Slashdot Mirror

Finished? We're sending more troops to Iraq, as well as increasing airstrikes. Hardly over, it's escalating back up...

I think you're really a special kind of stupid.

I think we'll let others decide that.

First of all, a company doing business in a country must respect and obey the laws of said country. That goes without even saying, moron. Apple has registered subsidiaries in China, nevermind their huge manufacturing sourcing business in mainland.

Show me where there is a law saying that Apple must store its encryption keys on-shore. Guess what? There isn't one. See, Apple isn't breaking the law because it isn't IN China, it just does business there. But there's more to this... very much more.

As for "gradually been bringing its manufacturing back home" this means you are too stupid to cross the street. No consumer IT / electronics company in the US, Apple included, can bring manufacturing back to the US

Yeah? How about this? And this? And this? And this?

And many, many more. Hmmm. It seems just maybe I knew a bit more about it than you, eh?

Restaurants may not have replaced their employees with robots yet, but it's coming: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/2...

Yes, and if supermarket automation is any guide, what it will really mean is that you will have to bus your own tables.

No one is claiming that recent unemployment is due to mass robotic replacements. It's something that's about to start happening soon when the stuff that's currently in the research pipeline hits the market.

Restaurants may not have replaced their employees with robots yet, but it's coming: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/2...

Oh yea - keep on blaming the poor for being poor! Have you ever lived paycheck-to-paycheck? If not then count your lucky-ducky stars because you are in the minority of Americans (assuming that you live in the US).

when the poor stop getting earned income credits totaling in the several thousands every year

You're thinking about this in the wrong way. Social safety nets are not about altruism, or even making it easy for the poor to get subsidies (it's not). When poor people lose their jobs, they lose their homes and end up on the streets. When large swaths of the population are homeless, you end up with filthy slums where basic necessities are rare and diseases flourish. Walls, police and even social ostracism may be able to keep undesirable people out of your pristine life, but they won't prevent diseases from spreading from poor communities to the rich who've managed to deny them even a damn toilet to shit in.

Keeping the poor from becoming that poor is a necessity for any civilization. Subsidies for the poor do far more for the common good than tax breaks for the rich.

There are many published references to the fact that most US $20 bills have traces of cocaine on them... http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH... So why don't they just use cocaine sniffing dogs (of which, I am sure, they have plenty)?

Robin Williams dead; family, friends and fans are 'totally devastated'

Robin Williams dead; family, friends and fans are 'totally devastated'

Robin Williams dead; family, friends and fans are 'totally devastated'

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08...

It will be easier now to notify 911 when facebook is down.

no TV actors have EVER been paid that much b4!

Is this considered /. news because the show portrays "nerds" and nerds in this sites tag line?

Ha ha, that is hilarious! Seriously, the reason they have massive profits is because they don't care about society as much as themselves.

Did you know that cynicism has been linked to dementia? You might want to get yourself examined by a doctor; your symptoms are rather severe.

Build your 1997 Space Hotel first you big talkers...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/2...

Japan likes to announce grandiose projects but they can't even get reliable electricity and are an aging population...

Let go of the comic books, folks.

Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense and that Gaza is no longer occupied. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points and more.

Israel has killed almost 800 Palestinians in the past twenty-one days in the Gaza Strip alone; its onslaught continues. The UN estimates that more than 74 percent of those killed are civilians. That is to be expected in a population of 1.8 million where the number of Hamas members is approximately 15,000. Israel does not deny that it killed those Palestinians using modern aerial technology and precise weaponry courtesy of the world’s only superpower. In fact, it does not even deny that they are civilians.

Israel’s propaganda machine, however, insists that these Palestinians wanted to die (“culture of martyrdom”), staged their own death (“telegenically dead”) or were the tragic victims of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes (“human shielding”). In all instances, the military power is blaming the victims for their own deaths, accusing them of devaluing life and attributing this disregard to cultural bankruptcy. In effect, Israel—along with uncritical mainstream media that unquestionably accept this discourse—dehumanizes Palestinians, deprives them even of their victimhood and legitimizes egregious human rights and legal violations.

This is not the first time. The gruesome images of decapitated children’s bodies and stolen innocence on Gaza’s shores are a dreadful repeat of Israel’s assault on Gaza in November 2012 and winter 2008–09. Not only are the military tactics the same but so too are the public relations efforts and the faulty legal arguments that underpin the attacks. Mainstream media news anchors are inexplicably accepting these arguments as fact.

