx did not give any model of *government* to what he saw as oppression. He just that it is wrong and gave a bunch of examples of how it is wrong and tried to formulate an economic system based on the labour theory. This theory has been totally obliterated. This is exactly why you state that even nations that many people still think of as communist, are not anymore. It is because the theory did not work out. Communism as an economic theory is dead.
This is another good site: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/. They post a lot of abstracts and links to papers.
The main question put forth right now is what is the dominate forcing for global warming. Initially CO2 was the sole blame, but there could be more to it. What role does the Sun play? What role has cleaning up particulates (from burning coal, wood, and cars) changed global temp? What about water? Land use (e.g. megacities -- Los Angeles, etc)?
With some models, significantly decreasing man-made CO2 levels will only change the outcome fractions of a degree over a 50 year period.
Communism has not been destroyed as a theory and as I mentioned it works every day in almost every country. The theory that communism would be beneficial if we increased the size of the communist cells to gigantic proportions has been pretty well demonstrated, but that is not the same thing at all. Like it or not the traditional atomic family meets all the classic criteria for being a communist cell.
It has been destroyed. It most definitely has. They don't even teach it in China anymore. Even Vietnam is going free market. The idea that making money off some one's labor is somehow a form of oppression is ridiculous. The labour theory of economics is totally and completely unworkable. It is not based on reality. Your idea that a family is somehow a theory of economics is also not realistic. The idea that some people voluntarily band together to work out some sort of problem is not communism.
The two ideas are mutually exclusive. You either see the exchange of payment for labour as part of a free market or you see it as a form of oppression that must be stopped.