I took a shortcut, for $24.95 a month I got Verizon DSL to my house. Oddly enough, using my Verizon DSL username/password, I could connect to the Verizon wifi network in New York City where I live. I'm currently deployed to Iraq, but here's to hoping this still works when I get back.
"AMD chips are consistenly increasing their power consumption"
What sort of insane rambling is this? I've seen AMD's line of processors drop from under 100w (Athlon 64) to 25w (Turion MT)! That's not a 'consistent' increase in power consumption! Their new TL line may consume 35w, but that is consistent with the ML line!
.
"it looks more like a patch than a semi-rearchitecture like the core is"
Intel is STILL rearchitecturing it's current gen processors, because the P4 architecture was a piece of garbage. HT didn't work, FSB isn't scalable, Their chipset logic has been a nightmare, and they can't decide if they want 32 bit emulation on or off their 64bit processors...
Core is a necessary re-architecture, and it's still not enough to catchup with AMD, whose product still has them killed. Which system bus do you prefer for your multi-core system, 677MHz half duplex or 1600MHz full duplex?
"the fire did not have to melt steel. It only had to weaken it. Steel gradually loses its tensile strength with temperature. It is a known fact and a pretty well researched one, since it is very important in warehouses containing flammable materials--they can easily collapse during a fire.
Agreed.
And if the WTC towers had collapsed at a rate consistent with that idea, we'd basically be done.
I've just got to point out that the building didn't melt down either. The L floor braces that held the concrete floors into place weakened to the point the floor collpsed. When a several ton heavy slab of cement falls twenty or so feet onto another several ton heavy slab of concrete, free fall begins. Coincidently, it also makes a pretty loud boom, and tends to blow out windows, something to do with the air pressure and shock waves. IANACE (I am not a civil engineer) but I did work for the 9/11 commission.
Yahoo (SBC) wants Google videos to pay them money everytime a Yahoo (SBC) customer downloads Google video. That's predatory practice if I've ever heard of it. It's a way for the big guys to strangle competition on online video delivery. If you need money to upgrade your networks, either take it out of your bottom line, increase your customer base, or start charging more money. Upgrading telco equipment is nothing new, we've went from 14.4k to 10mbit, like WTF? There's another network upgrade on the way, and this is just an excuse to make someone else pay for it, and once it's paid for, to boost profits and send their lagging stock prices up. remind me to buy a thousand shares of yahoo if this bill passes.
"Funny... you never hear about multi-billion dollar emergency appropriations to feed our starving children. Yet we get them on a fairly regular basis to fund this insane war in Iraq. I know you're there taking bullets and IED's, but you shouldn't even be there."
That's strange, because we just signed one as part of Hurricane Katrina's relief. I'm glad you don't think I should be here, and I'm rather fond of being at home.. I'm really really fond of it in fact, but it is a sacrifice I volunteered to make, so that perhaps one day I can give my children a less fucked up world than the one I had... and I don't even have kids. I certainly don't want them living under sharia... and when I think that I could have just as easily been born in Iraq as America, well it's hard to deny the soliderity you could feel considering those circumstances.
"As for ballooning debt, it's been happening quite badly under this administration.."
Between 1917-1919 the Federal Debt leapt from 5 billion to 27 billion dollars. From 1940 to 1945, it leapt from 40 billion to 260 billion. from 1967 to 1977 it doubled from 344 billion to 718 billion. from 1979 to 1984, if again doubled from 845 billion to 1.6 trillion. from 1985 to 1992 again it doubled from 1.9 to 4.0 trillion. it has not yet doubled since, but from 1992 to 2005 it is at 7.9 trillion.
All that said, the point is that through history, before the "war on poverty" the debt fluxuated with the economy, but could have easily been systematically reduced or eliminated given the economic prowess of today's federal reserve. Since the great social spending has been introduced, it has been the single greatest factor in deteriorating the economic health of our nation. It consitently and predictably doubles, not with the onslaught of global wars, but with the measured pace of spending obligations unrealistic to earnings. We have spent over ten trillion dollars on social progrms for the poor, think about how much money that is, and look at our federal debt very carefully. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to care for the poor, but you can't rely on unrealistic programs to indefinately immerse the entire nation in debt. It's a classic case of the person who can't swim drowning the lifeguard trying to save him.
I've got to agree, this response was well written and articulated. A rare find in this national conversation. That said, I feel necessary to respond in kind.
Tighter customs inspections and improved airport security are reasonable responses of reasonable scale and scope. Large-scale wiretapping and imprisonment without charge are not.
