Slashdot Mirror

Before 9/11/2001 we didn't have this list of terrorists to watch and we all saw what we ended up with. What prevents another 9/11 from happening is not the lists but installing hardened locking cockpit doors and actually locking them which has been done. Also now when some barely functional terrorist (seriously I'm surprised these guys don't choke on their own tongue) tries to light his underpants on fire the passengers on the plane seem to be more than willing to try and turn him into a grease smear on the carpet.

Even in this case the Orlando shooter was known to the FBI beforehand and had been provided additional information on him before this attack. The government seems to get lost in all the noise that they are gathering so they miss things like this douche nozzle.

As far as the number of people on the list it is kind of hard to tell but it sounds like there are probably some where well over a million people on the watch list which seems to be a pretty big fucking list of people to keep an eye on. The no fly list looks like it may contain somewhere around 50,000 people with a couple of percent being Americans. Now since it is a simple name matching thing those ~1.5% on the list who are Americans will likely affect a much larger portion of Americans who happen to share a name or have a similar name, not to mention those on the list who are not American citizens.

Also it looks like getting on the list while sounding good is open to abuse from those 2 sources. So saying that there have been some fuck ups seems like an understatement as I did a bit of searching and I haven't found a case where someone was caught because of the no fly list, so I will lump it in as being as effective as the TSA is at catching terrorists, or about as effective as the jar of mayonnaise in my fridge at the same task. So please tell me again why we should deny someone their right because their name is similar to one on a list that you can be put on without any due process by the whim of some unknown bureaucrat, that has been shown in the past to have some pretty egregious errors. If you want that how about we also deny these people's right to free speech as they could go and incite other to take action.

Well considering that some nukes are single man operable devices and that the supreme court has ruled that weapons used by the military are protected by the second amendment it seem that one should be able to own a nuke. But back to the topic at hand the 9th and 10th amendments as well as other parts of the constitution make it clear that the government can only do the things laid out in the constitution. If you want to make a claim that the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate my movement or how I can transport my self around the country they you are welcome to do so but keep in mind what that allows and as that is a very slippery slope as has been shown in court case after court case since the Wickard v. Filburn case. I mean we had to pass the 18th amendment to ban alcohol but now it is done all the time with other drugs by regular federal law, or even being on a FDA list.

Who cares about exactly how? "Guccifer guessed password reset questions" means that he got unauthorized access to the server. Hell, the fact that password reset questions even existed and were enabled in the first place makes it WORSE.

He didn't claim to access her webmail.

He claimed to have actual admin access enabling him to see other people logged into the server, are you aware of many servers where you answer a password reset question to get admin access?

But don't worry, he actually doesn't claim to have used a password reset. Just look at the original article:

Asked if he was curious about the address, Lazar merely smiled. Asked if he used the same security question approach to access the Clinton emails, he said no – then described how he allegedly got inside.

“For example, when Sidney Blumenthal got an email, I checked the email pattern from Hillary Clinton, from Colin Powell from anyone else to find out the originating IP. When they send a letter, the email header is the originating IP usually,” Lazar explained.

He said, “then I scanned with an IP scanner."

Lazar emphasized that he used readily available web programs to see if the server was “alive” and which ports were open. Lazar identified programs like netscan, Netmap, Wireshark and Angry IP, though it was not possible to confirm independently which, if any, he used.

So yeah, this is his entire explanation of how he hacked the system:

1) Port scan.
2) ??????
3) 1337 Hacker!

That's the whole point. Just the fact that we're having to parse out their words to try to figure out what they might have been trying to say demonstrates a failure of journalism. And these are just the first two random samples I pulled out of today's newsfeed.

Oh, it isn't quite what you think. These guys say it is 11 million years old for some reason.

It's not journalism, it's a game of telephone.

Show me a US mosque where they actually encourage murdering homosexuals.

Now I'll show you Westboro Baptist and New Hartford Word of Life.

