Guest freedomfighter Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Damn... I step away from a post for a little while and BM it boils over... what a freakin mess! Not to imply, of course, that I could have done anything about it. The only reason Clinton had the ABILITY to pay down the deficit as much as he did is that he became president just BEFORE the BIG .COM boom and the tax revenues that came from them. True. So you like our strategy better now that times are tight? Spending has gone through the roof and with less tax revenue from a juicy tax cut, we borrow at breakneck speed. You may feel comfortable now, but our currency will continue to weaken if this isn't curtailed.. Wrong... have to tell you, Tax Cuts increase tax revenue... this has been proven throughout history. Anything stated to the contrary is a flat out LIE and a manipulation of historical facts. As to the deficit, our country has been in the red since what, Roosevelt? $1.2 trillion when Carter left office, nearly quadrupled 12 years later by Reagan and Bush1. Clinton borrowed during his first term too, and now we have Bush2 steering us into uncharted financial territory. That tax cut you got - the $1,900? That money was borrowed, sad to say. Also be advised that the average family's share of the war works out to $2,000 (and counting) so I guess you could say it's even money. . More B.S. (just doesn't feel strong enough without the full spelling ) The economy works in cycles. What we do know effects the next several years. Surely... you all must know this. Reagan and Bush fixed what Carter screwed up. Clinton went into office riding the wave they created... with tax increases for his big gov spending... he killed the wave. The late '90's could have been SO much more if it had been handled like an entrepreneur instead of a politician. Fortunately Congress and the Senate kept him and his lies some what at bay. Oh if they had all set sail... we might be speaking Chinese, not just ordering it for dinner. Keep worrying about terrorists, just don't forget to worry about the financial mess we're leaving to our children. It may prove to be more dangerous than would appear. These are the same fear tactics and fear mongering that never amount to anything... decade after decade, we grow... there will always be eb and flow to the "books". To suggest that there is a pending doom for our poor helpless children is simply stupid. Not to say that we shouldn't watch every penny we can... I believe in questioning everything. Our budget is anything but perfect. Its full of pork and unnecessary BS... in a perfect world we would have a "DAVE" moment (Do you remember the movie, with Kevin Klein?!) where a regular small business guy gets into office and cleans up the budget like he would his own shop. At this point, with how deep and twisted the web is... reform of this size and magnitude would practically take a revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest freedomfighter Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 ...Doomsday and police-state arguements in particular are laughable. We ARE losing some of our privacy' date=' and perhaps freedoms. It has happened before.... how is this any different? What makes this situation suddenly so scary and troubling? I think that political bias and historical ignorance are responsible for most of the "sheople" reaction to the Patriot Act... [/quote'] ACTUALLY... its all the SKUNK BUD they have growing in their closets that they're really afraid of.. LOL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I think that political bias and historical ignorance are responsible for most of the "sheople" reaction to the Patriot Act. If we eliminate the agitators that have a tendency to knock Anything Bush or conservatives do, I would love to hear from the remaining minority on what significant and additional long-term threat the Patriot Act leaves us with, as compared to any other freedom-degrading threat in our history. You clearly have people from all political persuasions (left, right and freaky) arguing against the Patriot Act in this post. I don't think anyone is denying that the act is intended to save innocent lives. We're just more wary of the potential abuses than you are. As far as comparing to a previous freedom-degrading threat, here is my post from another previous Patriot Act thread. You can see that my problem is with the technology that they are allowed to use to snoop and particularly email (which many would argue is the most benign part of the act): I just got off the phone with a friend who is really anti-Patriot act and works in the IT field. His had 4 points to make: 1. The packet sniffing method used by Carnivore can be used to manipulate the information sent. If the FBI/CIA whoever can look at the packets you send to determine if there is "inappropriate" content, then they can obviously view photos or look for those hidden watermarks that might contain hidden messages. If they can view these files, it would not be hard to ADD watermarks or CHANGE the photos using Photoshop or the Gimp or some such software, then this could be used as "proof" that someone was a terrorist, or a child pornographer, etc. If you are an enemy of the state, this COULD be used against you. Not saying it's likely, just possible. 2. We don't really know what we're downloading. If you've ever gone to a webpage and seen it loading even though it looked as though the page was done, there is a distinct possibility that there were hidden pictures or text that you were downloading. A simple way of getting illegal crap onto someone's computer is to put an illegal photo or terrorist message on a webpage in the form of a jpeg that is shown by the website as a 1 pixel by 1 pixel jpeg. The viewer would never see this, and would have no idea that they had encountered this contraband, but it would be residing in their internet cache. If a person was then under suspicion by the govt, and the govt was to look at their hard drive there might be hundreds of these pictures there, even though the person had no knowledge. 3. If you've ever gotten a spam email and had a pic of a woman and a donkey or any other illegal crap on it, this too could be used against you. Even though you may have had no intention to view such things, and may have immediately deleted them, all you have done is delete the NAME of the file, and allowed that disk space to be written over. If it is not written over before some govt agency comes and confiscates your computer, then guess what... you've got contraband on your computer. 