Below I address five of Israel’s recurring talking points. I hope this proves useful to newsmakers.

1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel

Well, I guess it must be nice to be the Librarian of Congress. In addition to your own salary you'll now be pocketing bribes from the cellphone manufacturers, so that whenever they pull one of your strings the "you don't get to unlock your cellphone this year button" gets pressed.

Not too surprising considering that it was signed into law by the same president that treats war crimes as casually as he had just lost a golf tournament:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/...

"We tortured some folks." Well I'm sure that makes them feel better, if they haven't already been bagged and killed to keep them from testifying. How much bullshit is the US willing to put up with from the people they elect?

I never fail to find the bravado and hubris underlying American exceptionalism... exceptional.

Land of the free... as long as you're not in one of our many many prisons ( http://nomadcapitalist.com/201... ), which has a higher per capita incarceration rate than Cuba, which is second on the list. Oh, and speaking of Cuba, there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G....

Home of the brave... because you'd be pretty brave too if your military budget was larger than the nearest eight other countries combined ( http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/... )

Where all men are created equal... except, of course, when they're not ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru... ) and a man can make something from himself even if he starts out life with nothing (but probably not): http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/0... )

And where the rule of law is universal and sacrosanct... except in those cases where it's not convenient ( https://www.globalpolicy.org/u... ) and ( https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying... )

Oh well, enjoy your "freedoms".

Perhaps he could even get a bunch of athletes and rappers to just read to kids.

That's assuming these athletes and rappers can even read. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/...

Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense and that Gaza is no longer occupied. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points and more.

Israel has killed almost 800 Palestinians in the past twenty-one days in the Gaza Strip alone; its onslaught continues. The UN estimates that more than 74 percent of those killed are civilians. That is to be expected in a population of 1.8 million where the number of Hamas members is approximately 15,000. Israel does not deny that it killed those Palestinians using modern aerial technology and precise weaponry courtesy of the world’s only superpower. In fact, it does not even deny that they are civilians.

Israel’s propaganda machine, however, insists that these Palestinians wanted to die (“culture of martyrdom”), staged their own death (“telegenically dead”) or were the tragic victims of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes (“human shielding”). In all instances, the military power is blaming the victims for their own deaths, accusing them of devaluing life and attributing this disregard to cultural bankruptcy. In effect, Israel—along with uncritical mainstream media that unquestionably accept this discourse—dehumanizes Palestinians, deprives them even of their victimhood and legitimizes egregious human rights and legal violations.

This is not the first time. The gruesome images of decapitated children’s bodies and stolen innocence on Gaza’s shores are a dreadful repeat of Israel’s assault on Gaza in November 2012 and winter 2008–09. Not only are the military tactics the same but so too are the public relations efforts and the faulty legal arguments that underpin the attacks. Mainstream media news anchors are inexplicably accepting these arguments as fact.

Below I address five of Israel’s recurring talking points. I hope this proves useful to newsmakers.

1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to

You are not buying stuff at the same price as 6 years ago, maybe you should actually pay attention to the receipts.

beef, pork, avocado, fruits, veggies, almonds, pinenuts, walnuts, mozarella, cheddar, other cheeses, seafood, grains, soy, soy, palm oil, milk, gasoline, beer and more beer, limes, canadian bacon, barley, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants,electrical energy, car rentals, hotel rooms, cab fairs,

air travel and air travel gets more expensive in many other ways, various extra fees, less room, more seats on planes

aluminium,

I don't think black box data will be much use, they were shipped out to Russia within hours of the crash...

Actually, they were recently handed over to Malaysian officials: MH17 crash: Rebels hand over black boxes.

Yep, I think we can all agree that it's worth a few punkin' headed babies and/or a couple of deaths so the rest of us can have brighter colors and whiter whites.

That's the tradeoff we make with vaccination programs. A small percentage of kids who are vaccinated get sick, and a few of them die every year. But we still vaccinate everyone because the benefits far outweigh those costs.

The flaw in your reasoning (it's a pretty common flawed line of reasoning, not just yours, so I'm not picking on you) is that you're trying to compare against a nonexistent zero state. Radiation can cause death. If there were no radiation, there would be no deaths. Therefore we must avoid radiation. Likewise, if we didn't vaccinate, those kids who died from vaccination wouldn't die. Therefore we shouldn't vaccinate.

