$ telnet 209.112.170.79 80
Trying 209.112.170.79...
Connected to 209.112.170.79.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET http://www.element-o-p.com/
<...snip...>
$
Works just fine.
EDIT: Ignore the "[element-o-p.com]" in the snippet above --/. is editing my post to make sure the URL in the GET line is unobfuscated -- even though it's not supposed to be a link (grrrr....)
I can do most of what I describe in the first post, too. I don't have any of those certs because I haven't needed them, but I could pick up the CCNA and RHCE pretty quickly if I had to. The CCIE might take a little longer, and I'd probably refuse to do the MCSE unless I were really hungry (like you, I try to avoid Microsoft products as much as I can -- I prefer software that makes me look good by not breaking all the time).
However, I wouldn't do it for $40K. The CCNA, CCIE and RHCE expire periodically. If you are going to expect me to maintain currency in three different certs, two of which pretty much imply a significant level of skill to acquire, I expect to be compensated at something more than a "starting wage for a graduate."
Okay, just being contrarian, but in a free-market society, what bureaucracy is responsible for implementing solutions? I thought the market would demand, and businesses would respond?
Granted, government can do a lot to encourage the growth of a new industry, but is it really government's job to produce industries?
No kidding. About a year ago, I saw an ad for a company that was looking for a Linux, Windows and Cisco system administrator (MCSE and CCNA required, CCIE desired, RHCE desired); who could code in C/C++, Perl, Python, shell scripting, HTML/CSS and Javascript; who could configure IIS, Active Directory, Apache, Bind, Samba, etc.; and who had experience maintaining Oracle 9i.
National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy.
Agreed...
We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
...but this is flat-out wrong. Yes, we do. You cannot simply decide that Constitutional protections no longer apply because you are dealing with someone who fits into <insert category name here> Rule of law for everyone, including the government itself, is the single most important thing that the U.S. has (had?) going for it.
International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
Bovine Scatology -- a.k.a. "b.s." Protecting against the actions of foreign governments against our nation is the role of the military. The action of individuals and paramilitary groups -- i.e., terrorism -- is the role of law enforcement. If you are not acting on the behalf of a foreign government and instead are trying to enforce your personal political views on others through violence, then you are violating the *law* and that is a law enforcement matter. Calling a terrorist's action a military matter is giving them credibility they don't deserve. Our laws may allow for the military to assist in law enforcement when the law enforcement agencies (local P.D., FBI, etc.) aren't up to the task, but that does not change the task at hand from a law enforcement issue. Don't muddy the waters by calling terrorism a military action.
Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
That is an interpretation, and one I happen to disagree with. The Bill of Rights states over and again that "the right of the people to...<insert right here> shall not be infringed." It does not state "...unless <right> occurs on an international boundary." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution does and does not say. Until they weigh in on the warrantless wiretapping -- which has just gotten somewhat more unlikely -- we'll never know for sure if a warrant was required or not.
...allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to...
Which is precisely why judicial oversight is so important. It's not much -- the FISA courts have been pretty much a rubber stamp, but at least there was *some* check on what was being done. How wide was Bush's net that even the limitations provided by FISA were too onerous?
Experiments at the state level with laws designed to force citizens to spy on each other or face criminal charges? Check!
It's happening at the Federal level, too. I'm a flight instructor in Alaska. I have to check the passport and/or birth certificate of everyone looking to earn a private/commercial/airline transport certificate, instrument rating, etc. If they are a foreign national, I have to have the prospective student get fingerprinted and submit an application for permission to work on a pilot's license from TSA. If I see or hear pilots doing something "suspicious" (and the TSA's definition of suspicious can include simply dropping out of flight school -- how often does that occur?!?!), I am expected to notify the authorities.
Exactly what part of being a flight instructor makes me a member of law enforcement? At risk of violating Godwin's law, this degree of paranoia makes me think of a certain European country in the 30's...
The split seems to be...are you for big government in terms of national defense and law enforcement or are you for big government in terms of social programs?
The problem is that "conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. At the inception of the U.S.A., the Founding Fathers were pretty liberal. They believed in strong local governments and restricted Federal government -- this was a radical departure from the status quo, which typically a monarchy. Their political philosophy eventually became "conservative" in this country.
In recent history, however, the "conservatives" have been doing everything they can to increase the Federal government's power, which of course, is what g.p. meant by the sentence you quoted above.
The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.
Holy crap -- that's a pretty broad statement to make, and I doubt you considered the full implications of that sentence when you wrote it. By that definition, the following would also be terrorists:
* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, et al.
* Winston Churchill, FDR, Harry Truman
* both Bushes, although I suspect that won't raise many eyebrows here on/.
* pretty much any national leader who ever fought a war, whether or not it was in self-defense.
Sarah Palin, the current governor of Alaska (so far, she seems to be doing a pretty good job) and Jesse Ventura, who had the endearing tendency of saying what he really thought and (perhaps therefore?) was pretty well liked by the people in Minnesota, as I understand.