Here you go:

Orlando gunman tied to radical imam released from prison last year, say law enforcement sources

Robertson, who recently spent four years in prison in Florida on illegal weapons and tax fraud charges before being released by a Florida judge one year ago, has openly and enthusiastically preached against homosexuality. The targets of Mateen’s bloody rampage were members of the gay community of Orlando, 120 miles from the 29-year-old’s home in Fort Pierce.

Here's ANOTHER .

These ISLAMIC guys actually do go out and kill gays - all across the ISLAMIC world:

Horrific moment ISIS kill four gay men by throwing them from a roof

And guess what all the countries that punish homosexuality by death have in common?

You got the stones to answer there?

Naaah, you got no balls.

So I'll tell you: Every country that punishes homosexuality by death is ISLAMIC.

How many people have Westboro Baptist Church members killed? Oh, and Fred Phelps, leader of that church? He was a DEMOCRAT. You dumbass.

Now, do YOU have the BALLS to say how many people murderous Christians slaughtered over Piss Christ?

Do you?

Or are you still just an ignorant chickenshit blowhard too spineless to answer a simple question that demonstrates your strawman out to be a farce?

So, again, because you're GUTLESS:

NOT ONE CHRISTIAN KILLED ANYONE OVER PISS CHRIST

You need to grow a fucking brain. And once it's functional enough to enable you to become non-sessile, you can go fuck your stupid self.

he seemed more homophobic than radicalised

And you are wrong

Orlando gunman tied to radical imam released from prison last year, say law enforcement sources

The gunman who murdered at least 50 people in a Florida nightclub early Sunday morning was a follower of a controversial gang leader-turned-bank robber who was released from prison last year despite warnings from prosecutors that he would recruit people to carry out violent acts...

NK cyber team will hack the vote so trump does not win as he will crush NK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

https://www.wired.com/2009/02/...

Even faux news has written about that:

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

What do you mean by "even the USofA does it"?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

What do you do if you're not physically strong, but someone bigger and stronger than you attacks you?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

In fact, we could probably cut NASA entirely ($19.6 billion budget for 2016) and that wouldn't be enough for a wall between the US and Mexico.

In 2007, the economic losses from crime in the US were $15 billion. A whopping $179 billion more was spent on police, legal proceedings, prisons, etc. In other words, we lose over $200 billion every year to crime.

Now, the percentage of crimes committed by illegal aliens is surprisingly hard to obtain — federal government is unwilling to keep an officially tally (maybe, Trump will fix this). But the sentencing statistics say: "Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants."

Maybe, that's an overestimate by those nasty racists at FauxNoos and the real figure is "only" 10%. If we could get rid of that, we'd be able to afford another NASA with the savings... But even if the money went to building the wall instead, as you suggested, we'd break even — just have fewer murders and kidnappings.

If you look a tiny bit deeper into the alliances we keep, you just might realize that religion and terrorism also are bullshit issues, purely a distraction. I don't understand the obsession.

How about a guy who's named in the Panama Papers as being a major investor in an international weapons manufacturing outfit.

You know, George Soros.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...

Uh. You might want to go back and re-read some stuff...like facts. It's the democrats who liked the fairness doctrine, and it was them most recently who tried to get it back in several times in fact. I picked two left-leaning sources. So have some right leaning sources as well. The GOP has been fundamentally against that.

One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS.

But you won't find government sources for those of any kind because the DEA controls the only source of legal marijuana research cannabis and does not permit studies which are not negatively biased.

But you will find that UCLA did a study showing that MJ does not raise lung cancer risk, if you look a bit.

Because it's well understood that the stories reported by Fox News and NBC News are whatever Fox and NBC deem newsworthy. They don't pretend that the stories they've picked are "Trending"...

I guess Trending on Fox News must just be a figment of my imagination, then...

By that standard, shouldn't this guy be jailed for telling the bank they left their front door unlocked? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...

I hope they do so that Bernie Sanders would run against Trump. Both are party outsiders and I'd be more satisfied with either of them than anyone else either party put forward this election cycle.

Have you actually thought about what Trump means?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

"Free Willy was just story, it wasn't real."

Tell that to this guy.

The folks with Parliamentary systems seem to be able to handle this better than we do.

Oh Really

(Fox News was only news site I could find with working non-flash video)

The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be.