To do a correct comparison, you can't compare to a zero state. You must take into account opportunity costs; you have to compare with alternative equivalent states. Without vaccination, far more people would die from the diseases we're vaccinating against. Without nuclear power, the world loses 13% of its electricity. The harm from that far exceeds the few deaths from even Fukushima-level accidents. Or if you replaced that nuclear generation with the next most-viable alternative (coal/gas), the emissions from those are far more harmful than the radiation hazards from nuclear. Even if you managed to replace them with wind and solar, the number of deaths installing and maintaining all those turbines and rooftop panels (roughly 11,000 turbines for a Fukushima-level plant, or 4.8 million homes with 40 m^2 of panels installed on each of their roofs) far exceeds the number that nuclear has killed.*

* Math for the wind/solar comparison:

• The Fukushima plant had 4696 MWe of nominal generating capacity.
• Nuclear has a capacity factor of 0.9, so in a year it produced on average 90% of that, or 4226.4 MW.
• Average wind turbine generates about 1.5 MWe peak.
• Onshore wind's capacity factor is about 0.25 on the high end, so in a year that turbine produces an average 375 kW.
• You'd need 11270 1.5MW turbines to equal Fukushima's output.
• PV Solar using high-end 20% efficient panels generates about 150 W/m^2 peak.
• Average rooftop installation is about 20 m^2, but the roof size is about 40 m^2. So 6 kW peak.
• Solar's capacity factor in the U.S. is 0.145. So on average the rooftop would generate 870 Watts.
• You'd need 4.86 million rooftops to equal Fukushima's output.
• Working in high places is dangerous. Roofing is the 5th most dangerous job in the U.S., at 34.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers each year.
• If a solar installation requires 3 roof-top workers and they can do 100 installs per year, you'd expect 51 deaths per year vs. an estimated about 30 deaths from cancer caused by Fukushima's radiation release in a once-per-25-year accident.
• I can't find stats for turbine worker fatality rates, but wind already kills about 5-10 maintenance workers per year while providing less than 1/10th the world's electricity that nuclear does.

Of course they were failing. They were failing in 2011, and they knew it, and in case they didn't know it, their CEO told them so. Go re-read their CEO's Burning Platform memo in case you had forgotten how badly they were doing.

In 2007, Apple stepped in and not only did they define a new high-end smartphone market, they owned it, and shared it with nobody. Nokia went from sharing the top-of-the-line smartphone market with Blackberry to a middle-of-the-road smartphone company, and they did it without moving a step. About a year later Google delivered Android, which redefined and then completely dominated the low-end smartphone market. Meanwhile, Nokia delivered nothing new. Nothing. They feebly tried to do something with Maemo (and later MeeGo), but couldn't even ship it. This was about 2009. And Android makers didn't stop there, either. The Galaxy S (as you mentioned) came out in 2010, pushing the out of the low-end smartphone market into Apple's market, and that was the herald for Nokia's decline. In 2010.

Meanwhile, MediaTek had shipped a reference design for low-end phones in 2008. Any plant in Shenzhen could now produce a cheap handset for about $10, so they did, filling shipping containers with the cheap phones that have become ubiquitous in the developing world. Nokia couldn't ship a cheap phone for twice that price. When you're buying cheap phones, you're going to pay the lowest price - so the cost-conscious consumers immediately abandoned Nokia's low end.

All this happened from 2007 through about 2010. Elop's memo came out in 2011, just after Android sales had exceeded theirs for the first time, signalling the end of Nokia's relevance in the marketplace. Nokia's marketshare continued to decline, as they shipped nothing noteworthy. By last year, Nokia was barely remembered as that company that used to make phones before iPhones came out.

Microsoft drove them into the ground at high speed.

That is completely wrong. Microsoft bought them in September of 2013. According to my calendar, that was last year. "Failing" is a polite word for the dire straits Nokia was in at that time. Microsoft didn't drive them any place they hadn't already gone themselves. Perhaps you're confusing the sale of Nokia with the agreement Nokia made to adopt Windows 8 for the cash they needed to keep the lights on. Nokia had already failed to deliver Maemo, which had been in the works since before the introduction of the iPhone. Nokia was incapable of delivering a smartphone OS. They had four years and couldn't do it. MeeGo might have eventually done something for them, but it would have been an even smaller market than Microsoft could deliver.

Let me repeat: Nokia needed Microsoft's cash just to stay in business, back in 2011. That is not the sign of a healthy company.

