Google is doing this because they're smart, and they realize how dangerous it is to be competing with MS and relying on them simultaneously. They've learned the lesson that MS will do anything it can to crush competitors, so why take a chance that Vista will become incompatible with Google someday.
There is no male equivalent to the entrapment that is "does my ass look fat in this" primarily because men don't generally care.
And ask yourself, when was the last time a man insisted a woman have a good job before dating them?
They're not the same, and while many of the behaviors overlap, many others are significantly different.
Oh, and lastly, women date assholes because conflict is exciting, and safety is dull. Many people are raised in an environment where conflict is the norm, so men (or women, this applies for both sides) who are stable are inexplicably boring.
Don't worry, though, you'll learn about them someday. But knock it off with the advice, it's wrong.
"Since this shakes up the world-view of some of you, you're stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum over it."
Your entire argument is one continuous straw man. Please show me where I made any of the arguments you attribute to me.
And YOU completely missed MY point.
Cold turkey is an effective as anything else. You implied (no stated) that it wasn't possible. "Junkies need help" to paraphrase, which is WRONG.
Stop assuming you're the only one with something to say.
And stop with the fucking straw men, please. It's tiring reading the same thing restated a hundred times in respones to every post. Stick to the fucking point.
"I'm sure it has nothing to do with the availability of junk food and the national automobile culture."
Isn't it funny how you fail to mention the influence of the computer.
PS off topic rant, stop this stupid blame the automobile for the world's ills shit. It's just completely ignorant.
Cars are tools. Blame oil, blame stupid drunk drivers, but a car parked in a garage is just a machine so stop acting like they run on infant's blood. It gets tired.
"Yes, and the solution to kick heroin is to stop shooting up, but even if you TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS, a junkie is still going to need more help then you shouting at them."
Quitting cold turkey is just as effective as any other method, so even though you tried, your attempt at a witty analogy fails.
And why is it that you're equating obesity with dependence, except when it comes to cause?
Right, like vitamins and minerals, which last time I checked, don't have any calories.
"You can't even make the case that the pleasures of eating and relaxation (or avoiding the discomfort of working out and going hungry) are more important to them than their health and appearance. There are people who are suicidal over their weight, and willing to endure painful, dangerous, ill-advised medical procedures to correct it."
Is it so difficult for you to understand that the same mechanism that makes their eating behavior maladapted can also make their coping mechanisms maladapted?
First, why are you assuming an air of superiority when I'm the one still asking questions, and you're the one drawing conclusions on a subject that ALL scientists agree needs more research
and
Second, if you have a consensus, then your facts should be easy demonstrated. Simply point me to a place where I can see "All scientists agree all consequences of global warming will be bad" and I'll shut up.
But you won't, because you can't.
"Then the respected and peeer reviewed journals Science and Nature are also lying"
NO, you're just lying about what they said. Not hard to understand, except perhaps for you.
"That's an impressive logical leap. Is that the sort of logic you used to come up with your views on GW in the first place?"
What views are you speaking of smart guy? Tell me what views I've espoused that you're questioning. Oh wait, I haven't discussed my views, so is that an example of how you came up with the "facts" you have about GW? Making shit up out of thin air?
Oh, and you didn't deny it either, and we both know why. Because it's true, and you can't.
"You mean to tell me that you are gonna say that my desire to not see the coastline change is a petty concern?"
Yes.
"Your preoccupation with reporters "
Check again Mr. I say-stupid-shit-without verifying. YOU brought up reporters. Check it, then come back and apologiize. I was discussing "reports" originally, and was RESPONDING TO YOU when you brought up reporters afterwards.
But what else should be expected from you.
All you've done is repeat the same garbage over and over. If your point is so solid, and it's easily discerned from EVIDENCE that Global Warming will be unequivocally catastrophic and destructive, with little or no positive repurcussions, then that shouldn't be too hard for someone like you to demonstrate.
Unless of course you've just accepted the reporting as fact like you have.