Celebrate diversity, right? Democrats could not convince the electorate of their ideas, so they changed the electorate — by diluting it with a heavy dose of people from countries, where the government is the source of what little wealth there is.

They don't mind big government, and are happy to receive "free" help from it. The dilution is ongoing — while the same Administration fought tooth-and-nail to deport refugees from a rich country, who fled over homeschooling...

I like to use this particular case when talking about commercial piracy. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20.... In this case, the Army bought software for $4.5 million for 5 servers and ~2,000 workstations but the Army installed it on 100 + servers and 11,000 workstations. The company sued the U.S. government for $180 million and the government settled for $50 million. So the U.S. government willfully and egregiously violated the terms of the contract, you're saying it's not ethical for a company or an individual to try and take the offending client to the bank for egregious violations - that they deserve mercy or something and surely they'll never do it again?

If you assume that the cost was for the servers then: 100/5=20*4.5m=100million
50 millions is a perfectly reasonable settlement if not a little on the low side.

In this case, he was paid 4200 euros for a 3 year contract. Let's say that an indefinite contract is 99 years, that would be 4200*33=138600 euros.
Let's assume that the lawyer gets half so let's double the settlement. That's 277200 euros or approximately $318k. Even if you go for gross violation
and triple the amount, you're still under the $1 million mark.

So, yes, $2 million seems unreasonable for an extra 2 years. An extra 2 years should be closer to the 4200 that was originally contracted.

It might surprise you, but a lot of black folks seem to be supporting Trump too

You know, before you make such a stupid assertion, you ought to check if there's actually any data available that might make you look like a total dope.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

You will notice that among blacks, Donald Trump's support is shown in this Fox News Poll as being 10%, with a margin of error of 9 points, plus or minus. And that's the HIGHEST he's ever done in such a poll, by about a factor of three.

No, Arrhenius was pretty clear about the warming effects.

Citations, please — a link to his prediction(s) followed by a link to their confirmation(s).

Frankly I don't know why you would mention these cooling papers

To illustrate, that we've seen both kinds of predictions, and that the climate science has a long way to go to establish its credibility. These cooling papers came after Arrhenius, did not they?

As far as the citations you want, I'd ask you to read the latest IPCC report ...

Links, please. The format I described is perfectly reasonable.

However, you're also reversing the burden of proof. Basic physical laws suggest that a higher partial pressure of CO2 will warm the Earth, and simple laboratory experiments show a strong positive feedback from H2O.

Great! And this was all known this for decades (if not centuries), right? How come you have not offered the citations I asked for yet?

What is your competing theory ... ?

I don't have to offer my own theory — because I do not seek to convince and/or compel you to alter your way of life. You seek to do that to me, so the burden of proof is on you.

Once again, if you wish to further explore this topic, you'll have to offer citations in the format I described. Any follow-ups not containing that will be returned unopened. Thank you.

Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it

You're talking about a country that has laws that allow this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

Under Idaho's 1972 "Child Protective Act," parents are immune from prosecution for any charges - including involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide - if they depend exclusively on faith healing.

Good luck with that...

the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much

Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.

If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?

There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years. But I'd be happy to be surprised.

Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make. Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.

Probably true, but the order itself is illegal, so the President would need to have a defense against that, because Congress and the Attorney General are going to want an answer.

Hillary! had real intel data on her server that likely "outed" REAL agents and, with the big fat fucking D after her name, the media sweeps it under the rug.

Nothing in that article you referenced says anything about likely outing of CIA agents in Hillary's emails. The closest they come is a definition of a particular classification that covers information relating to programs or sources.

That's a pretty big reach on your part.

Probably true, but the order itself is illegal, so the President would need to have a defense against that, because Congress and the Attorney General are going to want an answer.

I didn't hear much complaining when the US executed a US citizen without due process.

That's because when a DEMOCRAT does it, it's OK.

Just look at the stink made when Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame - when she wasn't even a real CIA agent. Hillary! had real intel data on her server that likely "outed" REAL agents and, with the big fat fucking D after her name, the media sweeps it under the rug.

