Slashdot Mirror

It's not actually on them.

It is. Trying to 'fix' these countries is just a waste of money.

How would you know? We've never actually tried. That's just what we claim we're doing. That is my complaint; someone should do something, but probably not us and probably not what we're doing. On the other hand, nobody else wants to do anything positive, either, or take responsibility.

In Japan, it seems to be illegal to be obese.

It's not enough, true, but we need to get Americans trained in the practice of being more politically active and to seriously consider the consequences of their consumerism. Today, encouraging people to think of encryption as required for increased secure communications is good. We can't fix anything "once and for all" because any change to anything can be reverted (hence Andrew Jackson's warning "...eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing" applies here too). Software proprietors and others who want to rob computer users of their freedom spend billions training people to think ephemerally (in fact, /.'s chosen "firehose" structure of fast and frequent updates usually from corporate repeaters exists to further that end). We need ordinary people to become more aware of the consequences of ignorance, make better choices, and train future generations that the acceptable social norm is lifelong political involvement. I think failing to meet this need is one of Snowden's fears ("The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change..."), and why Stallman says things like "I don't want any fans I want Freedom Fighters, who could actually help in his revolution". I have no doubt that whomever follows that murderous war criminal Obama in the US White House will follow the same behavior he both chose to follow from George W. Bush and ramp up. I'm not certain what will stop the horrors of "Terror Tuesday" killings, indiscriminate NSA spying, and more, but I won't object when groups want to raise awareness and help normalize objecting to the loss of our civil liberties.

Reusable and Man-Rating are different concepts here.

However reusable will cut the costs down dramatically. The Falcon 9 booster itself is less than 60m a launch. ISS resupply missions on Dragon are around 100m (I believe, I couldn't find the number.) Obviously a man-rated Dragon is going to cost quite a bit more. This means they could literally throw away the dragon capsule every time it flies and be cheaper than Soyuz.

Also, keep in mind that Dragon seats 7, Soyuz seats 3.

Also I would say that any cost savings from SpaceX have more to do wtih how efficient they are compared to how horrifically inefficient NASA contractors are.

However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Only if they're not an authorized user. Crazy, I know, but many gun-owning adults trust their kids enough to let them shoot. Even in the case of this RFID system, there's a good chance that the watch will be stored right next to the gun. Safety systems only work if you use them... With me and my parents? You need the key and combination to the safe. I'd rate that as at least as effective as most biometric systems I can picture.

Alternatively, the teen could decide to commite suicide by another way. The most horrible I can think of that can actually happen would be the 'deliberately veer into incoming traffic on the highway' one. That asshole actually ended up surviving - he was in a premium SUV. The family in the car he struck, not so much.

which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

Gun manufacturers are a minor component of NRA funding, and the NRA is more moderate than you think.

Spending 2 minutes reading Feinstein's Wiki page discounts any possible claim you have of "extraordinary". You could not possibly be claiming that everything I stated was dependent on Feinstein explicitly stating one sentence in one way, because that would be idiocy.

Here are One, two, three references, all of politicians calling for the death of Snowden (and one of those contains 6 references).

I can not find the exact quote from Feinstein either, but this is not uncommon nor does it make my statement wrong. Feinstein called Snowden a traitor, which has a punishment of the death penalty. If Feinstein was not a supporter of the death penalty I may cut some slack. Her Wiki page speaks for her very well.

Feinstein is a supporter of capital punishment.

Even assuming she did not state "kill him" directly, there is a very obvious indirect statement by her calling him a traitor (on numerous occasions).

There's a lot of lip-service being paid to 'zero tolerance'... I haven't seen any actions.

"Zero tolerance" policies only serve to extend bullying. Practically speaking, there is intrinsically a huge amount of leeway granted to teachers and administrators to who is subjected to 'zero tolerance' policies under which circumstances. A black kid is suspended for waving to the camera in a photo. A girl is strip searched and suspended for allegedly sharing over-the-counter medication. A girl takes a razor from another student threatening self-harm and throws it directly in the trash and she gets suspended (and recommended for expulsion) for having a weapon when she reports the incident to the teachers. I guaran-fucking-tee you that if that girl had been rich and white and popular the school would have never tried to punish her. People are punished because they are disliked, punished because they are weak, and then ultimately punished for being punished.

I could list these stories all day long. Zero tolerance is just an excuse for administrators to come up with ridiculous bullshit charges against vulnerable students and then claim that their "hands are tied" to deflect public backlash. The reason the teachers and principle lost their shit during recording incident is because it exposed their complicity with bullying.