You've just shifted the debate from illegal vs legal to reasonable vs unreasonable. I feel there's alot of laws that are unreasonable, hell there's alot of problems I have with say, how the police department operates, or bus schedules. That doesn't mean the DOT chariman should be imprisoned or impeached. Legal is written, reasonable is relative. I personally can appreciate that when the NSA captures a cell phone from an al qaeda operative (and we do it all the time) they can enter that number, and their address book into a database, and find out the degrees of seperation between their phone and other known al qaeda operators, the activity and importance of that cell, and potential leads into the locations of other al qaeda cells (how do you think we're uncovering planning cells throughout Western Europe?). That's not 'theoretical knowledge', that is "I give a daily intelligence briefing in Iraq" knowledge. You may think we need "good detective work", I say that's exactly what we are doing. This database isn't just FOUO, It's top secret classified FOUO. There isn't government minions just playing on it all day, it's serious business for serious analysts. The bottom line is, noone is going to tell you exactly how this thing works, exactly what information we get out of it, and exactly how we've used the intelligence. You simply have to have some faith in the ability of the defense department to do their job ethically. If this database is misused, it will be exposed. History is a great lesson of that.
Still, it is good to take a step back, and make sure that we're not just reacting with "SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING!" without thinking carefully about just how far "something" should go
Well, I know at the end of the decade, I will be able to look back and say I did more than my part in strengthening America. Besides volunteering in the rescue, I was contracted by the NYPD to help integrate the emergency response system with the FDNY and EMT, and later joined the military to serve in Iraq. It wasn't a SOMEONE needs to do SOMETHING, for me it was, "what can I do to help". That said, this intelligence program isn't a kneejerk reaction to 9/11. It's been in place for over a decade. It's been very well thought out and executed globally by several governments. It has provided a wealth of knowledge to our spy agencies, and has become core to our capabilities. You might not like the fact that the government knows how phone numbers are linked, but is this really any different than the government knowing which bank accounts are connected? Every banking transaction is reported to the Federal Government, is that against your 4th amendment as well? why not every telephone transaction. Both these systems rely on linking account numbers, not linking people. Rest assured, there is oversight in place to translate an account number to a name and address.
In the end, it's far too easily extensible.
This is where I think the gears are grinding between are ideologies. I'm looking at the practicality of what we are doing, and what we are accomplish with it, you are looking at the theoretical how could this be shifted and misused. I think it's kind of throwing out the baby with the bath water. We need to do what we are doing, and the last thing we should be doing is weakening our ability to defend ourselves. I could care less if the government datamines my phone records, there's nothing even incriminating about that! Even if I am calling al qaeda, that only raises suspicion, it doesn't create guilt. They still need to prove that an illegal action occured. And no, it is not a violation of my privacy for them to notice one phone number connected to a known ter
Oh and I forgot to mention, this is a culture that fires AK-47 Rambo style instead of aiming explaining that their bullets will hit if it is Allah's will. They call it Sha'llah or something. This was something that has taken us YEARS to overcome, training Iraqi army and police forces to actually use the sights on their weapons. So if the US intercepts their call, maybe that was Allah's will as well.
"This party, who doesn't trust the government to educate children, feed the poor, and build roads somehow as no problem trusting this government to collect every bit of information about each person's life and not abuse it."
Yet we spend like three times as much money on social entitlements as we do on defense. Where we have tangible results from our defense programs, we have only weighing debt and spiraling spending from our social programs. The federal government was created to provide a common defense, not a common paycheck. Do I trust that the government can use intelligence to prevent terrorism? Absolutely. As a soldier in Iraq, I've witnessed how necessary good intelligence is in conducting asymmetrical warfare firsthand. The terrorists might have the asymmetrical advantage of fanatical suicide bombers, but we have the asymmetrical advantage of technological capabilities that can intercept their plans. Why in the hell would you ever volunteer to surrender that strategic advantage for the comfort that the government can no longer maybe know your grandmother's secret receipe. Or that you are cheating on your wife. The only resistance I can imgine this from, once again, is the paranoid pot smokers, who all realize this means their dealer could be given up if they turn this law against the "war on drugs" which you claim they cannot win. I guarantee you it won't put up much of a fight if we applied the same tactics we use to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil.
Your in some delusion to think terrorism is impossible or improbable. It's inevitable without the very measures we have employed since September 12th that you are fighting so hard to undo.
"Even though you have a higher chance of dying from car accidents (why don't we ban all cars?), people are scared shitless of terrorists."
Why don't we ban international calling? Or better yet, where's my absolute right to doing whatever I want when it comes to driver's licenses, vehicle registration and safety inspections, DOT Standards, mandatory crash testing, seat belt laws, traffic rules, and speed limits? Apparently it's the government's job to force people to do somethings they might not want to do for the safety of everyone around them.. I'm pretty sure the duty, "promote the general Welfare" didn't have anything to do with promoting generals, but passing laws that promoted good health and safety among the citizens. I hope you wouldn't think a federal ban on tobacco, drugs, or alcohol is 'unconstituional' as well.