4. A cracker or group of crackers (not white guys, but the IT correct term for "bad hacker") could develop the same technology and use it to do any of the above. I would think that this would be pretty good motivation for a terrorist organization. What better way to hide than to send out a flood of false incriminating evidence to confuse the govt. In his words, the govt doesn't fully understand the technology they are using with these methods of checking for wrongdoing, so they leave themselves open to the abuse of the technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 If we eliminate the agitators that have a tendency to knock Anything Bush or conservatives do' date=' I would love to hear from the remaining minority BTW, Please re-read the last paragraph before responding. [/quote'] OK, I'll sit this one out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Shasteen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I am always amazed by conspiracy theories and that they exist at all. A simple concept shuts them all down: Occam's Razor "...explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon' date=' the simplest full explanation is preferable."[/quote'] Remember that every equation has a reverse order. Just like 2+2=4 we could say 4/2=2. Well your statement that "explanations should never multiply causes w/o necessity" could be read in reverse order, "Necessity (to find closure) in search of a cause that is unknown or unexplained should never eliminate explanations". If all explanations are not taken into consideration and part of said explanations are removed, simply because they cant be explained, in favor of some other unsubstantiated allegation soley for the purpose of "Getting an Answer - or finding a cause"...your answer is still assumed and not based in fact! All explanations must be considered until disproven - no matter how bizzar - or else your cognitive disonance is in high gear; and denial isnt just a river in France. If you embrace an ansubstantiated "cause" then your investigation is founded in emotion and not logic. What I think is humorous is how experts cant ever simply say, "I dont know the answer." Instead they come up w/some answer that everyone knows or feels has not been satisfactorily proven. Dont beleive everything you hear simply because someone w/a piece of paper - called a license, from your ABC alphabet soup dept said it was so. Open dialogue like we are having here goes along way to dispelling confusion or concern. Even if nothing is resolved - those involved in the discussion will at least know they had a chance to put forth their opinion..only when all opinions are considered can you obtain an answer - even if it is an answer that doesnt sit well w/people: regardless if those individuals are the majority or minority. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest freedomfighter Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I think that political bias and historical ignorance are responsible for most of the "sheople" reaction to the Patriot Act. If we eliminate the agitators that have a tendency to knock Anything Bush or conservatives do, I would love to hear from the remaining minority on what significant and additional long-term threat the Patriot Act leaves us with, as compared to any other freedom-degrading threat in our history. You clearly have people from all political persuasions (left, right and freaky) arguing against the Patriot Act in this post. I don't think anyone is denying that the act isn't intended to save innocent lives. We're just more wary of the potential abuses than you are. Your kidding!? Right? Of course its purpose is to SAVE LIVES. And anyone with functioning brain cells should be wary of the potential abuses. That's the beauty of being an American! We don't have to fear these things... we have each other! Its never been easier or more realistic to network as a nation for what is right. Question authority... but support it as well. As far as comparing to a previous freedom-degrading threat, here is my post from another previous Patriot Act thread. You can see that my problem is with the technology that they are allowed to use to snoop and particularly email (which many would argue is the most benign part of the act): I just got off the phone with a friend who is really anti-Patriot act and works in the IT field. His had 4 points to make: 1. The packet sniffing method used by Carnivore can be used to manipulate the information sent. If the FBI/CIA whoever can look at the packets you send to determine if there is "inappropriate" content, then they can obviously view photos or look for those hidden watermarks that might contain hidden messages. If they can view these files, it would not be hard to ADD watermarks or CHANGE the photos using Photoshop or the Gimp or some such software, then this could be used as "proof" that someone was a terrorist, or a child pornographer, etc. If you are an enemy of the state, this COULD be used against you. Not saying it's likely, just possible. 2. We don't really know what we're downloading. If you've ever gone to a webpage and seen it loading even though it looked as though the page was done, there is a distinct possibility that there were hidden pictures or text that you were downloading. A simple way of getting illegal crap onto someone's computer is to put an illegal photo or terrorist message on a webpage in the form of a jpeg that is shown by the website as a 1 pixel by 1 pixel jpeg. The viewer would never see this, and would have no idea that they had encountered this contraband, but it would be residing in their internet cache. If a person was then under suspicion by the govt, and the govt was to look at their hard drive there might be hundreds of these pictures there, even though the person had no knowledge. 3. If you've ever gotten a spam email and had a pic of a woman and a donkey or any other illegal crap on it, this too could be used against you. Even though you may have had no intention to view such things, and may have immediately deleted them, all you have done is delete the NAME of the file, and allowed that disk space to be written over. If it is not written over before some govt agency comes and confiscates your computer, then guess what... you've got contraband on your computer. 