All that and I still have to say the Microsoft phone is not a terrible device. Nokia put a really nice camera in there, the battery life is good, the screen is clear, and the device is really well made. But the Windows app store is sadly lacking, and Cortana is certainly not yet at the caliber of Siri. It's still just an also-ran in the phone market.

Microsoft had nothing to do with Nokia's decline. Nokia did that to themselves by standing perfectly still, while the entire market passed them by on both sides. Microsoft just picked them up for the scrap value.

Its important to remember that Microsoft is only losing about 5% of its non-Nokia jobs. That makes these cuts have far less impact to the company as a whole. I work in a small consulting company of about 40 people, so this would be the same as us letting go two members of our staff because of a restructuring. That wouldn't be insignificant, but it obviously wouldn't be a major shift for our company.

As I see it Microsoft really only has one major problem, and that is to find a way to capitalize on their R&D budget. They have the fifth largest R&D budget of any private company in the world. This far surpases companies like Apple and Google which are far better commonly known for their innovative products than Microsoft. If they could actually make use of this R&D Microsoft would be in great shape regardless of what eventually happens to Windows, Office, or XBox.

Microsoft engineers are clearly being funded well enough to help Microsoft grow in the future, they just need better leadership to take advantage of their work instead of just writing salary checks.

Maybe they almost never get into the news, but there is a fairly high profile one going on right now: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/1...

Well then, let me qualify that. Corporate profits are at a record high percentage of GDP, and wages are at a record low percentage of GDP.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/0...

He gave up his girlfriend and cushy job, he exposed clear evidence of violation of international treaties and the US Constitution by the world's dominant superpower, and then he endured being stuck in the Moscow Airport (there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this OK) and is now stuck in Russia, which I assure you, is a severe downgrade from Hawaii.

Since it sounds like he really hasn't been in touch with her it looks more like he dumped his girlfriend. Why hasn't he invited his girlfriend to Russia?
He has stated that the only reason he took his "cushy job" was to steal classified documents:
      Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
Snowden couldn't be found in the airport for long stretches of time. Perhaps he was resting in a Russian supplied suite?
The simple truth is we know next to nothing about Snowden's living conditions in Russia, other than he is being protected by the FSB, who has no doubt had many chats with him, and his spokesman is on the FSB's public committee and a friend of Putin.

You'd have a great point if there were any reason we could trust the NSA.

You'd have a great point if there was any reason we could trust Snowden, a man who lied to friends, family, girlfriend, coworkers and the government to steal top secret documents and flee the country. The fact that he as leaked top secret documents doesn't make him trustworthy.

It is common for the the movie industry to shoot scenes from drones.

Your assertion doesn't appear to be true.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/04/...

This is the way it SHOULD happen. An overall prohibition on drones then specific exceptions for uses where the benefits to society are seen to outweigh the costs.

Found the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/...

"The child remained on antiretroviral drugs for approximately 18 months. Her mother then stopped administering the drugs for an unknown reason".

In the event of mechanical (or system) failure(s), any pilot is at least going to want to be able to peer out a window with his own two eyes to see what's going on

Well, the corresponding counter point (just because) is that if people weren't relying on looking out the window ... you wouldn't have pilots landing at the wrong damned airport.

Ideally, a digital display would have big giant warning signs which say "not this airport, dummy, that one over there".

LOL. Japan loves to *announce* grandiose projects... that go nowhere.

Say, where's that 1997 Space Hotel?

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/2...

There isn't even a single rivet in orbit.

Well we have known this for a long long time. Problem is how do we get the government to stop subsidizing fossil fuel?
Voting against the tea party nutcases might be a good start. They are they ones forcing these subsidies: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/...

Land Area that is needed to power the whole world with solar panels using existing technology: http://www.gembapantarei.com/s...

A small drone flying below 400 feet is a hazard only to lifeforms below 400 feet. And if the drone has reasonable safety features (such as shielded/ducted propellers) then it shouldn't be a problem as long as linear speeds below about 50 miles/hour (yes, there should be a mass value included, higher mass, lower speed).

Ah, I see you've totally ignored the risk of drone injestion to the turbines of aircraft taking off and landing at airports. And before you say, "what idiot would be flying a drone around an airport?" let me remind you of incidents like this one and this one. These are the same kind of idiots attempting to dazzle aircraft with laser pointers, even police helicopters.