"let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria."
They re the results of terrorism. Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.
Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too.
Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.
Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.
I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work. Why bother building levees in New Orleans?
see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I think you need to recheck your knowledgebase once again. There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat. There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection. This tradition of intercepting communications is as old as the Constitution is, and has been affirmed on several occassions by the Supreme Court. Don't hold your breath.. err wait.. maybe you should.
"Terrorism only provided the OPPORTUNITY to pass measures like the "PATRIOT" Act--it did NOT provide the will to do so. "
Actually, terrorism provided a reason to pass measures like the Patriot Act. You just want to play politics with National Security, so you spin up ideological arguments like these that complacently ignore the entire history of our nation, and even worse, the reality of foreign countries who during peace, don't share a shred of the liberties that we enjoy during war. Try walking across the border into Canada or crossing the pond to the European Union and see see how those evil, fascist, nazi hitlers are 'spying'.
"The arrogant belief of the current administration and Congress that they are above the law and Constitution, and the reluctance of anyone (including in some cases the Supreme Court!) to rein them in, sharply if necessary"
What's arrogant in my opinion, is the unconsitutional belief that the Congress is the commander in chief of the military in a time of war, or that they have any power of military oversight. What's arrogant in my opinion is your insistance that the nation's safety should be threatened because you don't think the government should know who is calling terrorists.. for whatever paranoid, selfish reasons.
"I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?"
A partisan politician's assertion that they are breaking the law isn't evidence of such misbehavior. Their power is constitutional, if only under the Supreme Court's determination that our traditions can determine what behavior is constitutional.. disregard that the Constitution places the entirety of power to wage war under the executive branch.. Congress only declares it, they do not exercise it.
Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job:
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take th
Are you aware of what's good for us is typically perceived as bad for them and vice-versa? are you aware that no amount of politics can solve the worlds problem and that governments need the power to exert their authority, because without authority, government is useless? you can't please everyone all the time, especially in america. What brand of diplomacy do you consume that you can propose not only to make all Americans happy, but the entire world happy.. all the while relieving yourself of any authority or force.. because I'd like to smoke some.
I think the opposite is more true. People who aren't concerned about terrorism are more concerned about the government (boo!). It's not about the mathematical probability of fatality from a terrorist attack, it's about a worldwide pan-arab nationalist fascist movement that threatens to engulf Europe, and then what? I think it will be revealing how many people here react to the US government spying on Europe (like we haven't for the entire existance of our nation). First people are all concerned tht the government will take notice that they are cheating on their wives over the phone, then fear grips them as they realize the government has records of all those calls to their drug dealer.. the final straw however, is the US Government spying on.. Europe! That whole terrorism thing tho? Just a jewish conspiracy! Ignore it!
"Letting the citizens vote again" is the most unconstitutional thing I've yet to read on this thread. you would have to invalidate an entire election, not a voting machine for this to occur.
If only I hadn't spent all my mod points, this one would have got an underrated. Legislatures habitually throw out wild, vague bills then spend absolutely no time lobbying them, so they can come up with dramatic statements for elections to attack opponents. Bills that direct hundreds of millions in funding, but don't specify where the funding will come from is a prime example. Rep. Dunghill voted against building ten new schools in inner cities. Senator Douchebag proposed a bill that would stop geezers from raping your teenage daughter online, Senator Daterape voted against it. Blah blah blah. This bill won't pass, people shouldn't get so crazy about it calling people who never even voted for it little eichmanns.
I'm/.ing from Iraq and this 'hacking' military firewall business is either speculation, heresay, or bragging. There isn't any reason/need to do this. There are MWR facilities with gaming centers and unfiltered internet access, as well as private ISPs here on the bases. To use the military's non-classified internet provider with a home computer with world or warcraft loaded alone would get you in a world of hurt, and that's before you decide to bypass thier security.
Which is exactly what they should not do. I can't imagine universities giving up on their fundamental principles to accomodate the RIAA. Those principles being the free exchange of information.. the crucible of technology.. not to mention the last refuge for kids to 'experiment' with breaking the law.
This is absolute flame bait. (topped off with the proverbial "Don't flame me!")
Liberals insist you think the way they think because they are smarter than you.
"Pluralities of suburbanites, Protestants, married people, and those from households with incomes of $30,000 or more also self-identify as Republican. This reflects the Republican party's "main street" advantage. In contrast, the Democratic party is more attractive to less wealthy and minority segments of the electorate" http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repor tID=124
There isn't a singluar chart to draw the comparison form, but you can see here http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/gd-index.htm the conservative vote consolidates with wealth and education. Educators may be more inclined to be liberal, but that's hardly a suprise, considering they went from living with their parents, to going to university on student loans, to going to a teaching position at the university, to tenure. Wow, straight from mom's tit to the government's tit, I'm impressed.