4. A cracker or group of crackers (not white guys, but the IT correct term for "bad hacker") could develop the same technology and use it to do any of the above. I would think that this would be pretty good motivation for a terrorist organization. What better way to hide than to send out a flood of false incriminating evidence to confuse the govt. In his words, the govt doesn't fully understand the technology they are using with these methods of checking for wrongdoing, so they leave themselves open to the abuse of the technology. Fortunately it's got to be far more then some info on your hard drive. Its a series of affiliations... and actions. Be real people. Your not in any danger of someone pounding on your door to take you away because you curiously wandered into that donky-doing-debby web sight. But, if your exchanging pictures of children... involved in those sights regularly... chatting... you know, conducting yourself in a manner that isn't right, establishing "trends". I am extatic, as a father of three gorgeous little girls... that the laws are changing with the new technology, new technology that allows for new crimes and greater dangers! I, for one, do believe that Bush is a great president. He's not perfect... but damn, he has proven to be trustworthy and reliable. I believe he does care... I think most humans do genuinely care about other people. Life is far more peaceful with that as a prevailing thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Quote: $1.2 trillion when Carter left office, nearly quadrupled 12 years later by Reagan and Bush1. Clinton borrowed during his first term too, and now we have Bush2 steering us into uncharted financial territory. That tax cut you got - the $1,900? That money was borrowed, sad to say. Also be advised that the average family's share of the war works out to $2,000 (and counting) so I guess you could say it's even money. . More B.S... Most of the numbers I use are not pulled from thin air but are mostly from the GAO (Gov't Accountability Office). Dismiss them as B.S. if it makes you feel better, safer, righter. The numbers will still be there once you're ready to look them over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Your kidding!? Right? Of course its purpose is to SAVE LIVES. And anyone with functioning brain cells should be wary of the potential abuses. That's the beauty of being an American! We don't have to fear these things... we have each other! Its never been easier or more realistic to network as a nation for what is right. Question authority... but support it as well. No I'm not kidding unfortunately. Some of my closest friends have gone absolutely nuts in the past few years and now believe that Bush is out to get us, to start WWIII, to turn the US into a police state, etc etc etc. I'm not one of these people, but I know quite a few of them and they were what I would consider rational only a few years ago. Don't fool yourself by thinking that no one believes Michael Moore's BS or no one questions Bush's motives. Fortunately it's got to be far more then some info on your hard drive. Its a series of affiliations... and actions. Be real people. Your not in any danger of someone pounding on your door to take you away because you curiously wandered into that donky-doing-debby web sight. But, if your exchanging pictures of children... involved in those sights regularly... chatting... you know, conducting yourself in a manner that isn't right, establishing "trends". That's my point previous to the one I quoted. At the time I had just looked up a whole series of bad things in order to make a point (like terrorist stuff, nazi stuff, anarchist cookbook types of things, etc). If that establishes a pattern, then who knows??? Maybe they were looking at me... I am extatic, as a father of three gorgeous little girls... that the laws are changing with the new technology, new technology that allows for new crimes and greater dangers! I'm not saying the laws shouldn't change, but that there should be someone who understands the technology developing the new laws. Kinda funny... that buddy I was talking to who gave me those 4 points... we used to work together. He is an IT freakin genius. We had the same bosses at that job who were totally compuer illiterate. Funniest thing was when he got his reviews and raises. They basically had to ask him if he was doing a good job and then take his word when he said he was. They were in charge of his governance at that position but had no idea what the hell he was doing. It's a similar situation now with the govt passing these laws. I, for one, do believe that Bush is a great president. He's not perfect... but damn, he has proven to be trustworthy and reliable. I believe he does care... I think most humans do genuinely care about other people. Life is far more peaceful with that as a prevailing thought. Agreed. Although if I were rating Bush's presidency I'd probably only give him a B, not an A+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Shasteen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Regarding the debt..dont simply look at the Federal Debt - look at the entire picture. I found an interesting story that takes the bigger picture into mind: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/12/MNG2S8NO121.DTL This is the link but it doesnt appear to work..so hear is the article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speeches ignore impending U.S. debt disaster No mention of fiscal gap estimated as high as $72 trillion Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau Sunday, September 12, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Washington -- The first of the 77 million-strong Baby Boom generation will begin to retire in just four years. The economic consequences of this fact -- as scary as they are foreseeable -- are all but ignored by President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry, who discuss just about everything but the biggest fiscal challenge of modern times. Yet whoever wins the 2004 race will become the first U.S. president to confront what sober-minded experts across the political spectrum describe as an impending "fiscal catastrophe" lying right around the corner. Astronomical federal debt, coming due as the Baby Boom generation collects Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is