Which to me means that it was not reasonable to throw out the charges. Change them to something that allows watching.

Umm, that's exactly what the judge did.

Valle was ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation, and to surrender travel documents and weapons. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe also ordered GPS home monitoring for the defendant.

He was already famous. Anyone writing a similar essay while in high school would be investigated, if not suspended or expelled. Even hand gestures are grounds for punishment. And lord help you if you write anything about sex!

It's healthcare, both indirect and direct. Encouraging and/or insisting on birth no matter what the cost brings unwanted children, and often disadvantaged children, into the world, as well as back-alley and home abortions. These things are not good for anyone. Taxes (fundamentally, anyway) pay for what the representatives decide they need to pay for. We don't get a say. I could scream forever about funding wars I don't believe in, bridges I see no infrastructure purpose for, ridiculous monuments, tobacco and oil subsidies, and every penny that goes towards bad law -- but it does no good, because our system is structured as a constitutional republic -- top down decisions only amenable to pushback via bottom up, after-the-fact elections. SCOTUS is part and parcel of the top-down mechanism.

When we turn to the constitution, religious freedom is pretty much laid out; the problem, as I see it, with Hobby Lobby is that they employ the public, but they want Hobby Lobby's religious freedom to trump the employee's religious freedom (and medical care) via government authority. If they want to impose their religious beliefs upon employees, then they should form a church. When the public is involved in an employer-to-employee relationship, it's pretty clear that the employer's religious dogma may not be imposed upon another person, any more than the employer's sexual outlook or political views may be forced upon the employees.

SCOTUS made a huge mistake here (several actually, and no surprise) but again, our form of government is top down, not bottom up, so there it is.

It is also worth noting that "plan B" is not an abortifacient. It stops ovulation if it has not yet occurred; if it has occurred, then it can prevent fertilization, and should fertilization occur, then it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If the egg is already fertilized and implanted, it does nothing. Plan B is a method that prevents conception, if taken at the right time.

Turning to Hobby Lobby, let's also not forget that they carry huge numbers of products from China; a country that forces abortion upon its citizens by imposing policy ("one-child") that leaves mid-level officials little choice in the matter. Furthermore, they invest in companies that produce birth control, including abortifacients.

So let's not get too tied up in Hobby Lobby's claim to the high road, or supposed adherence to "biblical principles." As near as I can tell, they're operating down in the gutter and have been all along. In the final analysis, this appears to be just another attack on the ACA. Exaggeration, emotion based on misinformation, hypocrisy, and the usual blundering of the fossils in the US supreme court have led to a very poor outcome for women, for families, and for children.

Can't say I'm surprised, either.

Lacy underwear is banned. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02... You may laugh at a regulation like this, but it went into effect yesterday.

Dude, when has it ever been used?

Can be is not is and not does.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/3725654....

Cuban-Americans can trade, send money, etc., and trading food is permitted (although with heavy regulation by the US govt.): http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba.txt. The article says nothing about how many current businesses there are, though.

http://www.thecanadianencyclop...

Maclean's January 15, 1996

Rrrright... Did you even read my previous post?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/29/...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

http://www.tradecommissioner.g...

These do not even talk about current businesses, which says a lot about your knowledge of Cuba... Tell me, how many businesses are trading with Cuba? Do they also trade with the US? If so, how are they permitted by the US govt.?

Furthermore:

Cuba is still designated a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" by the US, which complicates financial transactions with the island, and raising capital.

Do you know what this means?

The problem if any exists in Cuba lacking anything regarding trade is in their own corruption and government.

You do not know what you are talking about. A simple google search found those in the first two pages.

You, OTOH, seem to know a lot about Cuba... I guess you get your info from Fox News or CNN.

Dude, when has it ever been used?

Can be is not is and not does.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/3725654....

http://www.thecanadianencyclop...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/29/...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

http://www.tradecommissioner.g...

The problem if any exists in Cuba lacking anything regarding trade is in their own corruption and government.

You do not know what you are talking about. A simple google search found those in the first two pages.

I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut...

(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)

Like fucking hell we can't. He can't wait to go "extra-Constitutional" in other matters in the face of Congressional disapproval. Hell, at least with Gitmo being a military base he could always claim he's Commander-in-Chief. But noooo, he's ignoring that for this kind of wag-the-dog crap:

Obama to take executive action on immigration

At a hastily scheduled Rose Garden appearance, Obama said House Speaker John Boehner told him last week that the chamber's GOP majority he leads will continue blocking a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill.