"and thus necessitate giving up fundamental freedoms we have never given up before) than during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, 1812, WWI, WWII, Cold War..."
From that quote alone, I can tell you bypassed the 'individual thinking' and 'higher education' you so loftily exhalt. For starters, it doesn't even make sense. (before than during???) Regardless, I tried to respond.
World Wars = Oh, your parents are japanese? You're under arrest. Whoops! Come back here Mr. Free press, you can't run that story. Almost thought you'd get away from the Office of Propaganda and Censorship didn't you? Hey you across the street, come grab a rifle and travel around the world for a war, there's even a 32% chance you'll survive!
Oh yeah, we're really sacrificing for this war because the NSA could *GASP* intercept your phone call when you talk about how much you support Hamas.
For the record, it was the United States Army that defeated the British Army and gave a free government to the people. It is the United States Army that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees those freedoms. 'The People' didn't take anything in this country, not in the constituent sense. Those freedoms were won in war, and have been guaranteed by the United States Army since 1776.
Contracts are not subject to reason, they're subject to the consent of the parties. If every contract was nullified everytime someone cried, "Be reasonable" our litigation system would choke on its own vomit. If they say you'll pay us 15% of sales for expenses such as breakage, packaging, et al. and the contracting agent considers this expense reasonable at the time of the agreement, then it is valid. Even if he thought it was unreasonable, but compensated for in other areas, he could still agree to the contract and be held to its terms. The fact is, the cost of manufacturing CDs has severly decreased in the last 15 years due to improvements in manufacturing, breakage has decreased due to improvements in shipping, and distribution costs have also gone down so that what once justified 15% could more accurately justify 5% in today's terms. That doesn't mean that the artist is entitled to a 10% refund because the terms have become more favorable to him. Is the record company entitled to a larger share of an artist's roylties when their record doesn't sell as expected? Of course not.
IANAL but I do know inclusions cannot be used as exclusions. i.e. If you include a cost, and that cost doesn't apply, then you can't use the inclusion of the cost to exclude a transaction from the contract.
i wrote 8,000 words in response to your rantings bout the war and deleted them all. It is off topic.
"any information gathered by these illegal wiretaps that are done without probable cause or following the rules of due process will never hold up in most courts in the US."
I agree with you completely. Except I want to show the chasm of ignorance in this statement. Where does the US courts come into play with military operations? The US Court system has NO JURISDICTION over the military. The Intelligence services can gather all the intelligence they want, by whatever means they want, and then use it accordingly to plan their operations. They are spy agencies working for the defense department. Certainly, they couldn't use this wiretap information in court, but that was never their intention! Terrorism is not a matter for the police, it is a matter for the military. Think long and hard about that.
"We have avoided these rights issues thus far by naming these "terrorists", Citizens or not, as enemy combatants"
You talk as if we just can shreik "Terrorist!" and none of the rules apply. By legal terms, terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. So for starters, terrorism doesn't include speech, it is specifically an ACT. So that just blows your whole paranoid rant out of the water.
"By force feeding propaganda on the war on terrorism and by attempting to create a state of fear, they are trying to control people"
Speaking of paranoid rants.. this war is the least propagandized war ever fought by the United States. Apparently they aren't trying hard enough to create a state of fear, because you clearly don't understand the danger of our enemy. Why don't you try coming to visit Iraq for a year and maybe watch a suicide bomber or two in action. Nothing like mortars raining around you to get an appropriate dose of FUD. Your current hand in the sand views are suicidal if you ask me. There is a real enemy to be fought, and it is not your government.
"You still say that regular e-mail has no expectation of privacy and I really would be interested to see if the courts agree with you. People send e-mail in confidence, so how is it any different then a phone conversation. The line switching for telephones isn't that hard to intercept, and cell phones and cordless home phones both are susceptible to scanning methods. This does not mean I have some expectation of privacy when talking on the phone."
I'm fairly certain cell phone scanning is illegal, and network sniffing is not. Also it is illegal for private individuals to tap telephones, but not to sniff networks. So how can you reasonbly expect privacy against an action anyone is allowed to do? As far as telephone goes, you do maintain a reasonable level of privacy, noone is listening to your every call. I'm pretty sure the MSM has told you that the NSA program uses a computer algorithim to find, flag, and record conversations for review based on search criteria. It's not like there's a million agents listening to grandma's receipes. There's a calling criteria that alerts the program to monitor the call, and keywords that alert the program to record the call for review. Comprehension is a key to privacy right? You even said you encrypt your conversations, therefore they are private.. so a computer program listening to a call for keywords isn't invading your privacy is it? I mean, it doesn't understand anything being said after all...