Luckily there are people like myself who insist on actually doing RESEARCH before assuming we know what the fuck is going on. I suggest you try it, instead of jumping to conclsions.
Lastly, you've demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable of the necessary level of reading comprehension to continue this discussion.
Perhaps when you're able to discern the difference between "reports" and "reporters" we can continue, but I'm certain (at least, as certain as you are about global warming) that if you reach that level, your improved comprehension will allow you to notice how ridiculous you sound, and you won't need me to correct your flawed thinking anymore.
"Yes, like how it will cause exinctions that will skew the food chain."
Is that positive or negative? How do you KNOW that such a change will be negative? You don't, yet you act like you do.
"Like how it will cause sea levels to rise."
We think.
"Like how all this and more mean serious trouble for humanity."
YOU think. How is that science? How is you determining what it WILL mean in any way scientific? It's not, any you know that.
"There is remarkable agreement on this one point in the field."
That's just a lie, and why you think you could pawn it off is beyond me.
"We only care about how it will affect us on the whole. That effect on us is a net negative. Ask a real climatologist and he will explain it to you."
AND THAT'S WHY YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. Is a climatologist an evolutionary biologist? A chemist? NO, they're a climatologist, and they are credible on climatology. A REAL climatologist wouldn't predict lthings they're not qualified to discuss. You should know that.
And I love the "real" climatologist, which I'm assuming you mean "climatologist who agrees with me". Fuck assuming, that's what you really mean, and you're too much of a coward to say it.
"Who give a crap what the reporters say?"
Well, since they frame the public debate, I do. Since they can direct public opinion, I do. Since they have more influence by biasing the science than the scientists themselves, I do. Why you don't is a result of your ignorance to human behavior I guess.
"I'm a guy who doesn't want to see his coastal home (Virginia Beach) flooded out as the coastline changes"
And there it is. You've allowed your petty concerns to be influenced by the apocalyptic reporting.
"GW is a net negative for the human race."
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? WELL? You don't, yet you're so arrogantly convinced of the superiority of your sources and analysis that you have assumed it to be true.
All you've done is illustrate my point, which is if the sheep are willing to be led like you are, then it doesn't matter where you lead them.
Congratulations, dupe, you've swallowed a line.
Science isn't what you, or even leading scientists agree with. Why you think otherwise is fascinating, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
"how about this: I can't prediect the exact weather for February, but I can predict that it will almost certainly be colder than June."
Not in Australia. OOPS!!!
"or: I can't predict exactly how long I will live, but however long it is, it's almost certainly going to be less than 200 years."
Ok, so give me billions of data points for global warming. OH WAIT, THAT EXAMPLE FAILS TOO!
"see? easy."
Hmm, looks like you fucked up badly, twice. Not as easy as you thought, it appears.
And you still didn't answer my question.
I'm not the one claiming something is both unpredictable and predictable at the same time, and then trying to justify my obviously erroneous statement.
"that "exactly" word is the killer - look it up"
Doesn't change a damned thing, and you know it. You asserted that the consequences will "pretty certain"ly be negative. Explain how you reached that conclusion, or rescind it.
You can't predict squat, "exactly" or otherwise, and you're just trying find some shred of an argument to cling to because no one has ever challenged your "obvious" yet completely unverifiable "predictions."
Why do people like you insist on supporting your opinions after they've been challenged instead of questioning them honestly and admitting you may have missed something.
And why the fuck would we pay attention to you if you can't honestly assess the weaknesses of your position?
Why are you so arrogant that you're convinced your lay assessment is in any way valid?
"No-one can really predict exactly what is going to happen,"
Ok, I agree
"but it's pretty certain it won't be good for most people."
Wait, what happened to "No-one can really predict..."? Is it one, or the other?
What on earth would allow you to conclude that a phenomenon is unpredictable, yet allow you to predict that it's results are "pretty certain"ly ANYTHING?
"We can't figure out what's causing it so we are gonna ignore it? Stop throwing this "we don't even know what causes it" smokescreen around and spend some time thinking about what we do agree on"
Ok let's try.