enormous enough to swamp the promises both candidates are making to voters, whether for tax cuts, health care, 40,000 more troops or anything else. "Chilling" is the word U.S. Comptroller General David Walker uses to describe the budget outlook. "The long-term budget projections are just horrifying," added Leonard Burman, co-director of tax policy for the Urban Institute. "I've got four children and it really disturbs me. I just think it's irresponsible what we're doing to them." What these numbers portend are crippling tax increases on workers, slashed benefits for retirees, gutted budgets for homeland security, highways, research and everything else, and an economic decline or a financial collapse that devastates the middle class, as happened recently in debt-strapped Argentina. Eventually, analysts insist, someone -- today's children or tomorrow's elderly or both -- will pay this debt. Traditional budget measures used by politicians and the press give what Walker and many others call a highly misleading view of the U.S. debt. These focus on publicly held debt already incurred, now at $4.5 trillion, or 10-year budget forecasts like the one released last week by the Congressional Budget Office showing a record $422 billion deficit this year and a $2.3 trillion 10- year deficit. 'Fiscal gap' in the trillions But these figures, worrisome enough, are deceptive because they ignore future liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare payments to the Baby Boomers. An array of government and private analysts put the actual U.S. "fiscal gap," which means all future receipts minus all future obligations, at $40 trillion (Government Accountability Office) to $72 trillion (Social Security Board of Trustees). These are not sums, but present-value figures, heavily discounted to show in today's dollars what it would cost to pay off the debt immediately. The International Monetary Fund estimates the gap at $47 trillion, the Brookings Institution at $60 trillion. "To give you idea how big the problem is," said Laurence Kotlikoff, economics chairman at Boston University, who has written extensively on the subject, to close a $51 trillion fiscal gap, "you'd have to have an immediate and permanent 78 percent hike in the federal income tax." These obligations are not imaginary. And unlike the 1980s and 1990s, economic growth cannot bail out the government because the Baby Boom retirement is at hand. Those born in 1946 will reach age 62 in 2008, allowing them to take early retirement and receive Social Security benefits. "It's a number that's so large that people find it implausible, and so they don't think about it," said Alan Auerbach, a UC Berkeley economist who studies the issue and consults for the Kerry campaign. "But it's based simply on the projections we have for Social Security and Medicare. People aren't making these numbers up." A pathbreaking study by Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Kent Smetters, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Treasury -- commissioned by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- estimated a $44 trillion fiscal gap. It laid out a few painful options on how to meet the liabilities: -- More than double the payroll tax, immediately and forever, from 15.3 percent of wages to nearly 32 percent; -- Raise income taxes by two-thirds, immediately and forever; -- Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45 percent, immediately and forever; -- Or eliminate forever all discretionary spending, which includes the military, homeland security, highways, courts, national parks and most of what the federal government does outside of the transfer of payments to the elderly. Such corrective actions grow more severe each year. Waiting just until 2008, the end of the next presidency, would mean raising the payroll tax to 33. 5 percent instead of 32 percent, the study found. Gokhale said that fresh numbers from the Medicare trustees show the fiscal gap has since grown to $72 trillion, $10 trillion of that for Social Security and an astonishing $62 trillion for Medicare, the government health care program for the elderly. "The long-term picture is pretty bad," Gokhale said. Election's absent issue These numbers are seldom discussed, least of all in the 2004 presidential race. Ironically, as the Baby Boom retirement has neared -- and the remedies grow more painful -- political discussion has faded. Gone is Ross Perot's anti-deficit crusade. Gone is Newt Gingrich's call for Medicare restraint. Gone is Al Gore's "lockbox" for the Social Security surplus. Instead, Kerry and Bush promise only to halve the current deficit in four years -- "both (of them) relying on pretty imaginative accounting to get there" said Burman -- while promising more spending and more tax cuts. Yet today's deficit is a tiny fraction of the government's actual liabilities, which are so daunting they promise to make Bush's tax cuts a distant memory and Kerry's health care plan a fantasy. While Bush and Kerry propose to address parts of the problem, "the numbers don't add up on either side," Walker said. Medicare makes up the bulk of these liabilities, driven mainly by the expanding elderly population and rapidly rising health costs. Social Security, more often discussed as a looming problem, actually accounts for far less in future debt. While Congress squabbles over whether the administration hid the new prescription drug benefit's 10-year cost -- pegged by the White House at $534 billion versus CBO's $395 billion -- the actual liability incurred by the new drug benefit is estimated at $8 trillion to $12 trillion. Kerry and Democrats call the drug benefit inadequate. They would do little to restrain Medicare costs other than allowing the importation of price- controlled drugs from Canada. Bush and Republicans added the drug benefit along with costly subsidies to providers. Even optimists do not expect their modest market reforms to cut costs. Promises, promises Kerry has promised not to cut Social Security. "I will not cut benefits," he said recently. "I will not raise the retirement age." Democrats generally cite "trust fund" numbers that show Social Security - - and Medicare to a lesser extent -- remaining solvent for decades, even though government officials repeatedly call the numbers an accounting fiction. CBO director Douglas Holzt-Eakin last week said the funds contain nothing