In response, Obama said he was starting "a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress," adding that he directed his team to recommend steps he can take this summer and that he would then act on those steps "without delay."

"The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, is bad for our economy, is bad for our future," the President said. "America cannot wait forever for them to ask."

It's all about narcissistic grandstanding with this arrogant popinjay - and he needs a distraction after getting bitch slapped in the past week by the Supreme Court 9-0 for unconstitutional executive actions such as improper "recess" appointments.

So he's going to go for MORE unilateral executive actions?

Can you say "OUT OF CONTROL"!?!?!

How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal."

Are you absolutely sure you don't have evidence of a crime on your phone? Because there are professionals, such as Harvey Silverglate, that think you probably do. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe him than either your or my own understanding of the literally thousands of laws & regulations that would turn you into one. Read Three Felonies A Day. Good book.

because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.

Way to understate the criminal activity of entire divisions , entire towns and even the entire police force for major US Cities. Shall I mention the federal agencies engaged in some questionable to illegal spying?

NOT assuming cops are out to get you is exactly how you get fucked over. That is why the first words out of every criminal defense attorney are synonymous with "shut up."

So, you can let them search your phone. And when they find evidence of something you thought was innocent, like a picture of your kids taking a bath, and arrest & charge you, you can come back here, read this, and slap your forehead.

It seems to me that the entire purpose of any secret government agency is to benefit the secret government agency.

Michael Moore is a self-taught movie maker. His movie about U.S. government corruption in secret agencies, Fahrenheit 9/11, made $222,446,882. It's not like extreme U.S. government corruption is unknown.

There is a HUGE conflict of interest, and the U.S. government seems to have no influential methods of dealing with conflicts of interest. If there is security, people who work for the NSA are less likely to be promoted, and may lose their jobs. That is a powerful reason for NSA employees and management, and other secret U.S. government agencies, to create more insecurity. Since they work entirely in secret, no one can stop them.

U.S. government policies allow many secret agencies. I find it odd that news stories assume that, other than doing things that almost no citizens want, the secret agencies are otherwise well-managed. Numerous examples show that they aren't. For example, Edward Snowden, an employee of an NSA sub-contractor, was able to walk away with all the data.

To me, it is also odd that news stories assume that the NSA works to improve security of the U.S. and U.S. citizens. For example, the book House of Bush, House of Saud explains that the Bush and Cheney families worked for the Saudis, who paid them billions for their help. The U.S. taxpayer paid for the arms, military presence, and violence that supposedly was free security for the Saudi government, but actually was, as Saudi acquaintances I met in a gym said long before the 9/11 attack, Saudi government oppression of the Saudi people.

Why does the NSA record phone calls? Is it because learning about some of those calls makes money for someone in control? Investment information, perhaps?

The U.S. government's war in Iraq is now being called a "mistake". For example, Hans Blix: Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter. It wasn't a "mistake", other articles say, it was deliberate deception. For example, Stop Calling the Iraq War a 'Mistake'.

NSA = No Sales for America. The NSA is a powerful advertisement that anything complicated made by a U.S. manufacturer may have intentional defects or surveillance methods.

actually, a lot of them ARE unattended little children: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/...

You missed the change in units. 300 meters is 984 (that is, about 1,000) feet. Don't feel bad, it happens to the best of us.

Well, we do know from lawsuits that the IRS requested and received donor information as well as shared that with apposing groups on at least one of the claims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

We also know that the IRS actually did create word lists and purposely stalled applications based on them. We know that from the Treasury Department Inspector General's investigation.

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

We also know that non tea party groups fell into that catagory and the IG report was basically only looking for Tea Party issues because that was what it was tasked to do.

The problem here is that people are concentrating on the tea party. Of course it hit them the hardest but it also hit others who had a constitutional right to get a message out. This message was obstructed by the IRS, whether it was a conservative or progressive one in what appears to be an illegal move. Of course the appears is more or less due to the person behind it taking the 5th and all her and 6 other key employee communications records (emails) disappearing. So do not focus on the Tea Party, focus on the government using the IRS to quite dissent which is a more accurate description of the conspiracy. It's just the tea party screaming bloody murder the loudest.