"It is happening"
Ok, I'm with you.
"no matter what else, that is NOT a good thing!"
Nope. This is the point where the argument becomes dogma and not science, and sadly, you fell for it.
Global warming is neither good nor bad, it simply IS. Some of the consequences are bad, but why do we never hear about positive consequences? Have you asked yourself that, why you never hear anyone predicting positive outcomes from global warming? ANY positive outcomes?
Surely it's not possible that the only consequences will be negative, so at the very least there is a good bit of biased reporting, and worst intentional obfuscation.
Why are we always getting the negative, earth is doomed side, and how does that bias change the credibility of the reporting?
"Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?"
Well, my guess is they're not seeing an apocalyptic trend when they look at a single data point.
Which is what you just did, by the way, use a very small set of data to imply that there is a trend.
More importantly, there aren't a whole lot of credible people denying global warming, they just seem to be bickering about the consequences and sources of it.
And frankly, I think that's a valuable debate (until it gets reduced to "doesn't BELIEVE in global warming" like you did) because it's ridiculous to insist on making "changes" when the outcome of those changes may well be far worse.
Rushing into something like this because of ideology is STUPID, yet inevitably that's what get's suggested over and over, because "if we don't do something NOW we may not get the chance!!!!"
Look up "law of unintended consequences" and then get back to me when we're not cavemen bumping around in the dark when it comes to this subject.
And save me your "ice core" and "statistical model" bullshit, you may comfortable dicking around with the climate based on such evidence, but it's predictive ability has never been established, and it's simply not good enough.
We nned more information, and in the absence of it, posts like your only serve to encourage thoughtless interference with no concern for long term consequences.
Then what's the alternative? Listen to YOU? That's a colossally dumb statment.
It's not about due process... isn't that the same complaint we're always hearing about Guantanamo... and these warrrants...and the Patriot act...
How embarrassing for you that you let a stupid statement like that out into the wild instead of keeping it locked away in your mind where it belongs. I mean, it's ok to think it, but damn man, you were actually dumb enough to post it. Wow.
"You know, there is a country you would feel more at home at, one where everyone thinks the same and thinking is enforced."
You must mean slashdot, where everyone has convicted Bush without a trial, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE.
"The real problem here isn't whether a certain amount of Americans, such as yourself, who don't have a problem with internal spying"
Show me where I said that. Is your position so weak that you have to make up idiotic straw men? Apparently so...
"So to conclude, if non-partisan scientists, including most of the former EPA chiefs, including those from Republican administrations, don't trust bush, why should anyone else?"
So, we're making laws and convicting people based on what former EPA chiefs think? That's pretty fucking stupid if it's true...
I support due process. Explain to me why you apparently don't, and would rather rely on the opinions of former EPA chiefs to decide case law.
Well, thanks for signing your post like that, it's gotta be tough to have a name like that...
Also, how is it that you think posting a link to your article in any way refutes my article?
MY point is that the situation is still unresolved, and legal scholars agree.
Your point was that NO ONE except Bush and Gonzales think Bush's actions are legal.
I proved you were a liar.
Post all the links you want, my ONE quotation was enough to show you were full of shit. A hundred links won't change that, because I'll STILL have a quote that shows more people than Bush and Gonzales are unclear on this issue.
"Kind of like how SCOTUS (for decades) and Bush (recently) have ignored the 9th and 10th Amendment limitations on their scope of authority?"
Boy, you're STILL a fucking retard (and a nutjob).
You don't get to blast Bush for ignoring due process and then run your idiot mouth about "illegal" wiretaps that HAVEN'T BEEN FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL. I mean you can, but you're just as bad as Bush if you do.
See that jackass? You are a hypocrite if YOU ignore due process (calling them "illegal" wiretaps) in an effort to prosecute Bush for ignoring due process.
Why do you find it necessary to lie when the facts prove the point?
"And for your fucking information, everybody on the planet except Bush and Gonzales has concluded he broke the law."
That's a lie.