but "electronic chits" that measure government obligations to itself. Bush proposes adding private accounts to Social Security for younger workers, which could reduce future government obligations, but would do so by diverting a portion of the payroll tax, adding $1 trillion to the short-term deficit. That might have been feasible when Bush took office in 2000 facing a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, but the surplus is gone. Similar plans in Congress that instead rely more on benefit cuts have gone nowhere. "The country's absolutely broke, and both Bush and Kerry are being irresponsible in not addressing this problem," Kotlikoff said. "This administration and previous administrations have set us up for a major financial crisis on the order of what Argentina experienced a couple of years ago." If this sounds far-fetched, former Bush Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin both alluded to such a scenario at a June budget forum in Washington. "Having been involved in markets for a long, long time," Rubin said, "I can tell you these things can change unexpectedly and without warning," referring to potential financial market reactions to the U.S. fiscal position. Fisher warned of a "pivot point" when "the collective wisdom of bond traders thinks that the deficit horizon has turned," adding, "Both Bob and I are nervous." The world has seen fiscal imbalances of this sort before, in Asia and Russia in the late 1990s and more recently in South America. Such financial panics can be triggered by any number of events -- a flight from Treasury bonds by the foreigners who buy much of the U.S. debt, for example -- if investors' views of the market, which are focused on the short term, suddenly change. "If you look at financial crises, they occur seemingly overnight," said Kotlikoff. "More and more pieces of straw drop on the camel's back, and all of a sudden, the camel collapses. ... Nobody knew exactly what day Argentina was going to go south or exactly what day Russia was going to default. The timing is up for grabs." But early signs of a problem are now appearing, analysts said, starting with the mounting deficits under Bush caused not just by the recession and terrorist attacks, but also by enormous spending increases and tax cuts. The brief window of surpluses that appeared during the late 1990s economic boom offered a chance to address long-range liabilities, but those surpluses now are gone. "Maybe the public doesn't want to hear it," Kotlikoff said. "Maybe politicians think ... the American public can't understand the truth or hear the truth or bear the truth. I think this is garbage. I think that people care about their kids and grandchildren and need to know the dangers facing them -- and us." E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com. But I'm sure they dont know what they are talking about and this debt is just a figment of all our imaginations. I'm sure that the job thing will get better even tho Ross Perot's "swoooooshing" continues thanks to all those Repbulicans & Democrats that do know what is best for us - you know who I am talking about, the politicians that voted for NAFTA. I'm sure the debt doesnt mean anything...who cares if it's 1 trillion or 1 million trillion....debt doesnt meany anything so who cares (right?..right ) Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I just got off the phone with a friend who is really anti-Patriot act and works in the IT field. His had 4 points to make: 1. The packet sniffing method used by Carnivore can be used to manipulate the information sent. If the FBI/CIA whoever can look at the packets you send to determine if there is "inappropriate" content' date=' then they can obviously view photos or look for those hidden watermarks that might contain hidden messages. If they can view these files, it would not be hard to ADD watermarks or CHANGE the photos using Photoshop or the Gimp or some such software, then this could be used as "proof" that someone was a terrorist, or a child pornographer, etc. If you are an enemy of the state, this COULD be used against you. Not saying it's likely, just possible. 2. We don't really know what we're downloading. If you've ever gone to a webpage and seen it loading even though it looked as though the page was done, there is a distinct possibility that there were hidden pictures or text that you were downloading. A simple way of getting illegal crap onto someone's computer is to put an illegal photo or terrorist message on a webpage in the form of a jpeg that is shown by the website as a 1 pixel by 1 pixel jpeg. The viewer would never see this, and would have no idea that they had encountered this contraband, but it would be residing in their internet cache. If a person was then under suspicion by the govt, and the govt was to look at their hard drive there might be hundreds of these pictures there, even though the person had no knowledge. 3. If you've ever gotten a spam email and had a pic of a woman and a donkey or any other illegal crap on it, this too could be used against you. Even though you may have had no intention to view such things, and may have immediately deleted them, all you have done is delete the NAME of the file, and allowed that disk space to be written over. If it is not written over before some govt agency comes and confiscates your computer, then guess what... you've got contraband on your computer. 4. A cracker or group of crackers (not white guys, but the IT correct term for "bad hacker") could develop the same technology and use it to do any of the above. I would think that this would be pretty good motivation for a terrorist organization. What better way to hide than to send out a flood of false incriminating evidence to confuse the govt. In his words, the govt doesn't fully understand the technology they are using with these methods of checking for wrongdoing, so they leave themselves open to the abuse of the technology. [/quote'] As an IT guy with 20 years experience I'd like to address what this guy is saying. 