Tell me the police don't use cell phones, laptops, radios, etc while they are driving. Most police cars I see have the laptop open and viewable by the driving officer while they are driving.
We haven't seen an increase in police accidents as they use new technology have we? Perhaps because they are specifically trained to deal with it? (and when to just not do it)
Adding new technology, without TRAINING, is going to cause problems.
Another example, red light cameras. Nobody trained any drivers on how to react to them and so people slammed on their brakes when they 'remembered' there might be a camera. The drivers behind them aren't expecting someone to slam their brakes on and so accidents happen.
In some of those cases, perhaps they were driving too closely, but that too is a training issue isn't it?
Show me the liberal equivalents of Limbaugh, Beck and Palin with the same media influence. Olbermann has already said his rhetoric has been over the top and pledged to tone it down. Can't say that about Palin can you?
You are more than reasonable to say Dems have done this too. I don't discount it. I'm just saying that rather than Palin saying, "Yes it was wrong, both sides have done it, but that didn't make it right", she's simply gone into victim mode.
You can look at it the other way too. The right wing was quick to jump to the conclusion that the violent speech and rhetoric from his Muslim influences was a cause of his rampage.
I'm of 'the left' and there should be no free speech restrictions here. Public figures who use such inflammatory rhetoric should be punished in the manner they are being called out now - the realm of public opinion; funny how the right doesn't seem to like that much.
There is a vast vast difference between a blog calling for violence and hateful actions and duly elected/nominated government officials spouting about 'second amendment remedies' or 'don't retreat, reload.
The key difference here is that the vast majority of 'over the top' political rhetoric in this country is from the right wing.
Ms. Palin, rather than even possibly consider that placing 'bullseyes' (her word) over this very Congresswoman's district or comments like "Don't retreat, reload" might be just might be, something to reconsider - she decided to attack people criticizing her as the ones inciting violence.
No word on whether she sees the sad irony in her attacks.
If the Bush administration has simply come out and said "yes we tortured, but we had to and here's why", there would be a lot less hubbub about it. Or even "We're going to torture these people and why". They have instead explicitly denied it until evidence came out, then destroyed the evidence (FBI videos) when that became problematic.
The problem is that it is well known that torture produces 2 things. Either the exact thing you want to hear or the death of the subject. It is also well documented (by the US) as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. You simply can't refute that. Torture is a wildly unsuccessful way to get the truth out of someone.
Likewise our 'interrogation methods' came not from proven methods, but from a training program for pilots who could be captured by enemies who actually did torture their prisoners. It was an attempt to help the pilots prepare for and resist what their captors might try.
As for your statement that "If you don't like the US - LEAVE" - how very anti-american of you. We are built on criticism of our leaders and gov't. Which is why we allow the intolerant people like you to be here.
Payment processors all have agreements that a business has to sign before they will process payments for them. So unless you agree to their rules of business, you don't get to play. Pr0n sites deal with it all the time. Same for online gambling.
There are plenty of restrictions on what you can do with your money. Sure you could pay them in cash, but that doesn't work in the internet world obviously. Financial institutions aren't going to put themselves on the line for sending money to [insert bad actor here], even if at the direction of me with my money.
"If you think that the police can't search your mail via the US postal service, try and send yourself an envelope full of weed and see what happens."
is just inane. Odor is detectable even through a closed paper container, even through plastic if one is not careful about the packaging.
Sending a letter with I'M A TERRORIST written on the outside will likely get your mail read too. That doesn't mean they can just read any old letter they want.
"Most importantly, email is not a secure transmission method. There is no way to assure that the message is not tampered with, copied, duplicated or otherwise shared."
Neither is voice communication over the phone. It too runs through multiple private companies on its way to the destination. More so now that VOIP exists.
The difference? regulation on what those private entities must do and can do.
What isn't being mentioned is just who is behind the DDoS against Wikileaks itself.
I fully expect the gov't wants people to think that it's the normal hacker groups doing it. 4chan, Anonymous, etc. However, these groups are clear in their support for Wikileaks and so that likelyhood is quite slim.
That leaves other such groups and the world's govt's as the only people capable of doing this type of attack. Any bets on who might be doing it? (rhetorical)
My point being, we're seeing the very first battle in the realm of cyber warfare with actual countries doing the attacking.