"The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?
The report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program was legal, in part because it said so many details of the operation remained classified."
See that? The situation has many unknowns that require a thorough investigation.
I love how assholes like you screech about "BROKE TEH LAW!!!!" while completely ignoring due process and making idiotic proclamations of guilt.
Apparently you are so serious about enforcing the law that you're willing to ignore it to hang Bush.
No, in one case you're TATTOOED and marked essentially for life, while in the other case THERE ARE NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER.
It's people like you that cloud issues like this by injecting idiotic opinions into the discussion then insisting on inclusion.
Mod me down if you want, but anyone who has to ask how getting a FUCKING TATTOO is different from having your picture taken doesn't deserve a seat at the table for this discussion.
"First off, I did no "screaming." I'm not sure where you got that idea,"
Um, from you actually...
"This is NOT just "asking for identification,"
Caps are the equivalent of yelling. You knew that, but in case you didn't, you can check the newbie FAQ.
"Yes, they are different, just as any example, any analogy is different from what it is comparing itself to."
And why I generally avoid analogies. I don't really understand why you'd compare things that you admit are different in an attempt to make them appear the same, but it's a bad idea.
"It may not be physically intrusive"
As opposed to? Mentally or spiritually intrusive? What does that mean?
"but I don't want someone I've never met, that I cannot have the name of, to have hi-res pictures of my iris. I don't know everything they can do with it, but I know they can imitate me at that school, potentially creating false evidence that I was at the school at a certain time. There are a few clandestine uses for iris scans that I can think of off the top of my head."
Nice. Now try to explain to me how these abuses are infinging your privacy, rather than being lapses in security. Do a better job than "they just are", please.
"It just is."
I'm going to ask one question.
Do you think any of the people responsible for clarifying those rights that just are would accept that explanation, or any person with a shred of intellect for that matter?
"Mr. Jefferson, tell us why you think you shouldn't have to share your home with troops unless it's a time of war..."
"Well, you just shouldn't." Yeah, that's genius.
I find it amusing that when asked why something is a privacy violation, THE BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER YOU CAN GIVE is "It just is."
I'll refute with "nuh-uh" and call it a day.
"Picking up your own son from a public school is not minding your business?"
No, it's not, because you entrusted the school with responsibility of your child. You+kid+school= more that just you. So, logic and math are clearly not strong points for you.
You've avoided answering every question I posed, and instead responded with "it just is" when asked to identify exactly what is a privacy violation in this policy.
I would be ashamed of myself if I accepted "it just is" as an explanation for why an action is a violation of any of my rights.
"This is NOT just "asking for identification," ID is a little plastic card with your picture on it. They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home."
How is it intrusive? I'm not disagreeing but all you did in your post was screamn the same thing you screamed previously, with nothing but your opinion as justification.
I have to wonder if you really know how this technology works if you genuinely think it's "intrusive".
"Take your same statement and apply it to "the police" asking for the ID of "random person walking down the street."
Why would you post such a flawed analogy? You seem pretty bright, you should know better.
An unknown person walking down the street minding their business is wholly different from an individual who is trying to pick up a child. You won't admit it of course, but it is and you know it.
You have yet to give a single reasonable explanation for your assertion that this is an infringment of privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is doing this because they're smart, and they realize how dangerous it is to be competing with MS and relying on them simultaneously. They've learned the lesson that MS will do anything it can to crush competitors, so why take a chance that Vista will become incompatible with Google someday.
"Women are just like you"
There is no male equivalent to the entrapment that is "does my ass look fat in this" primarily because men don't generally care.
And ask yourself, when was the last time a man insisted a woman have a good job before dating them?
They're not the same, and while many of the behaviors overlap, many others are significantly different.
Oh, and lastly, women date assholes because conflict is exciting, and safety is dull. Many people are raised in an environment where conflict is the norm, so men (or women, this applies for both sides) who are stable are inexplicably boring.
Don't worry, though, you'll learn about them someday. But knock it off with the advice, it's wrong.
