thanks

Interesting info.

super!

As for the deck, leveling was a pain in the rear. But I took my time with it. I extended off the nook on my existing patio down to the ground. I used 3 beams spanning roughly 6 feet each with 2 x 6 joists at 12″. I doubled them up in the corner to ensure extra support for the hot tub which should arrive sometime next week. It’s easy going when you have all the right toys.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt — twice (upper and lower deck). A word to the wise: you can’t make it TOO sturdy. And if you put your deck planks on the diagonal, put your joists on 12″ centers instead of 16.

Just one additional thought:

I mean thats like saying wealthy people should not be arrested for stealing. Why would they steal?

That’s not a good analogy. Economic circumstances shouldn’t dictate how the law is enforced — at least in a perfect world. Monitoring, with limited resources and a specific mission, OTOH, is a completely different animal. If you were a police officer tasked with locating crack houses, would you cruise inner city neighborhoods or gated communities? I’m not saying you might not find some rich kid selling drugs out of his parents’ garage in a gated community, but that’s not the place you’d generally look for such activity.

What you may actually be thinking of is data mining, where a computer algorithm looks for calling patterns. It doesn’t distinguish between Joe Blow and a potential terrorist, but it’s also not a collection of SIGINT in the traditional sense. Your phone number might be in such a database, but no name or location would be associated with it unless there was a pattern of specific calls to or from a number or numbers on a terrorist watch list. I see such actions by the government more as safe guarding your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than I do an infringement on your right to privacy. You obviously don’t seen it that way, but, unfortunately for you, neither Presidential candidate agrees with you.

Good luck on the deck.

Just to clarify, I’m not calling you a liar. Just speaking to the paradox of taking a poster at their word over the internet without any personal knowledge of said person. I was refering to your background as a Navy signals intelligence officer. You could have been, you could be making it up and I wouldn’t expect you to provide proof of your profession. Just as if you asked me to provide proof I wouldn’t.

Why would an organization tasked with national security matters want to listen to the average joe blow (sic)? Of what possible value could such monitoring possibly be to their mission?

People talk about all kinds of things over the phone. So in monitoring the average person or lets say 13 year old teenage girl (target market) they will essentially get free marketing re-search. Never the less, you answering the problem with the ‘Why would they?” question is evidence in itself of denial. I mean thats like saying wealthy people should not be arrested for stealing. Why would they steal?

“If they’re lawfully cooperating in a national security matter, why should they be subject to prosecution….”

Immunity from civil lawsuits against those innocent people that sometimes get caught in the cross hairs. So lets protect these companies from the American people. This is stripping the beauty that is America IMO. If the government messes with you or your lively hood you can take them to court and receive a huge settlement. This law prevents that. The government can invade your privacy if they ’suspect’ terrorist activities and theres not a damn thing you can do about it because it’s covered under law.

I prefer to think of it as American exceptionalism…

You know, from a civilized standpoint I guess I’d agree that America as a nation has been paving the way. But I’ll agree to disagree with the moral and hypocritical aspects of this beautiful nation.

Anyway RS, it’s Friday and the lumber for my new deck just arrived. Have a good weekend.

I’m not sure exactly what you think I “made up”. Please elaborate.

Now, what prevents them from listening to the average joe blow?

Why would an organization tasked with national security matters want to listen to the average joe blow (sic)? Of what possible value could such monitoring possibly be to their mission?

Makes sense, except for the fact that they are immune from prosecution

If they’re lawfully cooperating in a national security matter, why should they be subject to prosecution? And, actually, it’s immunity from civil lawsuits, not prosecution. If you witness a crime and report it to the police, should you be subject to a civil lawsuit? If you allow the police, as part of a stakeout or sting operation to use your house or park in your driveway, should you be subject to a civil lawsuit?

in the last couple of decades, I’d say no nation has exemplified more blatant hypocrisy and ‘moral superiority’ then America.

I prefer to think of it as American exceptionalism. I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Actually, I agree that, as a nation, America is morally superior to the vast majority of countries on the planet.

“On the contrary, I’d say getting the fact that they’re cooperating out in the open (vs. doing it under a shroud of secrecy) enhances accountability.”

Makes sense, except for the fact that they are immune from prosecution. Unlike government officials, the public cannot call for the resignation of CEO’s or elect someone else in a couple of years.

I couldn’t agree more, and no other nation has exemplified this more than America

In the past I agree. in the last couple of decades, I’d say no nation has exemplified more blatant hypocrisy and ‘moral superiority’ then America.

SAR, other than data mining, I’m not aware that ALL international calls are recorded. Do you have some credible evidence that this is being done? It’s my understanding, from connections I still have in the spook world, that the only international calls being targeted for actual intercept are those from (or to) known or suspected terrorists.

But Such a bill allowing immunity to such companies eliminates accountability.

On the contrary, I’d say getting the fact that they’re cooperating out in the open (vs. doing it under a shroud of secrecy) enhances accountability.

The goal is to fight terrorism with freedom.

I couldn’t agree more, and no other nation has exemplified this more than America.

What of American’s outside the US. If they wish to phone home their phone calls are recorded because it’s an international phone call. How about Intellectual Property?

Throw this with the patriot acts lose definition of what a ‘terrorist’ is and you have the makings of a law to squash dissent.

Also, your definition of legitimate means of protection and my definition are obviously very very different. Personally, if protection means you should be gagged, confined and watched I want no part of it. I’d rather fear death with freedom then feel safe but restricted.

I agree completely with this following;

Personally, I’m more concerned with losing the freedom to live where I want, drive the kind of car I want, use my property the way I want (within legal confines), praise God in the public square if I want, have my grandchildren go to the school of their choice (and walk there if they choose), just to name a few…..

but I think you maybe over looking the notion that this all hinges on free speech, expression and privacy. Which is something the FISA bill encroaches on. I’m all for intelligence gathering and understand that sometimes innocent people get caught in the mix. But Such a bill allowing immunity to such companies eliminates accountability. With accountability gone, what protects innocent people from the cross hairs of the most powerful government in the world? The goal is to fight terrorism with freedom.