Because bad guys never go to restaurants?

The most striking thing in that story was that Senate was 1 vote away from passing a bill that would *prohibit* states from setting up such labeling requirements. How on earth do those 48 "people's representatives" explain how making it illegal for people to vote in a consumer protection law is in somehow in their interest!? There's not even a pretense of proper representation now. Just shameless corruption.

McAfee is owned by Intel Corporation. Former Intel CEO Paul Otellini bought McAfee for $7.6 billion.

Quote from that New York Times story: "There are no immediate synergies that I can see," said Stacy A. Rasgon, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. "It is a strategic deal, and it is a pretty rich price for a strategic buy."

Ohhh. It's a "strategic deal". Oh, well then, that's okay? Why are writers with no interest or understanding of technology allowed to write stories about technology?

My best guess is that's why Otellini was fired.

Stories about John McAfee, who started the company:

1) Meet the harem of SEVEN women who lived with fugitive software tycoon John McAfee before he fled Belize

2) Bath Salts, Orgies, Murder, and Anti-Virus Software

3) U.S. antivirus legend John McAfee wanted for murder in Belize

McAfee is a "legend"? McAfee software was always undesirable, in my experience.

4) John McAfee: Addict, coder, runaway

Quote from that BBC story: "At the time of the raid, McAfee had begun an affair with a 16-year-old ex-prostitute he had met on Belize Independence Day."

She was an "ex-prostitute"? She was no longer a prostitute?

Another quote: "One night Emshwiller took McAfee's gun. She aimed it at his head, squeezed her eyes shut and pulled the trigger. She missed." John McAfee's response: "All she did was burst my eardrum. I'm deaf in one ear now, but I don't have a bullet in my head. Forgiveness is one of the graces that we have as human beings. Can I be faulted for indulging in it?"

Not-prostitute Emshwiller is quoted as saying, " 'One time before, I held him in the corner and I put a knife at his throat," she says.'

Former Intel CEO Paul Otellini got Intel, a hardware company, involved in that by buying McAfee, a software company. Would you use Intel McAfee software? It seemed to me that buying McAfee damaged Intel's reputation, and continues to damage Intel's reputation.

The Metro's first priority in hiring is race, not competence.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

corruption and culture of ignoring the rules? no wonder maintenance doesn't get done.

Just one year of not building new bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers, and other stuff we don't need could fund an infrastructure rebuilding across the nation that would repair neglected bridges and roads

While I understand your point, and it is a fair one to make... There is something to consider that perhaps you haven't thought about.

The skilled workers and tooling required to make the machines of war is hard to make and setup and is lost quickly if you don't use it. We are still building aircraft carriers and submarines for this very reason. We don't really NEED more, the new ones don't do all that much new stuff. (they do, but it is evolutionary in nature) Instead the primary purpose is to keep the ability to do it alive.

Newport News Shipbuilding is the only place in the world that can build a nuclear carrier. There is exactly one dry dock that can do it at Hampton Roads. If you wanted to increase production, it would actually take quite a few years to get anything up to speed.

Now imagine that we say we have enough carriers and we'll take 5 years off from building them, skip the next one and save $10+ billion dollars.

Is Newport News supposed to maintain Hampton Roads for 5 years without work? What about all the people working there with critical skills? You'll never get them all back.

If in 5 years, we say "ok, lets build some new carriers now", you'll spend more money than you saved in getting back up to speed. It doesn't actually save anything.

The same thing is true with tanks and a whole lot of other military stuff. When the decision to shut down C-17 production and F-22 production, I thought that was sad, because it means we will never get another of either. The cost to spin production back up is simply absurd, you're almost better off just designing a new airplane.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

If you look at that, you'll see a smaller British JumpJet carrier next to a US Nimitz supercarrier... there is only one place in the world that can build that larger ship, if they don't always have a ship to build, you'll lose that ability and it will take a lot of money and time to get back there.

Back to tanks, there is exactly one plant in the US that can build tanks. It is in Lima, OH:

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Yes, to some extent, it is a jobs program, but if you shut that place down, it will be rather expensive to build any new tanks in the future, and you might end up having to design a brand new tank from scratch if you do shut it down.