"Since this shakes up the world-view of some of you, you're stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum over it."
Your entire argument is one continuous straw man. Please show me where I made any of the arguments you attribute to me.
And YOU completely missed MY point.
Cold turkey is an effective as anything else. You implied (no stated) that it wasn't possible. "Junkies need help" to paraphrase, which is WRONG.
Stop assuming you're the only one with something to say.
And stop with the fucking straw men, please. It's tiring reading the same thing restated a hundred times in respones to every post. Stick to the fucking point.
"I'm sure it has nothing to do with the availability of junk food and the national automobile culture."
Isn't it funny how you fail to mention the influence of the computer.
PS off topic rant, stop this stupid blame the automobile for the world's ills shit. It's just completely ignorant.
Cars are tools. Blame oil, blame stupid drunk drivers, but a car parked in a garage is just a machine so stop acting like they run on infant's blood. It gets tired.
"Yes, and the solution to kick heroin is to stop shooting up, but even if you TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS, a junkie is still going to need more help then you shouting at them."
Quitting cold turkey is just as effective as any other method, so even though you tried, your attempt at a witty analogy fails.
And why is it that you're equating obesity with dependence, except when it comes to cause?
"Still fat, yet starved of required nutrients."
Right, like vitamins and minerals, which last time I checked, don't have any calories.
"You can't even make the case that the pleasures of eating and relaxation (or avoiding the discomfort of working out and going hungry) are more important to them than their health and appearance. There are people who are suicidal over their weight, and willing to endure painful, dangerous, ill-advised medical procedures to correct it."
Is it so difficult for you to understand that the same mechanism that makes their eating behavior maladapted can also make their coping mechanisms maladapted?
Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?
First, why are you assuming an air of superiority when I'm the one still asking questions, and you're the one drawing conclusions on a subject that ALL scientists agree needs more research
and
Second, if you have a consensus, then your facts should be easy demonstrated. Simply point me to a place where I can see "All scientists agree all consequences of global warming will be bad" and I'll shut up.
But you won't, because you can't.
"Then the respected and peeer reviewed journals Science and Nature are also lying"
NO, you're just lying about what they said. Not hard to understand, except perhaps for you.
"That's an impressive logical leap. Is that the sort of logic you used to come up with your views on GW in the first place?"
What views are you speaking of smart guy? Tell me what views I've espoused that you're questioning. Oh wait, I haven't discussed my views, so is that an example of how you came up with the "facts" you have about GW? Making shit up out of thin air?
Oh, and you didn't deny it either, and we both know why. Because it's true, and you can't.
"You mean to tell me that you are gonna say that my desire to not see the coastline change is a petty concern?"
Yes.
"Your preoccupation with reporters "
Check again Mr. I say-stupid-shit-without verifying. YOU brought up reporters. Check it, then come back and apologiize. I was discussing "reports" originally, and was RESPONDING TO YOU when you brought up reporters afterwards.
But what else should be expected from you.
All you've done is repeat the same garbage over and over. If your point is so solid, and it's easily discerned from EVIDENCE that Global Warming will be unequivocally catastrophic and destructive, with little or no positive repurcussions, then that shouldn't be too hard for someone like you to demonstrate.
Unless of course you've just accepted the reporting as fact like you have.
Luckily there are people like myself who insist on actually doing RESEARCH before assuming we know what the fuck is going on. I suggest you try it, instead of jumping to conclsions.
Lastly, you've demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable of the necessary level of reading comprehension to continue this discussion.
Perhaps when you're able to discern the difference between "reports" and "reporters" we can continue, but I'm certain (at least, as certain as you are about global warming) that if you reach that level, your improved comprehension will allow you to notice how ridiculous you sound, and you won't need me to correct your flawed thinking anymore.
"Where is the public transit in America? That would be far more effective than the private solution of more cars."
Unless the population is so spread out as to make public transit wasteful and inefficient.
And sicne that accurately describes the US, I wonder how you could ask such a question if you'd genuinely done any research on the subject.