What's funny is we're creating more and more of these terrorists because we're not winning this war. We're creating more and more people who hate the US, which if it's not Al-Qaeda it'll be ISIS or some other organization. So we've now engaged in a game of whack a mole and we'll go on indiscriminately killing people because of what we think they do vs. what they've done. These drone strikes are an easy, quick, no fuss, no muss way of killing anybody and they are creating more problems for us because of all the civilian casualties that are created and shockingly less than 2% of the kills from these according to this article are high value targets. 2% is not successful by any stretch of the imagination and they're not surgical by any means.

the Stanford-NYU report concludes:

drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.

There's lots of other interesting points in that article but I'm sorry this push button killing is too easy, it has no hope for review or for allowing the other guy to surrender. Terrorism is not a pretty thing but when you kill a US Citizen with that technology we're now saying that anybody, anywhere can be targeted. This country signed up to a little doctrine called the Geneva Conventions specifically in Protocol I which the US did sign. I'm still looking to see if the Senate actually ratified it.

Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.

So we've declared total war on Terrorism but we're killing innocent civilians and therefore we're committing war crimes. Of course there'll be some sharp DoJ lawyer who's writing another memo saying "naw, we don't have to follow that even though we signed it."

While you don't believe that this could be used in a riot situation, it's now possible that it could be. Sorry, rioters can get weapons, they create loss of life and property and its more chaotic and the lines become blurred. You could ask Reginald Denny about his experience. I'm sure he felt terrorized. Oh and the fuckstick Holder, he thinks it'd be okay to use Drones on US Citizens in the US. There's your due process right out the window. Of course he says it would need to be an "extraordinary situation" with the Administration determining whatever that is. Like I said, there's already a memo sitting in a file somewhere that justifies what and when they'll be used. Of course you and I mere citizens will never see this document because it's a matter of national security and I guess we're too dumb to comprehend those conditions, but trust me it's already been discussed and put on paper so to speak.

Also take these statements into account from a battlefield commander, General McChrystal when it comes to the war on terror.

“The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikesis much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”

“for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 ne

What's funny is we're creating more and more of these terrorists because we're not winning this war. We're creating more and more people who hate the US, which if it's not Al-Qaeda it'll be ISIS or some other organization. So we've now engaged in a game of whack a mole and we'll go on indiscriminately killing people because of what we think they do vs. what they've done. These drone strikes are an easy, quick, no fuss, no muss way of killing anybody and they are creating more problems for us because of all the civilian casualties that are created and shockingly less than 2% of the kills from these according to this article are high value targets. 2% is not successful by any stretch of the imagination and they're not surgical by any means.

the Stanford-NYU report concludes:

drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.

There's lots of other interesting points in that article but I'm sorry this push button killing is too easy, it has no hope for review or for allowing the other guy to surrender. Terrorism is not a pretty thing but when you kill a US Citizen with that technology we're now saying that anybody, anywhere can be targeted. This country signed up to a little doctrine called the Geneva Conventions specifically in Protocol I which the US did sign. I'm still looking to see if the Senate actually ratified it.

Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.

So we've declared total war on Terrorism but we're killing innocent civilians and therefore we're committing war crimes. Of course there'll be some sharp DoJ lawyer who's writing another memo saying "naw, we don't have to follow that even though we signed it."

While you don't believe that this could be used in a riot situation, it's now possible that it could be. Sorry, rioters can get weapons, they create loss of life and property and its more chaotic and the lines become blurred. You could ask Reginald Denny about his experience. I'm sure he felt terrorized. Oh and the fuckstick Holder, he thinks it'd be okay to use Drones on US Citizens in the US. There's your due process right out the window. Of course he says it would need to be an "extraordinary situation" with the Administration determining whatever that is. Like I said, there's already a memo sitting in a file somewhere that justifies what and when they'll be used. Of course you and I mere citizens will never see this document because it's a matter of national security and I guess we're too dumb to comprehend those conditions, but trust me it's already been discussed and put on paper so to speak.

Also take these statements into account from a battlefield commander, General McChrystal when it comes to the war on terror.

“The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikesis much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”

“for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 ne

Oh, but you can. Well it's not exactly the same thing. Have you heard of a femtocell doodad? When I first heard of stingray, I thought back to an interview from a guy at blackhat or defcon, I can't remember which. Anyway, here's a few links. I remember hearing them say that the traffic from the devices communicated w/o encryption to the servers. Supposedly that was fixed, but may very well still have more vulnerabilities like this one.
http://hackaday.com/2012/04/12...
so 1) they already do sell things with retarded capability to consumers
2) the argument "we don't want the criminal element to know we have this kind of capability because they'll know how we find them" is invalid.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/1...

http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...