1. email has never been equivalent to mailing a letter in an envelope, it's status is the same as a post card, always has been, probably always will be. If you don't want someone else, not just carnivore but every server the mail passes through, to read it then encrypt it with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) or something similar. The NSA has yet to crack data encrypted with PGP. The other data transmission protocols can also be encrypted, it takes more effort but it's possible if you are worried about it. 2. A 1X1 pixel jpeg would consist of nothing but several bytes of data describing the color for that pixel, nothing else. If you don't want web page graphics cached on your system then adjust your browser to delete them when it exits All browsers can do this. A more likely use of hidden pictures on a web-page would be to transmit messages between opperatives. It would be impossible to prove you were the intended recipient just because you have a piece of data on your computer along with everyone else who viewed that web-page. 3. What is described here makes no sense. Everyone in the world has received spam containing that crap, it would never stand up in court. How many poeple will be prosecuted for the same data delivered by the spam. If you are concerned about it use something like PGP again to do an encrypted wipe of the disk. No usable evidence is left once a procedure like this is performed. 4. This is the only item that sort of makes sense but terrorists would not use viruses and cracking (hacking) techniques to plant false evidence. They will use them to bring down systems that control key parts of our infrastructure. To much effort is required to hack someone just to plant false evidence unless its a very high profile target. These are the types of "Chicken Little" statements that get people with no knowledge of how it works all stirred up. They also show either this guy's bias against the Patriot Act or his own ignorance about how the systems work. Looking back at them it doesn't even require a high level of understanding to see that they all presume you're already under suspicion. Wheelman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Remember that every equation has a reverse order. Just like 2+2=4 we could say 4/2=2. Well your statement that "explanations should never multiply causes w/o necessity" could be read in reverse order, "Necessity (to find closure) in search of a cause that is unknown or unexplained should never eliminate explanations". If all explanations are not taken into consideration and part of said explanations are removed, simply because they cant be explained, in favor of some other unsubstantiated allegation soley for the purpose of "Getting an Answer - or finding a cause"...your answer is still assumed and not based in fact! All explanations must be considered until disproven - no matter how bizzar - or else your cognitive disonance is in high gear; and denial isnt just a river in France. If you embrace an ansubstantiated "cause" then your investigation is founded in emotion and not logic. Basically, after I read the above four paragraphs a few times, you're saying that a person should use an anti-Occam's Razor to evaluate competing theories. That is a much less successful and little used logical method but it does have its adherents. The most well known examples of those methods are Wilhelm Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Menger. Kant's Metaphysics and Epistemology Kant's most widely read and most influential book is Critique of Pure Reason [1] (http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt) (1781) - his attempt to work past what he saw as the unacceptable conclusions of David Hume. Hume's conclusions, Kant realized, rested on the premise that knowledge is empirical at its root. The problem that Hume identified was that basic principles like cause and effect cannot be empirically derived. Kant's goal, then, was to find some way to derive cause and effect without relying on empirical knowledge. Kant rejects analytical methods for this, arguing that analytic reasoning can't tell you anything that isn't already self-evident. Instead, Kant argued that we would need to use synthetic reasoning. But this posed a new problem - how can one have synthetic knowledge that is not based on empirical observation - that is, how can we have synthetic a priori truths. Kant did not have any trouble showing that we do have synthetic a priori truths. After all, he reasoned, geometry and Newtonian physics are synthetic a priori knowledges and are fundamentally true. The issue was showing how one could ground synthetic a priori knowledge for a study of metaphysics. This led to his most influential contribution to metaphysics - the abandonment of the quest to try to know the world in itself, instead acknowledging that there is no way to determine whether something is experienced the way it is because that's the way it is, or because the faculties we have with which to perceive and experience are constructed such that we experience it in a given way. He demonstrated this with a thought experiment, showing that we cannot meaningfully conceive of an object that exists outside of time and has no spatial components. Although we cannot conceive of such an object, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, metaphysics must not try to talk about what exists, but instead about what is perceived, and how it is perceived. This insight allows Kant to set up a distinction between phenomena and noumena - phenomena being that which can be experienced, and noumena being things that are beyond the possibility of experience - things in themselves. Kant then discussed and expanded on the faculties of experience we have, and thus was able to come up with a system of metaphysics that applied to the world as we perceive it. Kant termed his critical philosophy "transcendental idealism." While the exact interpretation of this phrase is contentious, one way to start to understand it is through Kant's comparison in the second preface to the "Critique of Pure Reason" of his critical philosophy to Copernicus' revolution in astronomy. Kant writes: "Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge" [bxvi]. Just as Copernicus revolutionized astronomy by changing the point of view, Kant's critical philosophy asks what the a priori conditions for our knowledge of objects in the world might be. Transcendental idealism describes this method of seeking the conditions of the possibility of our knowledge of the world. Kant's "transcendental idealism" should be distinguished from idealistic systems such as Berkeley's. While Kant claimed that phenomena depend upon the conditions of sensibility, space and time, this thesis is not equivalent to mind-dependence in the sense of Berkeley's idealism. For Berkeley, something is an object only if it can be perceived. For Kant, on the other hand, perception does not provide the criterion for the existence of objects. Rather, the conditions of sensibility - space and time - provide the "epistemic conditions", to borrow a phrase from Henry Allison, required for us to know objects in the phenomenal world. Kant had wanted to discuss metaphysical systems but discovered "the scandal of philosophy"—you cannot decide what the proper terms for a metaphysical system are until you have defined the field, and you cannot define the field until you have defined the limit of the field of physics first. 