And sitting around your dorm smoking blunts and bitching about the "man" isn't research.
"Some of the consequences are bad"
"Yes, like how it will cause exinctions that will skew the food chain."
Is that positive or negative? How do you KNOW that such a change will be negative? You don't, yet you act like you do.
"Like how it will cause sea levels to rise."
We think.
"Like how all this and more mean serious trouble for humanity."
YOU think. How is that science? How is you determining what it WILL mean in any way scientific? It's not, any you know that.
"There is remarkable agreement on this one point in the field."
That's just a lie, and why you think you could pawn it off is beyond me.
"We only care about how it will affect us on the whole. That effect on us is a net negative. Ask a real climatologist and he will explain it to you."
AND THAT'S WHY YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER. Is a climatologist an evolutionary biologist? A chemist? NO, they're a climatologist, and they are credible on climatology. A REAL climatologist wouldn't predict lthings they're not qualified to discuss. You should know that.
And I love the "real" climatologist, which I'm assuming you mean "climatologist who agrees with me". Fuck assuming, that's what you really mean, and you're too much of a coward to say it.
"Who give a crap what the reporters say?"
Well, since they frame the public debate, I do. Since they can direct public opinion, I do. Since they have more influence by biasing the science than the scientists themselves, I do. Why you don't is a result of your ignorance to human behavior I guess.
"I'm a guy who doesn't want to see his coastal home (Virginia Beach) flooded out as the coastline changes"
And there it is. You've allowed your petty concerns to be influenced by the apocalyptic reporting.
"GW is a net negative for the human race."
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? WELL? You don't, yet you're so arrogantly convinced of the superiority of your sources and analysis that you have assumed it to be true.
All you've done is illustrate my point, which is if the sheep are willing to be led like you are, then it doesn't matter where you lead them.
Congratulations, dupe, you've swallowed a line.
Science isn't what you, or even leading scientists agree with. Why you think otherwise is fascinating, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
"how about this: I can't prediect the exact weather for February, but I can predict that it will almost certainly be colder than June."
Not in Australia. OOPS!!!
"or: I can't predict exactly how long I will live, but however long it is, it's almost certainly going to be less than 200 years."
Ok, so give me billions of data points for global warming. OH WAIT, THAT EXAMPLE FAILS TOO!
"see? easy."
Hmm, looks like you fucked up badly, twice. Not as easy as you thought, it appears.
And you still didn't answer my question.
I'm not the one claiming something is both unpredictable and predictable at the same time, and then trying to justify my obviously erroneous statement.
"that "exactly" word is the killer - look it up"
Doesn't change a damned thing, and you know it. You asserted that the consequences will "pretty certain"ly be negative. Explain how you reached that conclusion, or rescind it.
You can't predict squat, "exactly" or otherwise, and you're just trying find some shred of an argument to cling to because no one has ever challenged your "obvious" yet completely unverifiable "predictions."
Why do people like you insist on supporting your opinions after they've been challenged instead of questioning them honestly and admitting you may have missed something.
And why the fuck would we pay attention to you if you can't honestly assess the weaknesses of your position?
Why are you so arrogant that you're convinced your lay assessment is in any way valid?
"nor a source of regional instability."
You lost every shred of credibility when you lied here.
I'll kindly ask you to explain that first gulf war thing, and how that wasn't contributing to instability...
Seriously, you can disagree with the war, there are plenty of good reasons, but stop saying stupid shit like that, you're embarassing yourself.
"No-one can really predict exactly what is going to happen,"
Ok, I agree
"but it's pretty certain it won't be good for most people."
Wait, what happened to "No-one can really predict..."? Is it one, or the other?
What on earth would allow you to conclude that a phenomenon is unpredictable, yet allow you to predict that it's results are "pretty certain"ly ANYTHING?
"We can't figure out what's causing it so we are gonna ignore it? Stop throwing this "we don't even know what causes it" smokescreen around and spend some time thinking about what we do agree on"
Ok let's try.