P>
"People are willing to accept way too much for th
I constantly hear people bitching about overthrowing the government.. I haven't seen any of them get arrested. Where's the clause that says that the government has to lay down for anyone that has to overthrow it. I suppose that's the purpose of democracy, more people would be inclined to work within the framework of the Constitution than kill their sons and daughters. So forgive me when I have little sympathy for people who would rather kill innocent people than enjoy the freedoms that I provide.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately by the time that joke reaches their planet, we will have renamed uranus to urectum.
I took a shortcut, for $24.95 a month I got Verizon DSL to my house. Oddly enough, using my Verizon DSL username/password, I could connect to the Verizon wifi network in New York City where I live. I'm currently deployed to Iraq, but here's to hoping this still works when I get back.
What sort of insane rambling is this? I've seen AMD's line of processors drop from under 100w (Athlon 64) to 25w (Turion MT)! That's not a 'consistent' increase in power consumption! Their new TL line may consume 35w, but that is consistent with the ML line!
. "it looks more like a patch than a semi-rearchitecture like the core is"
Intel is STILL rearchitecturing it's current gen processors, because the P4 architecture was a piece of garbage. HT didn't work, FSB isn't scalable, Their chipset logic has been a nightmare, and they can't decide if they want 32 bit emulation on or off their 64bit processors...
Core is a necessary re-architecture, and it's still not enough to catchup with AMD, whose product still has them killed. Which system bus do you prefer for your multi-core system, 677MHz half duplex or 1600MHz full duplex?
And if the WTC towers had collapsed at a rate consistent with that idea, we'd basically be done.
I've just got to point out that the building didn't melt down either. The L floor braces that held the concrete floors into place weakened to the point the floor collpsed. When a several ton heavy slab of cement falls twenty or so feet onto another several ton heavy slab of concrete, free fall begins. Coincidently, it also makes a pretty loud boom, and tends to blow out windows, something to do with the air pressure and shock waves. IANACE (I am not a civil engineer) but I did work for the 9/11 commission.
Yahoo (SBC) wants Google videos to pay them money everytime a Yahoo (SBC) customer downloads Google video. That's predatory practice if I've ever heard of it. It's a way for the big guys to strangle competition on online video delivery. If you need money to upgrade your networks, either take it out of your bottom line, increase your customer base, or start charging more money. Upgrading telco equipment is nothing new, we've went from 14.4k to 10mbit, like WTF? There's another network upgrade on the way, and this is just an excuse to make someone else pay for it, and once it's paid for, to boost profits and send their lagging stock prices up. remind me to buy a thousand shares of yahoo if this bill passes.
That's strange, because we just signed one as part of Hurricane Katrina's relief. I'm glad you don't think I should be here, and I'm rather fond of being at home.. I'm really really fond of it in fact, but it is a sacrifice I volunteered to make, so that perhaps one day I can give my children a less fucked up world than the one I had... and I don't even have kids. I certainly don't want them living under sharia... and when I think that I could have just as easily been born in Iraq as America, well it's hard to deny the soliderity you could feel considering those circumstances.
"As for ballooning debt, it's been happening quite badly under this administration.."
Between 1917-1919 the Federal Debt leapt from 5 billion to 27 billion dollars. From 1940 to 1945, it leapt from 40 billion to 260 billion. from 1967 to 1977 it doubled from 344 billion to 718 billion. from 1979 to 1984, if again doubled from 845 billion to 1.6 trillion. from 1985 to 1992 again it doubled from 1.9 to 4.0 trillion. it has not yet doubled since, but from 1992 to 2005 it is at 7.9 trillion. All that said, the point is that through history, before the "war on poverty" the debt fluxuated with the economy, but could have easily been systematically reduced or eliminated given the economic prowess of today's federal reserve. Since the great social spending has been introduced, it has been the single greatest factor in deteriorating the economic health of our nation. It consitently and predictably doubles, not with the onslaught of global wars, but with the measured pace of spending obligations unrealistic to earnings. We have spent over ten trillion dollars on social progrms for the poor, think about how much money that is, and look at our federal debt very carefully. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to care for the poor, but you can't rely on unrealistic programs to indefinately immerse the entire nation in debt. It's a classic case of the person who can't swim drowning the lifeguard trying to save him.