Quote:

"Congressional backers of the Abrams upgrades view the vast network of companies, many of them small businesses, that manufacture the tanks' materials and parts as a critical asset that has to be preserved. The money, they say, is a modest investment that will keep important tooling and manufacturing skills from being lost if the Abrams line were to be shut down."

There is some truth to that...

Take it or leave it

"Guns in America: You know the case for background checks is weak if..."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

Why leave out accidental deaths and murder-suicide and ignore woundings?

You also ignore the possibilities of rehabilitation, wrongful conviction, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, knocking on the wrong door, having one drink too many and all the nuances and mistakes which make up our lives. I've given up with the links - just Google any of the phrases with "gun" (US can usually be assumed) or conversely Google them with "US" where gun can usually be assumed. It must be very cold and hard in your black and white world but real life isn't like the movies, where only the bad guys get hurt and justice rules.

There are scenes in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force where Harry shoots into a crowd of people "to get at one punk".

How many bystanders were "murdered" as the OP wrote? Dirty Harry had a reputation for recklessness. Murdering bystanders would have run him out of the department.

But then, we're discussing a fictional character.

Real life is stranger than fiction.

All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html

Might have made a difference in a situation like this?

Sorry for the foxnews link. But you can find real news outlets that reported on this as well.

The biggest problem is that people are reacting to the headline - not the back story.

1) This was the terrorist's WORK phone. He tried (and failed) to destroy his personal phone - and the FBI have all of the data from that. If he didn't destroy the work phone, there probably wasn't anything important on it.

Close, but no.

He tried, and succeeded, in destroying his personal phones:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

  The couple took pains to physically destroy two personally owned cellphones, crushing them beyond the FBI's ability to recover information from them. They also removed a hard drive from their computer; it has not been found despite investigators diving for days for potential electronic evidence in a nearby lake.

Farook was not carrying his work iPhone during the attack. It was discovered after a subsequent search.

So, the question is: given that they went to great lengths to destroy the phones and hard drives that they used in planning the attack, why in the world would anybody think that this phone they didn't think were worth bothering to destroy would have anything on it?

I hear they lose stuff all the time.

Or 85 mph...

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

And not just a summary of summary of the op-ed.

1. Automatic rifles are extremely rare. You lack of knowledge on this calls you out as not having enough knowledge to form an opinion. Go read a little bit.

2. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police in the US are LITERALLY not required to stop a crime in progress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06...

The police investigate crime after the fact, they are not required to stop someone intent on murdering you, stealing all your stuff, or raping you. So, good luck relying on those police, there have been many instances where they didn't even stop a crime after being notified of a crime being in progress.
http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sorry for the Fox link, but here is an example of email that cannot be justified. People will die as a result of this.

"At least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server contained extremely sensitive information identified by an intelligence agency as "HCS-O," which is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations, according to two sources not authorized to speak on the record."

It's not democrats or republicans.... The problem is Iowa

people do it all the time.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropoli...
http://www.indystar.com/story/...
http://www.casp.net/sued-for-f...

In principle, I agree, guns shouldn't be sold to dangerous individuals. But that's far easier to say than actually do. Forcing gun sales off of Facebook, where they can be tracked and logged, means the transactions will be negotiated elsewhere. It's very possible the transactions will move to Snapchat or even some medium completely out of the reach of authorities. While background checks will prevent some criminals from obtaining guns, it's not clear that it would prevent many dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms. However, there are a couple of more concerning issues at work here.

From Fox News:

Facebook had announced some restrictions on gun sales and advertising in 2014, saying it would block minors from seeing posts that advertised guns. But the social network did not ban private sales at that time.

Licensed firearms retailers can still promote their businesses on Facebook, but they aren't allowed to accept orders or make sales on the site.

It's not clear to me why minors should be restricted from seeing posts advertising firearms. Why should Facebook censor content and try to take the place of proper parental supervision? Guns aren't inherently objectionable because they have plenty of useful purposes like hunting and skeet shooting.

