What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
47 Comments
- LtJimDangle2, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33Best. Headline. Ever.
- antipro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17How many people on Digg have actually seen 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre' though?
- zeio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20And people actually tell me and my fellow gun owners we should be for gun control and hand this government our guns.
"In 1830 democracy was growing rapidly in Europe and in America. At that time the development of weapons had reached a point where governments could not get weapons which were much more effective than those which private individuals could get. Moreover, private individuals could obtain good weapons because they had a high enough standard of living to afford it (as a result of the Agricultural Revolution) and such weapons were cheap (as a result of the Industrial Revolution). By 1930 (and even more by 1950) the development of weapons had advanced to the point where governments could obtain more effective weapons (dive-bombers, armored cars, flamethrowers, poisonous gases, and such) than private individuals....As a result, governments in Europe in 1830 hardly dared to oppress the people, and democracy was growing; but in the non-European world by 1930 (and even more by 1950) governments did dare to, and could, oppress their peoples, who could do little to prevent it." - Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley, 1966, pp. 22-23.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. - gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13We're living in a modern dictatorship, the curtains will soon be unveiled.
- Dan_2gngCrew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11That is of course how it all starts, first national security which can mean almost anything. Next, Terrorism......which in the current governments' wide definition can include almost anyone. You, Me, we are all terrorists as far as they are concerned.
- karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11/me stomps all over Pwelborn1's constitutional rights because he doesn't seem to care, and in-fact believes that it just proves that he doesn't have any personal information to hide.
Seriously though how can you possibly say such a thing pwelborn? Yes I oppose any invasion of privacy gravely because yes I do have things to hide like my SSN, Credit Card Number, Address Book, Phone Number, Email Address, House address, must I go on? You cannot have a free society without a right to privacy because without privacy all the freethinkers would fear for their lives. - JimRoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Jim, perhaps it was your recent "Do It Yourself Uranium Enrichment Using a Dishwasher and Turkey Baster" that caused the traffic spike. Unfortunately, your methods were unable to yield better that 2.5% purity, and interest in your site rapidly diminished.
- OneEye, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10It's not about whether you have something to hide or not. It's about the bill of rights, which should apply to all citizens of the U.S.
Interesting how Bush feels the need to bomb the ***** out of Iraq to force "Democracy" on them, while rights in this country are ignored and Bush becomes more like Saddam every day. - slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15One. Word. Sentence.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Gun control means never having to say "I missed you"
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8As an owner of a Glock 20C I agree with gun control to a point, there are many people out there who should not own guns. As long as the laws are fair and balanced and not biased anti-gun bigotry; I'm a happy camper. Thanks for those facts I'm going to share them around. :)
Gun violence is usually atoned to a poor education and childhood, let's fix those instead of going after our freedoms. - MoFoKeR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9For some reason i dont doubt they were doing that already wayy wayy be4 the patriot act.but im just crazy
- sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@koshak: It didn't happen under Clinton. Clinton never decided that he had the inherent power to spy on you, quite possibly violating the separation of powers, one of the most fundamental properties of the constitution. And he didn't sign most laws with a presidential signing statement (which is worthless) stating that the law doesn't apply to him. And he sure as hell didn't launch a war with selected intelligence. Clinton wasn't perfect by any means, but he was a certified georgia peach compared to the current president.
- TripinVA, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If the government decides it wants to ban guns, I'm sure the American people will fall in line and get behind it, especially if it's for "national security."
- EnricoFermi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Pwelborn:
With the amount of power the government current exercises you don't even have to be guilty of anything. They can make you guilty if it suits their purpose. Do you mean to tell me that if they had access to all your personal background information, they couldn't find a speck of dirt on you; no weird porn rentals, no distant relations tied to Al Queda, if they really wanted to.
Yeah right now it may not be that serious, but they are constantly moving towards more invasive methods of obtaining information. We are probably one or two terrorist "threats" away from a police state, and no one seems to give a damn.
I am deeply confiused by the fact that so many people are ready to believe that the government has their best interest in mind when time after time they have proven themselves to be corrupt, greedy, and incompetent. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If they do this again, I'll probably be on the list.
Last month my site jumped from about 5 users a day to about 500,000 per hour --- all hits from Tehran and Karaj (Iran)
Anyone know where I can order Tin foil in bulk?
Don we now our metallic apparel! - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4My REAL question with all of this stuff is this:
We all understand that the FBI/Govt. is abusing all of this power in order to gain information/spy/whatever you want but how much of all of it can be used against you in a cour of law?
Example... they obtain all these records that you did XYZ or ABC and if there was never a warrant obtained PRIOR TO the collection of the data you should never be able to be charged with a crime and or any of the findings should not be admissable in a court of law. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6 The FBI are nothing more than common thugs, so why is this news?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5and just trust them to decide on that too.. plus you know we cant trust our judges..
- JimRoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Whoa. I'm not usually one to sport foil headgear, but this sounds really intrusive. J Edgar Hoover would be proud.
And the worst part of the article:
"The count does not include other such letters that are issued by the FBI to obtain more limited subscriber information from companies, such as a person's name, address or other identifying data, according to the report. Sources have said that would include thousands of additional letters and may be the largest category of NSLs issued. The Washington Post reported in November that the FBI now issues more than 30,000 NSLs each year, including subscriber requests." - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151
- BadDolphin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I've never in my life met a single person EVER who believed in banning all American guns. Never. Not once. Nor is it likely that anyone who reads this will, ever, in their entire lifetime. Such people exist, dozens, maybe even hundreds of them. But they're a rarity.
- Mechanized, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The Patriot Act is a Direct result of the people's will not to enforce the current laws.
Don't bitch or whine because you will not enforce simple concepts like ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. - diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2or you could say it comes from UHF... oh wait, that's badgers. ;P
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4#
We don't need no stinkin' warrants,
All we need is thought control.
No constitution to restrain them.
Fascists leave our rights alone.
"Hey, fascists! Leave our rights alone."
All in all your just a-nother brick in the wall. - diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2if they could only devise a way to make freedom a consumer product. perhaps then people would have more freedoms.
yes, a newegg type site for government privileges... i can picture it now....
First Amendment - $599.00 (one year contract) - ADD TO CART!
- Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.
Second Amendment - $299.00 (monthly fee separate) - ADD TO CART!
- Right to keep and bear arms. - ddales, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Wake up and stop being clueless sheep! The FBI and the CIA and the whoever have been doing this for half a century, if not longer. The only difference is now those agencies are not afraid to admit it given the current political and fear mongering atmosphere in the US.
- TheRepublic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4heh. .:: Joins the tin foil hat crew ::.
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This reminds me of a Star Wars Fan Film called "Troops."
Quote from Troops:
"All suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect, would they?" - Schda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I thought it was from Blazing Saddles. Really I did, I used it at work one day a few years back and my boss asked if I knew where the quote came from. I then learned where it really came from and went out and rented the movie. Very very good, and Bogart does a good job playing crazy.
- ryancowardin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@ Cerebral
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114411067761115987.html
You may want to check out the above link to a WSJ article about how, after a state investigation was going nowhere, the FBI requested a FISA warrant for Samih Jammal based on his suspected terrorist links and how he was subsequently convicted for... stealing baby food based on the information gathered.
From everything I've read, he should have been prosecuted for this crime and I see nothing wrong with that - crime is wrong. What I do see as being wrong is how they obtained the information to convict him. The original investigation was going nowhere so they handed it off to the FBI who went on a FISA-provided fishing expedition which was obviously not limited to information pertaining to terrorism. His links to terrorism obviously did not climb to the level of prosecution so all the information gathered was handed back to the state and used in a totally unrelated matter, under seal and secrecy provided again by FISA, to prosecute him.
The laws and rules governing search and seizure and the issuance of warrants are there for a reason... until they become an inconvenient obstacle.
Our rights are getting legislated and loop-holed away at the ever-so slow pace of a glacier and we end up having plenty of time to become complacent rather than stand up and say "while your intentions may be noble, these actions are wrong." - raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Perhaps the best solution to balance things out is to simply do away with privacy for the FBI.
All FBI employees info (internet records, bank info [minus pin number], etc) should be made public.
At that point... it becomes pretty balanced. You can look at their data, they can look at yours.
3rd parties are kept innocent. - cbrack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2See he can only speak with periods. Thats because I hacked his non-tin-foil-wearing brain.
Tin foil hats ftw.
What doesn't everyone wear them? - JimRoss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Oh sure, real funny ... if you're a Canadian guy!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You are right. They DON'T need warrants.
So why is this news? - mementh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6interesting.. where is my tin foil hat?
- ethnicman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Kirk. Is that you?
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Sure, but you'd probably put an RFID chip in the tinfoil hat you lend me.
- hashkaran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1canadianguy33 ... A ?
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5lol thanks
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3If you can't find it, I'll loan you one of mine.
- itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3i love how americans run scared (government and citizens alike) of terrorists, we have ways, we always had ways. lets use them and use them better. course i fear this includes the illegal ways. saaaay, on that note, they say corruption in politicians makes people hate politics and they ignore it. so counter productive.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Yeah, because if the government wanted to round you up, your shotgun would really do the trick.
P.S. you ***** idiot...gun CONTROL is not gun elimination. - d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I dont agree with auditing ISP records. Mabye only not require a court order if it effects national security or terrorism.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1yeah...this NEVER happened under Clinton.
Idiot. - rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1......
- Pwelborn1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Funny how many times those who show the greatest opposition to "invasion of privacy" are the ones who actually have things to hide. i.e. The whole anti-DRM crowd: "I should be allowed to STEAL anything I want!!!"
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is