You've just shifted the debate from illegal vs legal to reasonable vs unreasonable. I feel there's alot of laws that are unreasonable, hell there's alot of problems I have with say, how the police department operates, or bus schedules. That doesn't mean the DOT chariman should be imprisoned or impeached. Legal is written, reasonable is relative. I personally can appreciate that when the NSA captures a cell phone from an al qaeda operative (and we do it all the time) they can enter that number, and their address book into a database, and find out the degrees of seperation between their phone and other known al qaeda operators, the activity and importance of that cell, and potential leads into the locations of other al qaeda cells (how do you think we're uncovering planning cells throughout Western Europe?). That's not 'theoretical knowledge', that is "I give a daily intelligence briefing in Iraq" knowledge. You may think we need "good detective work", I say that's exactly what we are doing. This database isn't just FOUO, It's top secret classified FOUO. There isn't government minions just playing on it all day, it's serious business for serious analysts. The bottom line is, noone is going to tell you exactly how this thing works, exactly what information we get out of it, and exactly how we've used the intelligence. You simply have to have some faith in the ability of the defense department to do their job ethically. If this database is misused, it will be exposed. History is a great lesson of that.
Still, it is good to take a step back, and make sure that we're not just reacting with "SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING!" without thinking carefully about just how far "something" should go
Well, I know at the end of the decade, I will be able to look back and say I did more than my part in strengthening America. Besides volunteering in the rescue, I was contracted by the NYPD to help integrate the emergency response system with the FDNY and EMT, and later joined the military to serve in Iraq. It wasn't a SOMEONE needs to do SOMETHING, for me it was, "what can I do to help". That said, this intelligence program isn't a kneejerk reaction to 9/11. It's been in place for over a decade. It's been very well thought out and executed globally by several governments. It has provided a wealth of knowledge to our spy agencies, and has become core to our capabilities. You might not like the fact that the government knows how phone numbers are linked, but is this really any different than the government knowing which bank accounts are connected? Every banking transaction is reported to the Federal Government, is that against your 4th amendment as well? why not every telephone transaction. Both these systems rely on linking account numbers, not linking people. Rest assured, there is oversight in place to translate an account number to a name and address.
In the end, it's far too easily extensible.
This is where I think the gears are grinding between are ideologies. I'm looking at the practicality of what we are doing, and what we are accomplish with it, you are looking at the theoretical how could this be shifted and misused. I think it's kind of throwing out the baby with the bath water. We need to do what we are doing, and the last thing we should be doing is weakening our ability to defend ourselves. I could care less if the government datamines my phone records, there's nothing even incriminating about that! Even if I am calling al qaeda, that only raises suspicion, it doesn't create guilt. They still need to prove that an illegal action occured. And no, it is not a violation of my privacy for them to notice one phone number connected to a known ter
Oh and I forgot to mention, this is a culture that fires AK-47 Rambo style instead of aiming explaining that their bullets will hit if it is Allah's will. They call it Sha'llah or something. This was something that has taken us YEARS to overcome, training Iraqi army and police forces to actually use the sights on their weapons. So if the US intercepts their call, maybe that was Allah's will as well.
Laws of Human Nature Number 1.
People will naturally do whatever is easiest if they believe they can get away with it.
Just how do you misuse records of your own actions?
Yet we spend like three times as much money on social entitlements as we do on defense. Where we have tangible results from our defense programs, we have only weighing debt and spiraling spending from our social programs. The federal government was created to provide a common defense, not a common paycheck. Do I trust that the government can use intelligence to prevent terrorism? Absolutely. As a soldier in Iraq, I've witnessed how necessary good intelligence is in conducting asymmetrical warfare firsthand. The terrorists might have the asymmetrical advantage of fanatical suicide bombers, but we have the asymmetrical advantage of technological capabilities that can intercept their plans. Why in the hell would you ever volunteer to surrender that strategic advantage for the comfort that the government can no longer maybe know your grandmother's secret receipe. Or that you are cheating on your wife. The only resistance I can imgine this from, once again, is the paranoid pot smokers, who all realize this means their dealer could be given up if they turn this law against the "war on drugs" which you claim they cannot win. I guarantee you it won't put up much of a fight if we applied the same tactics we use to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil.
Your in some delusion to think terrorism is impossible or improbable. It's inevitable without the very measures we have employed since September 12th that you are fighting so hard to undo.
Why don't we ban international calling? Or better yet, where's my absolute right to doing whatever I want when it comes to driver's licenses, vehicle registration and safety inspections, DOT Standards, mandatory crash testing, seat belt laws, traffic rules, and speed limits? Apparently it's the government's job to force people to do somethings they might not want to do for the safety of everyone around them.. I'm pretty sure the duty, "promote the general Welfare" didn't have anything to do with promoting generals, but passing laws that promoted good health and safety among the citizens. I hope you wouldn't think a federal ban on tobacco, drugs, or alcohol is 'unconstituional' as well.
They re the results of terrorism. Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.
Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too.
Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.
Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.