Worse, though, is a quote from the NY Times article:

Because of Facebook’s tremendous influence, she said, its decision to ban person-to-person sales of guns will have ripple effects on gun policy nationwide.

“What they’re doing is sending such an incredibly strong, sentinel signal to the world that America is working in the right direction on guns,” she said. “For them to take a stand and do the right thing gives cover to other businesses to do the right thing.”

Facebook has many users around the world, many of which reside in countries with very different laws than the US. I think it sets a bad precedent to impose American policies on everyone. But Facebook has also indicated its desire to be a "town hall" in which people discuss issues among themselves. Using its position to influence policy runs contrary to the idea of open discussion that Facebook claims it wants but doesn't truly seem to support.

we live in an age where mediocrity and incompetence is rewarded and excellence is restricted

In today's news, a Minnesota youth basketball team has been ejected from their league for being too good.

Ah, if *most* jurisdictions have provisions, that means it's not a problem? For example, feel free to peruse the relevant WA state legal code and point out the relevant provision (spoiler: the ACLU doesn't seem to think it exists). In any case, 18 US code 2251, a law against child porn is a federal law and - while I believe it only covers inter-state or foreign transmission - contains no such provisions. Fortunately, minors are definitely never in a different state from their SOs, and if they somehow were, would never request or send naughty pictures, right? Not that I know of any cases of the feds prosecuting such a case of private communications between consenting teens, but if they did the law would appear to be on their side.

While states certainly have some de facto control over what cases they will prosecute, in many cases they have certainly attempted to convict sexting teens as child pornographers, and sometimes they have succeeded. The situation does seem less outrageous than I believed it to be, especially after the first few cases to make the news generated enough outrage at this travesty, but it's still far from perfect.

http://www.cnet.com/news/polic... - 17 and 16 year old in Florida prosecuted, found guilty, conviction upheld on appeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 15 year old arrested on felony charge (apparently got put on no-cell-phone-or-unsupervised-Internet probation, charges probably dropped afterward)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 7 teens charged with felonies, at least 6 plea bargained to misdemeanors (better than it could have been, still very wrong)
http://laist.com/2013/05/17/re... - Key quote: "... anyone who sends obscene images of persons under the age of 18, whether it’s of themselves or someone else, are violating child pornography laws,” San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Dept.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... - Cops photographing a 17-year-old's junk to try and enter the pictures as evidence. They eventually backed down, after massive public ridicule, on the plan to have him given an injection to make him erect before photographing him *again*.
http://pilotonline.com/news/go... - Provisions, you say? Nope, can't even downgrade it to a misdemeanor, gotta stay a felony!

Sorry for doing the research...

Ah, if *most* jurisdictions have provisions, that means it's not a problem? For example, feel free to peruse the relevant WA state legal code and point out the relevant provision (spoiler: the ACLU doesn't seem to think it exists). In any case, 18 US code 2251, a law against child porn is a federal law and - while I believe it only covers inter-state or foreign transmission - contains no such provisions. Fortunately, minors are definitely never in a different state from their SOs, and if they somehow were, would never request or send naughty pictures, right? Not that I know of any cases of the feds prosecuting such a case of private communications between consenting teens, but if they did the law would appear to be on their side.

While states certainly have some de facto control over what cases they will prosecute, in many cases they have certainly attempted to convict sexting teens as child pornographers, and sometimes they have succeeded. The situation does seem less outrageous than I believed it to be, especially after the first few cases to make the news generated enough outrage at this travesty, but it's still far from perfect.

http://www.cnet.com/news/polic... - 17 and 16 year old in Florida prosecuted, found guilty, conviction upheld on appeal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 15 year old arrested on felony charge (apparently got put on no-cell-phone-or-unsupervised-Internet probation, charges probably dropped afterward)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... - 7 teens charged with felonies, at least 6 plea bargained to misdemeanors (better than it could have been, still very wrong)
http://laist.com/2013/05/17/re... - Key quote: "... anyone who sends obscene images of persons under the age of 18, whether it’s of themselves or someone else, are violating child pornography laws,” San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Dept.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... - Cops photographing a 17-year-old's junk to try and enter the pictures as evidence. They eventually backed down, after massive public ridicule, on the plan to have him given an injection to make him erect before photographing him *again*.
http://pilotonline.com/news/go... - Provisions, you say? Nope, can't even downgrade it to a misdemeanor, gotta stay a felony!