You mean like handing them the rope that they'll hang themselves with? you betcha :)
GOP: Deficits matter Deficits matter, we can't spend money we don't have!
TeaParty: Great, we'll vote for you!
GOP: We won't let anyone help the economy unless we get tax cuts for the ultra rich that are wholly added to the deficit. When we negotiated the deal, we grabbed even more money for the rich through an estate tax deduction that does absolutely squat for the economy.
uh...not exactly going to turn out well for them me thinks.
Obama has been vilified through primarily distortions and outright lies. The GOP to a man wants things that help the rich by spending what we don't have and claims that will help the rest of the country. Except it hasn't worked in 10 years of their policies.
.
The Dems, while certainly spending money we don't have, are passing stuff that actually helps the majority of people in this country.
.
If we're going bankrupt anyway, I'll take the latter thank you very much.
I sort of liken this to what NYC did to stop their crime issue. They focused on the small petty crimes, the first time offenders. This effectively cut off the recruitment organized crime did for bigger and more dangerous stuff.
When there isn't a burgeoning class of criminals learning the 'system' its much harder to build the gangs/mafia/etc.
So trolling for people who simply 'want' to do bad things might have some relevant use.
The salient difference is NYC worked with actual offenders, not people simply upset and angry enough to possibly do something in the future ala Minority Report.
The same thing that they said last time "This will endanger people in the field" and then they had to admit, well no, it didn't actually do that.
.
Now with "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the material." Um, he's not a US citizen, so exactly how did he break any laws? Assuming he hasn't been to the US, didn't receive the data while on US soil, how exactly has he broken *any* US laws? We can make it illegal to do so in our country, but our laws don't extend past our borders (treaties not withstanding obviously).
.
And if he's broken our laws, quite a few of us have broken Germany's 'no NAZI info' laws. We call it free speech, they call it illegal.
On the post: US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort
Re: Re: Re: potential risk
On the post: 82-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Demands Apology From Airport Security Over Screening
Monty Python
slighty paraphrased:
"I've got no arms"
[TSA] "Yes you do! Raise them!"
"Look at me, I have no arms!"
[TSA] "Raise them anyway!"
On the post: New Study Shows As More People Talk While Driving, Accidents Are Dropping
Driver training
We haven't seen an increase in police accidents as they use new technology have we? Perhaps because they are specifically trained to deal with it? (and when to just not do it)
Adding new technology, without TRAINING, is going to cause problems.
Another example, red light cameras. Nobody trained any drivers on how to react to them and so people slammed on their brakes when they 'remembered' there might be a camera. The drivers behind them aren't expecting someone to slam their brakes on and so accidents happen.
In some of those cases, perhaps they were driving too closely, but that too is a training issue isn't it?
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Ed Shultz
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are more than reasonable to say Dems have done this too. I don't discount it. I'm just saying that rather than Palin saying, "Yes it was wrong, both sides have done it, but that didn't make it right", she's simply gone into victim mode.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
Pot meet kettle.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re:
There is a vast vast difference between a blog calling for violence and hateful actions and duly elected/nominated government officials spouting about 'second amendment remedies' or 'don't retreat, reload.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re:
Ms. Palin, rather than even possibly consider that placing 'bullseyes' (her word) over this very Congresswoman's district or comments like "Don't retreat, reload" might be just might be, something to reconsider - she decided to attack people criticizing her as the ones inciting violence.
No word on whether she sees the sad irony in her attacks.
On the post: Wikileaks Reveals That The US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations Concerning Investigations Into CIA Rendition
Re: USA no different than any other Government
The problem is that it is well known that torture produces 2 things. Either the exact thing you want to hear or the death of the subject. It is also well documented (by the US) as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. You simply can't refute that. Torture is a wildly unsuccessful way to get the truth out of someone.
Likewise our 'interrogation methods' came not from proven methods, but from a training program for pilots who could be captured by enemies who actually did torture their prisoners. It was an attempt to help the pilots prepare for and resist what their captors might try.
As for your statement that "If you don't like the US - LEAVE" - how very anti-american of you. We are built on criticism of our leaders and gov't. Which is why we allow the intolerant people like you to be here.