"It is happening"
Ok, I'm with you.
"no matter what else, that is NOT a good thing!"
Nope. This is the point where the argument becomes dogma and not science, and sadly, you fell for it.
Global warming is neither good nor bad, it simply IS. Some of the consequences are bad, but why do we never hear about positive consequences? Have you asked yourself that, why you never hear anyone predicting positive outcomes from global warming? ANY positive outcomes?
Surely it's not possible that the only consequences will be negative, so at the very least there is a good bit of biased reporting, and worst intentional obfuscation.
Why are we always getting the negative, earth is doomed side, and how does that bias change the credibility of the reporting?
"Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?"
Well, my guess is they're not seeing an apocalyptic trend when they look at a single data point.
Which is what you just did, by the way, use a very small set of data to imply that there is a trend.
More importantly, there aren't a whole lot of credible people denying global warming, they just seem to be bickering about the consequences and sources of it.
And frankly, I think that's a valuable debate (until it gets reduced to "doesn't BELIEVE in global warming" like you did) because it's ridiculous to insist on making "changes" when the outcome of those changes may well be far worse.
Rushing into something like this because of ideology is STUPID, yet inevitably that's what get's suggested over and over, because "if we don't do something NOW we may not get the chance!!!!"
Look up "law of unintended consequences" and then get back to me when we're not cavemen bumping around in the dark when it comes to this subject.
And save me your "ice core" and "statistical model" bullshit, you may comfortable dicking around with the climate based on such evidence, but it's predictive ability has never been established, and it's simply not good enough.
We nned more information, and in the absence of it, posts like your only serve to encourage thoughtless interference with no concern for long term consequences.
"This isn't about due process"
Then what's the alternative? Listen to YOU? That's a colossally dumb statment.
It's not about due process... isn't that the same complaint we're always hearing about Guantanamo... and these warrrants...and the Patriot act...
How embarrassing for you that you let a stupid statement like that out into the wild instead of keeping it locked away in your mind where it belongs. I mean, it's ok to think it, but damn man, you were actually dumb enough to post it. Wow.
"You know, there is a country you would feel more at home at, one where everyone thinks the same and thinking is enforced."
You must mean slashdot, where everyone has convicted Bush without a trial, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE.
"The real problem here isn't whether a certain amount of Americans, such as yourself, who don't have a problem with internal spying"
Show me where I said that. Is your position so weak that you have to make up idiotic straw men? Apparently so...
"So to conclude, if non-partisan scientists, including most of the former EPA chiefs, including those from Republican administrations, don't trust bush, why should anyone else?"
So, we're making laws and convicting people based on what former EPA chiefs think? That's pretty fucking stupid if it's true...
I support due process. Explain to me why you apparently don't, and would rather rely on the opinions of former EPA chiefs to decide case law.
"I refer you to the following article - moron"
Well, thanks for signing your post like that, it's gotta be tough to have a name like that...
Also, how is it that you think posting a link to your article in any way refutes my article?
MY point is that the situation is still unresolved, and legal scholars agree.
Your point was that NO ONE except Bush and Gonzales think Bush's actions are legal.
I proved you were a liar.
Post all the links you want, my ONE quotation was enough to show you were full of shit. A hundred links won't change that, because I'll STILL have a quote that shows more people than Bush and Gonzales are unclear on this issue.
"Kind of like how SCOTUS (for decades) and Bush (recently) have ignored the 9th and 10th Amendment limitations on their scope of authority?"
Boy, you're STILL a fucking retard (and a nutjob).
You don't get to blast Bush for ignoring due process and then run your idiot mouth about "illegal" wiretaps that HAVEN'T BEEN FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL. I mean you can, but you're just as bad as Bush if you do.
See that jackass? You are a hypocrite if YOU ignore due process (calling them "illegal" wiretaps) in an effort to prosecute Bush for ignoring due process.
Why do you find it necessary to lie when the facts prove the point?
"And for your fucking information, everybody on the planet except Bush and Gonzales has concluded he broke the law."
