Yes they do. Just delcare everything to be non-sensitive. Much easier than doing any kind of research.
Ah, missed that the original posters motivation was agriculture votes. Well yes, that doesn't make sense to a Congressman from Tennessee. But to a politician with national ambitions, corn voters would be an asset as primary season starts in Iowa. So, it could have made sense, if the legislation was passed in 1995 or so. I'm guessing he just made off by ten error.
I think something is getting lost in the thread. *I* understand when Gore was in government. Others in this thread missed that. That speaks to his opportunity: None. He had no opportunity in 2005 to pass any legislation.
The implied motive, would be environmentalism. The original poster who thought that Gore had an opportunity to influence legislation in 2005, thought that the bill was promoted by environmentalists. Gore is big on renewable resources that would not contribute to global warming, so he may have approved of the legislation. So at least the motivation was probable.
Of course there is always one to argue...
So you think that government should do more than the minimum that it should do. Nice trick throwing my own semantics back at me.
I was assuming ( silly me) that the minimum it should do, should be that which it should do. Which is a twisty way of saying the government should do what I want it to do and nothing less.
But again, you're suggusting that the government could do less than you want it to and still be doing the minimum necissary. With 'necissary' being defined as something less than what you want it to do.
I'm starting to think I could fool most of the people most of the time, maybe I should run for office.
I think everyone would agree that the government should have the minimum amount of laws and regulation necissary.
I know that most people won't agree on what is necissary, or how to determine a minimum.
My one Law: Bill is King do as he wishes and there will be peace.
Historically, field corn was a better source of food as the storage of it was a lot easier.
All curent Vice Presidents serve as President of the Senate and cast tie breaking votes in that body. So they certainly can influence the passage of legislation
Confusing the two makes you sound like your parents that complain that their CPU is broken when the display is broken. If you want to speak intelligently on the subject, it would behoove you to know the right names for the different moving parts.
Yeah, no. The NSA was doing many of the things its getting called out for a long time.
And all of this was pretty well know for years. I'm really just stunned that everyone is acting as if they had no idea what the NSA was up to. In this light, Snowden's revelations are not that suprising.
Apparently, we are pretty stupid if we don't understand the difference between the CIA and the NSA.
In any case, something needs to be done to the boxes. If the software cannot be updated for what ever reason, they should be replaced. Leaving unpatchable xp boxes is not a good solution. I don't think you can call such boxes "perfectly fine" if they can't be updated to a secure solution. Unless, you have a strange set up with an unbreachable air gap that doesn't allow any networked connections, or physical media. If that were the case, they wouldn't care how long windows updates take as it would be impossible to apply them. I knew some windows 3.1 boxes that were like this, so I guess its possible.
As mentioned above win XP is nearing its end of life where it will not get anymore security updates. Software updates can be done without throwing away hardware. That's a good reason to change the software on the machine to something else: win 7, RHEL, SUSE, something.
Solution: Don't drive a McClaren in those conditions. You'll just have to take the Bentley, or the Rolls Royce.
60 Minutes is for old people who only get their news from TV, and believe everything they hear on it. Its always been terrible in my life time.
I think he means that actual documents leaked by snowden are more credible than anything they can say publicly right now. In order for their claims to have any credibility, they would have to be leaked by another third party. They could and might do that, but that would show that they haven't fixed their security issue.
I'm kind of surprised that they didn't immediately try to spin the snowden leak it as a honey pot operation to nab leakers. "Those were our fake documents that we wrote to test our employee loyalty. You failed to report these fake misdeeds to the appropriate channels, you're fired Mr Snowden. "