On the post: US Government Seeks 'Willful Denial' Software That Will Block Wikileaks Data From Federal Employees
Easy solution
Virus Software!
We define anything containing the word 'classified' as a virus and set the scanning software to destroy immediately.
It's a win win since there will no longer be anything for Wikileaks to leak! ;-)
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: They are pulling a Streisand!
Payment processors all have agreements that a business has to sign before they will process payments for them. So unless you agree to their rules of business, you don't get to play. Pr0n sites deal with it all the time. Same for online gambling.
There are plenty of restrictions on what you can do with your money. Sure you could pay them in cash, but that doesn't work in the internet world obviously. Financial institutions aren't going to put themselves on the line for sending money to [insert bad actor here], even if at the direction of me with my money.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re: Don't bury the lead here....
The snarky answer is the 'hostile work environment' of being shot at.
They get tried in military courts, not civilian courts, etc.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
Not condoning it but sometimes there are reasons. Denying bed sheets would seem to not be something done for his own protection.
Though, one could strangle oneself with a sheet. Any insight on the conditions a suicidal or possibly suicidal prisoner is kept in?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Emails Are Protected By The 4th Amendment
"If you think that the police can't search your mail via the US postal service, try and send yourself an envelope full of weed and see what happens."
is just inane. Odor is detectable even through a closed paper container, even through plastic if one is not careful about the packaging.
Sending a letter with I'M A TERRORIST written on the outside will likely get your mail read too. That doesn't mean they can just read any old letter they want.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Emails Are Protected By The 4th Amendment
Re:
Neither is voice communication over the phone. It too runs through multiple private companies on its way to the destination. More so now that VOIP exists.
The difference? regulation on what those private entities must do and can do.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Emails Are Protected By The 4th Amendment
Re:
Do we really want that much regulation on top of email? What about instant messaging? Facebook? any electronic communication?
I like the 4th Amendment ;-) but it does perhaps bring some unwieldy side effects with it.
On the post: Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed
Re: Re:
I fully expect the gov't wants people to think that it's the normal hacker groups doing it. 4chan, Anonymous, etc. However, these groups are clear in their support for Wikileaks and so that likelyhood is quite slim.
That leaves other such groups and the world's govt's as the only people capable of doing this type of attack. Any bets on who might be doing it? (rhetorical)
My point being, we're seeing the very first battle in the realm of cyber warfare with actual countries doing the attacking.
On the post: FBI 'Thwarts' Another Of Its Own Bomb Plots
Re: Re: Re: Reeeally?
GOP: Deficits matter Deficits matter, we can't spend money we don't have!
TeaParty: Great, we'll vote for you!
GOP: We won't let anyone help the economy unless we get tax cuts for the ultra rich that are wholly added to the deficit. When we negotiated the deal, we grabbed even more money for the rich through an estate tax deduction that does absolutely squat for the economy.
uh...not exactly going to turn out well for them me thinks.
Obama has been vilified through primarily distortions and outright lies. The GOP to a man wants things that help the rich by spending what we don't have and claims that will help the rest of the country. Except it hasn't worked in 10 years of their policies.
.
The Dems, while certainly spending money we don't have, are passing stuff that actually helps the majority of people in this country.
.
If we're going bankrupt anyway, I'll take the latter thank you very much.
On the post: FBI 'Thwarts' Another Of Its Own Bomb Plots
Re:
When there isn't a burgeoning class of criminals learning the 'system' its much harder to build the gangs/mafia/etc.
So trolling for people who simply 'want' to do bad things might have some relevant use.
The salient difference is NYC worked with actual offenders, not people simply upset and angry enough to possibly do something in the future ala Minority Report.
On the post: Obama 'Considering Legal Action' Against Wikileaks
Re:
.
Now with "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the material." Um, he's not a US citizen, so exactly how did he break any laws? Assuming he hasn't been to the US, didn't receive the data while on US soil, how exactly has he broken *any* US laws? We can make it illegal to do so in our country, but our laws don't extend past our borders (treaties not withstanding obviously).
.
And if he's broken our laws, quite a few of us have broken Germany's 'no NAZI info' laws. We call it free speech, they call it illegal.
Next >>