I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work. Why bother building levees in New Orleans?
see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I think you need to recheck your knowledgebase once again. There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat. There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection. This tradition of intercepting communications is as old as the Constitution is, and has been affirmed on several occassions by the Supreme Court. Don't hold your breath.. err wait.. maybe you should.
"Terrorism only provided the OPPORTUNITY to pass measures like the "PATRIOT" Act--it did NOT provide the will to do so. "
Actually, terrorism provided a reason to pass measures like the Patriot Act. You just want to play politics with National Security, so you spin up ideological arguments like these that complacently ignore the entire history of our nation, and even worse, the reality of foreign countries who during peace, don't share a shred of the liberties that we enjoy during war. Try walking across the border into Canada or crossing the pond to the European Union and see see how those evil, fascist, nazi hitlers are 'spying'.
"The arrogant belief of the current administration and Congress that they are above the law and Constitution, and the reluctance of anyone (including in some cases the Supreme Court!) to rein them in, sharply if necessary"
What's arrogant in my opinion, is the unconsitutional belief that the Congress is the commander in chief of the military in a time of war, or that they have any power of military oversight. What's arrogant in my opinion is your insistance that the nation's safety should be threatened because you don't think the government should know who is calling terrorists.. for whatever paranoid, selfish reasons.
"I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?"
A partisan politician's assertion that they are breaking the law isn't evidence of such misbehavior. Their power is constitutional, if only under the Supreme Court's determination that our traditions can determine what behavior is constitutional.. disregard that the Constitution places the entirety of power to wage war under the executive branch.. Congress only declares it, they do not exercise it.
Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take th
Are you aware of what's good for us is typically perceived as bad for them and vice-versa? are you aware that no amount of politics can solve the worlds problem and that governments need the power to exert their authority, because without authority, government is useless? you can't please everyone all the time, especially in america. What brand of diplomacy do you consume that you can propose not only to make all Americans happy, but the entire world happy.. all the while relieving yourself of any authority or force.. because I'd like to smoke some.
I think the opposite is more true. People who aren't concerned about terrorism are more concerned about the government (boo!). It's not about the mathematical probability of fatality from a terrorist attack, it's about a worldwide pan-arab nationalist fascist movement that threatens to engulf Europe, and then what? I think it will be revealing how many people here react to the US government spying on Europe (like we haven't for the entire existance of our nation). First people are all concerned tht the government will take notice that they are cheating on their wives over the phone, then fear grips them as they realize the government has records of all those calls to their drug dealer.. the final straw however, is the US Government spying on.. Europe! That whole terrorism thing tho? Just a jewish conspiracy! Ignore it!
"Letting the citizens vote again" is the most unconstitutional thing I've yet to read on this thread. you would have to invalidate an entire election, not a voting machine for this to occur.
If only I hadn't spent all my mod points, this one would have got an underrated. Legislatures habitually throw out wild, vague bills then spend absolutely no time lobbying them, so they can come up with dramatic statements for elections to attack opponents. Bills that direct hundreds of millions in funding, but don't specify where the funding will come from is a prime example. Rep. Dunghill voted against building ten new schools in inner cities. Senator Douchebag proposed a bill that would stop geezers from raping your teenage daughter online, Senator Daterape voted against it. Blah blah blah. This bill won't pass, people shouldn't get so crazy about it calling people who never even voted for it little eichmanns.
I'm /.ing from Iraq and this 'hacking' military firewall business is either speculation, heresay, or bragging. There isn't any reason/need to do this. There are MWR facilities with gaming centers and unfiltered internet access, as well as private ISPs here on the bases. To use the military's non-classified internet provider with a home computer with world or warcraft loaded alone would get you in a world of hurt, and that's before you decide to bypass thier security.
Which is exactly what they should not do. I can't imagine universities giving up on their fundamental principles to accomodate the RIAA. Those principles being the free exchange of information.. the crucible of technology.. not to mention the last refuge for kids to 'experiment' with breaking the law.
Liberals insist you think the way they think because they are smarter than you.
"Pluralities of suburbanites, Protestants, married people, and those from households with incomes of $30,000 or more also self-identify as Republican. This reflects the Republican party's "main street" advantage. In contrast, the Democratic party is more attractive to less wealthy and minority segments of the electorate" http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repor tID=124
There isn't a singluar chart to draw the comparison form, but you can see here http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/gd-index.htm the conservative vote consolidates with wealth and education. Educators may be more inclined to be liberal, but that's hardly a suprise, considering they went from living with their parents, to going to university on student loans, to going to a teaching position at the university, to tenure. Wow, straight from mom's tit to the government's tit, I'm impressed.
"and thus necessitate giving up fundamental freedoms we have never given up before) than during the Revolutionary War, Civil War, 1812, WWI, WWII, Cold War..."