'Physics' in this sense means, roughly, the discussion of the perceptible world. So, basically, I'm using analytical reasoning as the basis for my argument and you're using perceptions and how those perceptions are perceived as the basis for your arguments. Am I correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 1. email has never been equivalent to mailing a letter in an envelope, it's status is the same as a post card, always has been, probably always will be. If you don't want someone else, not just carnivore but every server the mail passes through, to read it then encrypt it with PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) or something similar. The NSA has yet to crack data encrypted with PGP. The other data transmission protocols can also be encrypted, it takes more effort but it's possible if you are worried about it. OK, well that's good advice on how to KEEP the govt from reading email. That doesn't address whether they SHOULD be reading email in the first place. 2. A 1X1 pixel jpeg would consist of nothing but several bytes of data describing the color for that pixel, nothing else. If you don't want web page graphics cached on your system then adjust your browser to delete them when it exits All browsers can do this. A more likely use of hidden pictures on a web-page would be to transmit messages between opperatives. It would be impossible to prove you were the intended recipient just because you have a piece of data on your computer along with everyone else who viewed that web-page. Not true. You can put a 135K image on a website, and display it as a 1x1 pixel image. It will be there, it will load into the cache, and you won't see it for what it really is. As far as deletion, you should already know that nothing gets deleted unless you have written over it. I know you can set Linux up to do this automatically, but then it slows your computer down A LOT because it's doing so much work to keep the drive clean while you're working. Not sure how available these types of tools are for Windows, but I can tell you that just having the Auto-Protect feature of NAV on my 2000 machine was too much hassle for me, and I can only assume that writing 1's and 0's on the disk freespace would be worse. 3. What is described here makes no sense. Everyone in the world has received spam containing that crap, it would never stand up in court. How many poeple will be prosecuted for the same data delivered by the spam. If you are concerned about it use something like PGP again to do an encrypted wipe of the disk. No usable evidence is left once a procedure like this is performed. Remember, we're talking about what is POSSIBLE. It is POSSIBLE that anyone could get railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor for having illegal images on their computer. That's what he took issue with. Not that it was likely that a jury would convict, only that it was possible to bring charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Also Wheelman, don't both parties getting an email have to have a PGP key to use PGP? I fooled around with it briefly, but I honestly don't recall. That kinda limits who you can send encrypted email to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cygnusx1 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I wonder if the government knows that I turned up the boost in my Z past where it is supposed to be!! Now, I am scared! It takes sacrafice to make gains. Nothing comes free. Freedom has a price. How many more cliches are there on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Cygnus, those cliches mean that people will need to die fighting for our continued freedom, not that people need to subjugate themselves to the will of the govt to ensure the continued "freedom". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I think that political bias and historical ignorance are responsible for most of the "sheople" reaction to the Patriot Act. If we eliminate the agitators that have a tendency to knock Anything Bush or conservatives do' date=' I would love to hear from the remaining minority on what significant and additional long-term threat the Patriot Act leaves us with, as compared to any other freedom-degrading threat in our history. BTW, Please re-read the last paragraph before responding. [/quote'] Think I fit into your category. My single biggest complaint is the ability to get search orders without listing probable cause. Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA—the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information—that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge—(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism." In my experience, the “sheeple†are on the side of the patriot act because they simply don’t take the time to research things. What category do you fall in? More B.S. (just doesn't feel strong enough without the full spelling ) The economy works in cycles. What we do know effects the next several years. Surely... you all must know this. Reagan and Bush fixed what Carter screwed up. Clinton went into office riding the wave they created... with tax increases for his big gov spending... he killed the wave. You sure pick and choose which facts you want to believe. You say the economy works in cycles, yet Reagan and Bush are responsible for everything good, yet Carter and Clinton either got lucky or screwed things up. You also missed the point about the dot com bubble. I would honestly love to know what went right during Clinton’s presidency so we can keep doing it. But the dot com created a bunch imagined wealth. It had to have had an impact. I know my salary went up considerably in that period because of he demand