Sorry for doing the research...

You see this? This is what the US is fighting. They have the long term goal of coming to your country and city, cutting off the heads of your men, turning your women into sex slaves, lootting everything else. They want to rule THE ENTIRE WORLD. Where are you located? I don't want to feel bad when they get there.

I believe the items below is what he was referring to. (Surely this sort of blatant ant-Israeli bias isn't new to you?)

Thousands of Israelis join lawsuit against Facebook over pages inciting violence
Facebook’s anti-Israel double standard on hate speech

Facebook and Israel: What’s Not to ‘Like’? Lots, It Seems

An experiment: Make one anti-Israel page and one anti-Palestinian page. Wait to see what happens. . . .

Shurat HaDin also posted graphic photos on both pages. For example, a photograph on the anti-Israel page featured a young girl preparing to punch an Israeli soldier, with text reading, “these children will liberate Palestine with blood.” That photograph was mirrored on the anti-Palestine page by a picture of a bare-chested Israeli soldier wielding a gun and vowing war with all Arabs.

On Dec. 30, Shurat HaDin reported both pages as violating Facebook standards, using Facebook’s report mechanism of a simple button-click available to all users. Within 24 hours, Facebook sent the NGO a message that the anti-Palestine page it reported had been closed down for “containing credible threat of violence” and that it had “violated our [Facebook’s] community standards.” The page immediately became inaccessible to all Facebook users.

The complaint about the anti-Israel page (which had spiraled into an explicitly anti-Jewish page) also received a reply from Facebook. This reply stated that the content was “not in violation of Facebook’s rules.”

Facebook changed its tune after Jan. 4, when Shurat HaDin published a video detailing the experiment, which made waves in the Israeli press and on social media.

Facebook Caves on Israel Hate Page

Exclusive: Social network rescinds earlier decision to allow page that incites violence . . . .

“Unfortunately we do not believe it was a simple ‘mistake’ as Israelis and Jews worldwide have been relentlessly protesting that Facebook is completely unresponsive to this type of Palestinian incitement to violence,” said Shurat HaDin founder and Israeli attorney, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. “Two months ago we filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court on behalf of over 20,000 Israeli citizens, seeking an injunction against Facebook for “intentionally disregarding the widespread incitement and calls for murder of Jews being posted on its web pages by Palestinians. This simple experiment and its results speak for themselves.”

Israeli NGO says Facebook test proves anti-Israel bias

An experiment by the Israel Law Center sees the social network banning anti-Palestinian incitement, while anti-Israel hate remains online

"Smart" gun means two things:
(1) it will fire when it is supposed to fire
(2) it will not fire when it is not supposed to fire.

These are the classic types of errors, type-1 error and type-2 error. The lock on your door, for example, has two failure modes: not opening when it is supposed to, or opening when it's not supposed to.

As is always true, you can make the rate of one type of error arbitrarily close to zero by making the other type of error higher. You can lower the failure rate of your door not opening when you want it to, for example, by removing the lock entirely. That increases the failure mode "will open when it's not supposed to," since it now opens to anybody who wants to enter, whether you want them to or not.

The question for "smart" guns is, can you improve the option "won't fire when it's not supposed to" without seriously increasing the probability of it failing to fire when it is supposed to?

The failure mode "gun fires when it isn't supposed to" covers cases such cases as, your 4-year old finds it and shoots somebody, or somebody grabs your gun and shoots you, or even you drop the gun and it fires.

Right now, the recommended solution to the failure mode "make sure the gun doesn't fire when it's not supposed to" is "keep the gun in a locked gun safe", and, if you want to make it even safer against that failure, "store the ammunition somewhere else." This does have the problem that when you do want to make the gun fire, you have to unlock the gun safe, take out the gun, and then go to the separate location to load the gun. This solution is so cumbersome that--surprise--a lot of people don't implement it.