From that quote alone, I can tell you bypassed the 'individual thinking' and 'higher education' you so loftily exhalt. For starters, it doesn't even make sense. (before than during???) Regardless, I tried to respond.
World Wars = Oh, your parents are japanese? You're under arrest. Whoops! Come back here Mr. Free press, you can't run that story. Almost thought you'd get away from the Office of Propaganda and Censorship didn't you? Hey you across the street, come grab a rifle and travel around the world for a war, there's even a 32% chance you'll survive!
Oh yeah, we're really sacrificing for this war because the NSA could *GASP* intercept your phone call when you talk about how much you support Hamas.
For the record, it was the United States Army that defeated the British Army and gave a free government to the people. It is the United States Army that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees those freedoms. 'The People' didn't take anything in this country, not in the constituent sense. Those freedoms were won in war, and have been guaranteed by the United States Army since 1776.
Contracts are not subject to reason, they're subject to the consent of the parties. If every contract was nullified everytime someone cried, "Be reasonable" our litigation system would choke on its own vomit. If they say you'll pay us 15% of sales for expenses such as breakage, packaging, et al. and the contracting agent considers this expense reasonable at the time of the agreement, then it is valid. Even if he thought it was unreasonable, but compensated for in other areas, he could still agree to the contract and be held to its terms. The fact is, the cost of manufacturing CDs has severly decreased in the last 15 years due to improvements in manufacturing, breakage has decreased due to improvements in shipping, and distribution costs have also gone down so that what once justified 15% could more accurately justify 5% in today's terms. That doesn't mean that the artist is entitled to a 10% refund because the terms have become more favorable to him. Is the record company entitled to a larger share of an artist's roylties when their record doesn't sell as expected? Of course not.
IANAL but I do know inclusions cannot be used as exclusions. i.e. If you include a cost, and that cost doesn't apply, then you can't use the inclusion of the cost to exclude a transaction from the contract.
I agree with you completely. Except I want to show the chasm of ignorance in this statement. Where does the US courts come into play with military operations? The US Court system has NO JURISDICTION over the military. The Intelligence services can gather all the intelligence they want, by whatever means they want, and then use it accordingly to plan their operations. They are spy agencies working for the defense department. Certainly, they couldn't use this wiretap information in court, but that was never their intention! Terrorism is not a matter for the police, it is a matter for the military. Think long and hard about that.
"We have avoided these rights issues thus far by naming these "terrorists", Citizens or not, as enemy combatants"
You talk as if we just can shreik "Terrorist!" and none of the rules apply. By legal terms, terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. So for starters, terrorism doesn't include speech, it is specifically an ACT. So that just blows your whole paranoid rant out of the water.
"By force feeding propaganda on the war on terrorism and by attempting to create a state of fear, they are trying to control people"
Speaking of paranoid rants.. this war is the least propagandized war ever fought by the United States. Apparently they aren't trying hard enough to create a state of fear, because you clearly don't understand the danger of our enemy. Why don't you try coming to visit Iraq for a year and maybe watch a suicide bomber or two in action. Nothing like mortars raining around you to get an appropriate dose of FUD. Your current hand in the sand views are suicidal if you ask me. There is a real enemy to be fought, and it is not your government.
"You still say that regular e-mail has no expectation of privacy and I really would be interested to see if the courts agree with you. People send e-mail in confidence, so how is it any different then a phone conversation. The line switching for telephones isn't that hard to intercept, and cell phones and cordless home phones both are susceptible to scanning methods. This does not mean I have some expectation of privacy when talking on the phone."
I'm fairly certain cell phone scanning is illegal, and network sniffing is not. Also it is illegal for private individuals to tap telephones, but not to sniff networks. So how can you reasonbly expect privacy against an action anyone is allowed to do? As far as telephone goes, you do maintain a reasonable level of privacy, noone is listening to your every call. I'm pretty sure the MSM has told you that the NSA program uses a computer algorithim to find, flag, and record conversations for review based on search criteria. It's not like there's a million agents listening to grandma's receipes. There's a calling criteria that alerts the program to monitor the call, and keywords that alert the program to record the call for review. Comprehension is a key to privacy right? You even said you encrypt your conversations, therefore they are private.. so a computer program listening to a call for keywords isn't invading your privacy is it? I mean, it doesn't understand anything being said after all...
P> "People are willing to accept way too much for th
I constantly hear people bitching about overthrowing the government.. I haven't seen any of them get arrested. Where's the clause that says that the government has to lay down for anyone that has to overthrow it. I suppose that's the purpose of democracy, more people would be inclined to work within the framework of the Constitution than kill their sons and daughters. So forgive me when I have little sympathy for people who would rather kill innocent people than enjoy the freedoms that I provide.