for electrical engineers. Also Carter had the very real problem with the cost of crude oil doubling in 79. No way that will not cause an impact. George W, to some extent, has had the same problem compounded by the war. It is a massively complicated problem. The president has an impact, but can hardly be held even 50% responsible in either a positive or negative sense. As for the deficit, use a little common sense. There are numerous economic theories that say the government doesn’t need to maintain a balanced budget to stay viable. But at the same time there has to be some limit. What percentage of our yearly budget goes to debit servicing? Isn’t it double digits? How long do you think you could run your household like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Cygnus, those cliches mean that people will need to die fighting for our continued freedom, not that people need to subjugate themselves to the will of the govt to ensure the continued "freedom". It is better to die standing on your own two feet than to live on your knees. Or is it better to live standing on your own two feet than to die, period? Half full or half empty I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Shasteen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Basically' date=' after I read the above four paragraphs a few times, you're saying that a person should use an anti-Occam's Razor to evaluate competing theories. That is a much less successful and little used logical method but it does have its adherents.., So, basically, I'm using analytical reasoning as the basis for my argument and you're using perceptions and how those perceptions are perceived as the basis for your arguments. Am I correct?[/quote'] I am referecing Subjectivity -vs- Objectivity. One person's Perception (progroamming AKA: how they were raised, how they responded to outside family influences, as well as their own presumptions) is their reality and affects their "analytical reasoning". So, simply because you "Assume" that something has to be one way...doesnt necessarily mean that it is that way especially if we remove a possible solution simply because it is uncomfortable to mentally grasp. You, and I will argue till we are blue in the face when our "Reality" is questioned. If we are not willing to accept that another reality exists - then our argument is flawed simply because we cant/wont consider the additional reality as a possibilty. The addt'l reality doesnt have to be found in "unexplained phenomenon"...it can include anything such as airplains. You and I know that airplaines fly - yet I'm sure there are still some backwards pigmies somewhere that dont know what a plane is: therefore their perception is not equal to ours and will be flawed when some other pigmy attempts to tell his tribe what planes really are and they dont require worshiping. I only brought this up due to your JFK statement that the Single Bullet Theory was the correct one. Your programming regarding the JFK statement is based on inputs from the TV, Books, and Movies. Unless you were on both ends of the Shooting and Receiving of said bullet - your summation, regardless of how hard you wish to reject its basis, is an assumption. This is the problem I find with todays manner in which news gets to us. We listen to whatever news channel who feeds us the typical soundbites and we take it and run with it...never questioning if it is correct. Case in Point: Dan Rathers and his lates "Open mouth & insert both feet". Why is everyone questioning him...dont question him - just accept what he says. If someone hadnt questioned him then everyone would have accepted what he said about G.Bush. So questioning an event as well as open dialogue is paramount to obtaining truth. To this day we are not allowed to have a hand in making real decisions...such as NAFTA, such as the Warren Commision, such as the 911 Commision...we get bottle fed a programming and anyone who questions said program is labeled then demonized. Your perception is your reality - it doesnt mean your are right or wrong it only means it is all you have to go on and you have made your decision based on said input. It doesnt mean that there is no other input to review (hence the incredible doc's the govt wont release regarding JFK, OKC Murrow Building Bombing, 911 - you name the event and there is not full disclosure)...and when they do release it it is full of black marker strikes leading said doc unreadable. Yet we are expected to shed our blood for circumstances that we are not given full disclosure - therefor our perception is incomplete until we get full disclosure. I'm not saying a war or any action is not justified - what I am saying is give me full disclosure. If you are not willing to give me full disclosure then screw you if/and when you expect me to jump on your band wagon for your cause. The JFK scenario is full of holes, 911 is full of - dare I say it, holes...perhaps "Unexplained Patterns" is a better way of putting it. Which brings me to the next point....How the Govt will use the Patriot Act is something we can not begin to fathom as of yet: we cant assume simply because it feels good to believe govt will act in our best interest (which they have a horrible tract record of not doing). All we can do is understand the past, present, future and hope to protect our families and leave them w/a world of their own that allows them to do the same. Kevin, (Yea,Still an Inliner) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Wrong... have to tell you, Tax Cuts increase tax revenue... this has been proven throughout history. Put very simply, if you have a tax cut it means the government is receiving LESS revenue(money). The reasons you give make no sense. Freedomfighter, I'd recommend taking a basic course on macroeconomics to better understand how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Put very simply, if you have a tax cut it means the government is receiving LESS revenue(money). The reasons you give make no sense. Freedomfighter, I'd recommend taking a basic course on macroeconomics to better understand how it works. True, but the profit motive gets A LOT STRONGER, which can drive sales and trade up, which brings in more tax thru sales tax (local) and income tax. Just because a lower percentage will get paid to the govt doesn't mean the govt will get less money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.