In other words, he had little faith that our judicial system would properly address the issue, and therefore, he decided to vote for an end run around the problem that would...voila...fail to properly address the problem.
If you keep accepting the s**t the two major parties keep dishing out year after year, then how exactly do think anything will ever change? OTOH, if the parties start seeing a mass migration of voters away from their candidates, then I guarantee that they will take notice.
Telling others not to "waste their vote" on 3rd party candidates, no matter how unlikely their win may be, is a sure bet for more of the same.
I don't give a rip *what* conversations are allowed to be wiretapped, if they are allowed to be wiretapped without judicial oversight. Telco immunity is a bad, bad thing to approve because it too removes judicial oversight from an executive order (Congress didn't even vote it in as law -- it was ordered by the executive branch!).
This bill has basically emasculated the balance of power that the framers of the Constitution thought was so important, and that is a really big fricking deal no matter how you slice it.
Conspiracy b.s.? Yeah, whatever. I hope you're right, and it's no conspiracy. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what could possibly possess a *bureaucracy* to willingly surrender its power to another bureaucracy. I only hope the judicial branch doesn't do likewise.
Sorry, dude -- I feel your pain. I typically vote conservative, but since McCain has voted for all the bills eroding our civil liberties in the last eight years, I was kinda hoping Obama might be a ray of hope. Guess I was wrong, too.
You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all fucking the good it does.
Good idea. There's no way on God's green earth I'm going to vote for either McCain or Obama. If we're going to have a Mickey Mouse government, let's at least get it out in the open. </rant>
Experimentals are definitely the exception to what I posted above. I looked at a Dragonfly in the mid-90s, which -- according to the advertising literature, at least -- can hit 140+ MPH on a 80HP VW engine, although I'm a bit skeptical of those claims. Still, I got as far as ordering plans, but didn't have a place to build it. I've since settled for a 70MPH experimental that's fun and cheap, but slower than Christmas, lol.
Going even further off-topic, how do you like the Dyke Delta? I've only seen a write-up once in a very old issue of Kitplanes (early 90's), and I've never seen one in person.
We were charging $25/hour for an instructor at another school I worked at ten years ago. Also, a Cherokee 141 probably costs a little less to rent than the 172s we use where I teach now ($115/hour solo, $155 dual).
Slashdot Mirror
Not really:
/. is editing my post to make sure the URL in the GET line is unobfuscated -- even though it's not supposed to be a link (grrrr....)
$ telnet 209.112.170.79 80
Trying 209.112.170.79...
Connected to 209.112.170.79.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET http://www.element-o-p.com/
<...snip...>
$
Works just fine.
EDIT: Ignore the "[element-o-p.com]" in the snippet above --
Point taken -- your ideal is more ideal than my ideal :)
Ideally, the existence of the weapon is enough to make it unnecessary to kill anyone.
I can do most of what I describe in the first post, too. I don't have any of those certs because I haven't needed them, but I could pick up the CCNA and RHCE pretty quickly if I had to. The CCIE might take a little longer, and I'd probably refuse to do the MCSE unless I were really hungry (like you, I try to avoid Microsoft products as much as I can -- I prefer software that makes me look good by not breaking all the time).
However, I wouldn't do it for $40K. The CCNA, CCIE and RHCE expire periodically. If you are going to expect me to maintain currency in three different certs, two of which pretty much imply a significant level of skill to acquire, I expect to be compensated at something more than a "starting wage for a graduate."
Yeah, there is that...
You mean I can't power my PC from the glow of my CRT with one of these solar panels???
Okay, just being contrarian, but in a free-market society, what bureaucracy is responsible for implementing solutions? I thought the market would demand, and businesses would respond?
Granted, government can do a lot to encourage the growth of a new industry, but is it really government's job to produce industries?
No kidding. About a year ago, I saw an ad for a company that was looking for a Linux, Windows and Cisco system administrator (MCSE and CCNA required, CCIE desired, RHCE desired); who could code in C/C++, Perl, Python, shell scripting, HTML/CSS and Javascript; who could configure IIS, Active Directory, Apache, Bind, Samba, etc.; and who had experience maintaining Oracle 9i.
They were offering something like $40K a year.
National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy.
Agreed...
We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
Bovine Scatology -- a.k.a. "b.s." Protecting against the actions of foreign governments against our nation is the role of the military. The action of individuals and paramilitary groups -- i.e., terrorism -- is the role of law enforcement. If you are not acting on the behalf of a foreign government and instead are trying to enforce your personal political views on others through violence, then you are violating the *law* and that is a law enforcement matter. Calling a terrorist's action a military matter is giving them credibility they don't deserve. Our laws may allow for the military to assist in law enforcement when the law enforcement agencies (local P.D., FBI, etc.) aren't up to the task, but that does not change the task at hand from a law enforcement issue. Don't muddy the waters by calling terrorism a military action.
Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
That is an interpretation, and one I happen to disagree with. The Bill of Rights states over and again that "the right of the people to...<insert right here> shall not be infringed." It does not state "...unless <right> occurs on an international boundary." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution does and does not say. Until they weigh in on the warrantless wiretapping -- which has just gotten somewhat more unlikely -- we'll never know for sure if a warrant was required or not.
...allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to...
Which is precisely why judicial oversight is so important. It's not much -- the FISA courts have been pretty much a rubber stamp, but at least there was *some* check on what was being done. How wide was Bush's net that even the limitations provided by FISA were too onerous?
Experiments at the state level with laws designed to force citizens to spy on each other or face criminal charges? Check!
It's happening at the Federal level, too. I'm a flight instructor in Alaska. I have to check the passport and/or birth certificate of everyone looking to earn a private/commercial/airline transport certificate, instrument rating, etc. If they are a foreign national, I have to have the prospective student get fingerprinted and submit an application for permission to work on a pilot's license from TSA. If I see or hear pilots doing something "suspicious" (and the TSA's definition of suspicious can include simply dropping out of flight school -- how often does that occur?!?!), I am expected to notify the authorities.
Exactly what part of being a flight instructor makes me a member of law enforcement? At risk of violating Godwin's law, this degree of paranoia makes me think of a certain European country in the 30's...
Out of curiousity, Bush I or Bush II? I changed from Republican to non-afiliated during the Bush vs. Clinton race, but for the same reasons.
The split seems to be...are you for big government in terms of national defense and law enforcement or are you for big government in terms of social programs?
Personally, I'm for small government PERIOD.
The problem is that "conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. At the inception of the U.S.A., the Founding Fathers were pretty liberal. They believed in strong local governments and restricted Federal government -- this was a radical departure from the status quo, which typically a monarchy. Their political philosophy eventually became "conservative" in this country.
In recent history, however, the "conservatives" have been doing everything they can to increase the Federal government's power, which of course, is what g.p. meant by the sentence you quoted above.
The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.
Holy crap -- that's a pretty broad statement to make, and I doubt you considered the full implications of that sentence when you wrote it. By that definition, the following would also be terrorists: /.
* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, et al.
* Winston Churchill, FDR, Harry Truman
* both Bushes, although I suspect that won't raise many eyebrows here on
* pretty much any national leader who ever fought a war, whether or not it was in self-defense.
Is that really what you meant to say?
Sarah Palin, the current governor of Alaska (so far, she seems to be doing a pretty good job) and Jesse Ventura, who had the endearing tendency of saying what he really thought and (perhaps therefore?) was pretty well liked by the people in Minnesota, as I understand.
In other words, he had little faith that our judicial system would properly address the issue, and therefore, he decided to vote for an end run around the problem that would...voila...fail to properly address the problem.
Still sounds like a bad call to me.
If everybody would stop assuming there are only two choices, maybe -- just maybe -- we really could get some change in this country.
Don't be dense.
If you keep accepting the s**t the two major parties keep dishing out year after year, then how exactly do think anything will ever change? OTOH, if the parties start seeing a mass migration of voters away from their candidates, then I guarantee that they will take notice.
Telling others not to "waste their vote" on 3rd party candidates, no matter how unlikely their win may be, is a sure bet for more of the same.
Call it a futile gesture, but I'm doing what I can do.
I'm with you, man. You are right on the money, and I for one will be voting for someone -- anyone -- other than McCain and Obama.
I don't give a rip *what* conversations are allowed to be wiretapped, if they are allowed to be wiretapped without judicial oversight. Telco immunity is a bad, bad thing to approve because it too removes judicial oversight from an executive order (Congress didn't even vote it in as law -- it was ordered by the executive branch!).
This bill has basically emasculated the balance of power that the framers of the Constitution thought was so important, and that is a really big fricking deal no matter how you slice it.
Conspiracy b.s.? Yeah, whatever. I hope you're right, and it's no conspiracy. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what could possibly possess a *bureaucracy* to willingly surrender its power to another bureaucracy. I only hope the judicial branch doesn't do likewise.
Sorry, dude -- I feel your pain. I typically vote conservative, but since McCain has voted for all the bills eroding our civil liberties in the last eight years, I was kinda hoping Obama might be a ray of hope. Guess I was wrong, too.
You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all fucking the good it does.
Good idea. There's no way on God's green earth I'm going to vote for either McCain or Obama. If we're going to have a Mickey Mouse government, let's at least get it out in the open. </rant>
This is effing depressing.
Experimentals are definitely the exception to what I posted above. I looked at a Dragonfly in the mid-90s, which -- according to the advertising literature, at least -- can hit 140+ MPH on a 80HP VW engine, although I'm a bit skeptical of those claims. Still, I got as far as ordering plans, but didn't have a place to build it. I've since settled for a 70MPH experimental that's fun and cheap, but slower than Christmas, lol.
Going even further off-topic, how do you like the Dyke Delta? I've only seen a write-up once in a very old issue of Kitplanes (early 90's), and I've never seen one in person.
You got a good deal :)
We were charging $25/hour for an instructor at another school I worked at ten years ago. Also, a Cherokee 141 probably costs a little less to rent than the 172s we use where I teach now ($115/hour solo, $155 dual).
Sweet! ;)