That's a lie.
"The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?
The report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program was legal, in part because it said so many details of the operation remained classified."
See that? The situation has many unknowns that require a thorough investigation.
I love how assholes like you screech about "BROKE TEH LAW!!!!" while completely ignoring due process and making idiotic proclamations of guilt.
Apparently you are so serious about enforcing the law that you're willing to ignore it to hang Bush.
"Hitler justified"
"Invoking the word "terrorism" to deflect criticism is only making Bush look more and more detached and cynical,"
You may be right, but what does it mean when someone invokes Hitler like you did?
What is the definition of "personal use" in cases like this?
Does listening with your friends count? Showing students?
Where are the boundaries, and is there a codified definiton? I'm genuinely curious.
"He wasn't stalking them, he was filming them. He is a legitimate film maker."
This has been ruled on then? The case has been decided?
"IANAL" but I'll inject my legal commentary anyway
"but I believe that it has been held up in the courts many times that you have no expectations of privacy in a public place."
What does that have to do with stalking?
"How?"
Are you SERIOUSLY asking this question?
"The net result is the same."
No, in one case you're TATTOOED and marked essentially for life, while in the other case THERE ARE NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER.
It's people like you that cloud issues like this by injecting idiotic opinions into the discussion then insisting on inclusion.
Mod me down if you want, but anyone who has to ask how getting a FUCKING TATTOO is different from having your picture taken doesn't deserve a seat at the table for this discussion.
"First off, I did no "screaming." I'm not sure where you got that idea,"
Um, from you actually...
"This is NOT just "asking for identification,"
Caps are the equivalent of yelling. You knew that, but in case you didn't, you can check the newbie FAQ.
"Yes, they are different, just as any example, any analogy is different from what it is comparing itself to."
And why I generally avoid analogies. I don't really understand why you'd compare things that you admit are different in an attempt to make them appear the same, but it's a bad idea.
"It may not be physically intrusive"
As opposed to? Mentally or spiritually intrusive? What does that mean?
"but I don't want someone I've never met, that I cannot have the name of, to have hi-res pictures of my iris. I don't know everything they can do with it, but I know they can imitate me at that school, potentially creating false evidence that I was at the school at a certain time. There are a few clandestine uses for iris scans that I can think of off the top of my head."
Nice. Now try to explain to me how these abuses are infinging your privacy, rather than being lapses in security. Do a better job than "they just are", please.
"It just is."
I'm going to ask one question.
Do you think any of the people responsible for clarifying those rights that just are would accept that explanation, or any person with a shred of intellect for that matter?
"Mr. Jefferson, tell us why you think you shouldn't have to share your home with troops unless it's a time of war..."
"Well, you just shouldn't." Yeah, that's genius.
I find it amusing that when asked why something is a privacy violation, THE BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER YOU CAN GIVE is "It just is."
I'll refute with "nuh-uh" and call it a day.
"Picking up your own son from a public school is not minding your business?"
No, it's not, because you entrusted the school with responsibility of your child. You+kid+school= more that just you. So, logic and math are clearly not strong points for you.
You've avoided answering every question I posed, and instead responded with "it just is" when asked to identify exactly what is a privacy violation in this policy.
I would be ashamed of myself if I accepted "it just is" as an explanation for why an action is a violation of any of my rights.
You should be too.
"This is NOT just "asking for identification," ID is a little plastic card with your picture on it. They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home."
How is it intrusive? I'm not disagreeing but all you did in your post was screamn the same thing you screamed previously, with nothing but your opinion as justification.
I have to wonder if you really know how this technology works if you genuinely think it's "intrusive".
"Take your same statement and apply it to "the police" asking for the ID of "random person walking down the street."
Why would you post such a flawed analogy? You seem pretty bright, you should know better.
An unknown person walking down the street minding their business is wholly different from an individual who is trying to pick up a child. You won't admit it of course, but it is and you know it.
You have yet to give a single reasonable explanation for your assertion that this is an infringment of privacy.
Please try again.