Those people and their spiritual children are still with us.

Osama bin laden doll that turns into a Darth Maul.

The refusal to press charges is more based on the difficulty of proving it.

Just as a subcategory, the number of cops who skate after straight-up murdering people on camera makes that a laughable statement. What's the next joke - saying money has little influence on politics?

NSA = No Sales for America. The NSA is a powerful advertisement that anything complicated made by a U.S. manufacturer may have intentional defects or surveillance methods.

U.S. government policies allow many secret agencies. I find it odd that news stories assume that, other than doing things that almost no citizens want, the secret agencies are otherwise well-managed. For example, in the case of Edward Snowden, someone who worked for a sub-contractor was able to walk away with all the data.

To me, it is also odd that news stories assume that the NSA works to improve security of the U.S. and U.S. citizens. For example, the book House of Bush, House of Saud explains that the Bush and Cheney families worked for the Saudis, who paid them billions for their help. The U.S. taxpayer paid for the arms, military presence, and violence that supposedly was free security for the Saudi government, but actually was, as Saudi acquaintances I met in a gym said long before the 9/11 attack, Saudi government oppression of the Saudi people.

There is a HUGE conflict of interest, and the U.S. government seems to have no influential methods of dealing with conflicts of interest. If there is security, people who work for the NSA are less likely to be promoted, and may lose their jobs. That is a powerful reason for NSA employees and management to create more insecurity. Since they work entirely in secret, no one can stop them.

Michael Moore is a self-taught movie maker. His movie about U.S. government corruption in secret agencies, Fahrenheit 9/11, made $222,446,882. It's not like U.S. government corruption is a secret.

The U.S. government's war in Iraq is now being called a "mistake". For example, Hans Blix: Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter. It wasn't a "mistake", other articles say, it was deliberate deception. For example, Stop Calling the Iraq War a 'Mistake'.

I admire Elon Musk. But he's dead wrong. Neil Degrasse Tyson is right.

I admire Neil Degrasse Tyson, but he's basically shilling for NASA. (I like NASA, more on their limits below.) And he is over simplifying what people's motivations where.

As others have pointed out, taking your company public means surrendering a significant amount of control over the long term. Board members and share holders like revenue. It's all about the next quarter. They don't like pet projects that are giant money sinks without the remote possibility of a return. Persist on that path post-IPO Elon, and watch yourself be fired from your own company, ala Steve Jobs.

Good thing Elon Musk has stated over and over that he won't take SpaceX public until all the long term development is done, specifically for those reasons.

NDGT is spot on the issue of exploration. It takes a government interested in (mostly) pure science without profit motivation.

You want to put people on Mars? I'll tell you what puts people on Mars - the U.S. government thumbing their nose in the face of Chinese ascendancy - Ala Cold War 2: Space Boogaloo.

Let the government, or team of governments blow tax dollars on building Mars mission tech. That tech will filter down to private enterprise years later, so the next generation of Elon Musks can farm minerals off asteroids, or some other future commercial endeavor.

NASA lives and dies by congressional funding and congressional funding is fickle. NASA has done great things, but those days are over and where basically a fluke. President's come in, they say they want to return to the Moon or go to Mars but they don't push congress to fund a coherent plan. Next president comes in, new plan, still not funded. When congress does fund something, the funding is based on getting jobs in their own districts not on what actually makes sense from an engineering standpoint. Look into the history of the "Space Launch System" (that's the rocket congress wants NASA to build that would be used to send people to Mars.) It's mandated that it must use components from Space Shuttle technology. In the space industry, the Space Launch System is known as "the rocket to nowhere." NASA's history is littered with cancelled projects due to the fickleness of Presidents and Congress.

At this point in history, the US Congress is incapable of funding an expensive and on going coherent space program. I don't see that changing in the next twenty years. NASA may land a man on Mars in the 2030s, but I doubt it. But even if NASA does land a human on Mars in the 2030s, they are not working on the technologies, infrastructure and transportation systems to put a colony there. If NASA puts humans on Mars, it will be just like when we landed on the Moon. Plant a flag, shout "we're #1", and then go home.

Elon is overreaching with this.

No, he's reaching. Something I wish more people would do even though they may fail.

Long live the oligarchy (and how sad is it that is our best hope?)

I found a left-wing take on the missing emails.. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...