I hope this kid learned his lesson. Next time, don't go the teachers, don't go to your parents, go to YouTube. Make that shit go viral. And when they inevitably try to punish you just lie. You don't know who recorded the incident, you don't know where the video came from, you don't know who uploaded it, it probably the kids who have been relentlessly bullying you uploaded it so they could mock you online but you don't know. Stick to your guns no matter what.

I'm sorry kid. I wish I could recommend a course of action that didn't require you to lie. I wish I knew a morally pristine way to protect yourself, but the fact is that there isn't one. That's just the nature of the world you live in.

Or the rate of shootings that go up in cities where guns are banned.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws on the planet and they are the murder capitol of the world.

Utter bullshit.

World cities by murder rate

U.S. cities my murder rate

Gun control state by state.

Even in the most restrictive of your states (California) the gun laws are laxer than in most of the developed world.

Here is one... http://www.policymic.com/artic...

No, I believe that gmuslera was referring to Obama. During the campaign trail he was in support of protecting whistleblowers and transparency. During his presidency he's decided that the espionage act from 1914 was suddenly very useful for prosecuting whistleblowers.

But yeah, Snowden is on that list.

He's bartering this foreign info ("give me amnesty in your country and I'll tell you how they're spying on you" All he needs is a sleazy late night commercial to go with it)!

I believe he gave the info to journalists who are choosing what to reveal about these transgressions. But hey, whatever keeps up the spin of the fox-news induced dreamstate you have about Snowden's motivations. Let me guess, you're still wondering how a "mere contractor" could have had access to all this data?

because he is doing real damage to this country

Such as? Go ahead, please list the ways he's damaging this country.

There are whistle blower laws that would have protected him if he'd played by the rules. He chose to make a martyr out of himself.

Right... he was supposed to count on this commander in chief's attitude toward whistleblower laws to protect him and those he loved-???

http://www.policymic.com/articles/57017/obama-removes-promise-to-protect-whistleblowers-from-old-campaign-website

"
(previously on Obama's website): 'Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.'

While the connection between such blatant hypocrisy and its intentional "removal" from the internet remains speculative, the coincidence is too great to ignore. Moreover, it is hard not to recall George Orwell's 1984 and the Ministry of Truth's epic programs to rewrite history in an attempt to save face.
"

Hmm,
I think a few things are or will be changing. Now as an amateur democracy activist I think more things would change if U.S. citizens had more political power. Or at least were aware of how little political power they have compared to most other democracies.

By the way - Missing the former certainty of the filibuster "comrade." The fact that the filibuster could be eliminated with a majority vote was leaked!

Jack (I_Voter)

Some relatively unknown and hopefully interesting things about the U.S. political system.
http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31156:

Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality
http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-nullification-in-new-hampshire-becomes-reality:

...can someone explain to me this (american) obsession with zombies?

I can't explain it, for me it was just a weird cult film from the 1970's, pure 'safe' entertainment. Why do people pay to go on rollercoasters, but wouldn't want to get on on a commuter train if they knew it would crash? I did some googling and found these explanations. the first from LiveScience ...

The reason for this popularity may trace back to an unexpected source, according to a new analysis: In fact, zombies may be helping us cope with the aftermath of World War II.

"We use fictional narratives not only to emotionally cope with the possibility of impending doom, but even more importantly perhaps to work through the ethical and philosophical frameworks that were in many ways left shattered in the wake of WWII," Stanford literary scholar Angela Becerra Vidergar said in a statement.

Vidergar, a doctoral student in comparative literature, analyzed mass disaster stories in pop culture for her dissertation. She found that mass disasters such as the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki opened up new realizations about the human capacity for violence, casting doubt about the upsides of modernized society.

"Instead," Vidergar said, "we are left with this cultural fixation on fictionalizing our own death, very specifically mass-scale destruction."

Predictions about the end times are nothing new, of course. Doomsday believers have been promising that the end is near for centuries, with the December 2012 "Mayan apocalypse" just one in a long line of failed predictions.

In the aftermath of traumatic events like World War II and the Sept. 11, 2011, terrorist attacks, interest seems to spike, Vidergar said. Shows like the National Geographic Channel's "Doomsday Preppers" profile people who go beyond pondering the end and start planning for it.

Though few real-world preppers worry about zombies, fantasies about the zombie apocalypse make up a large chunk of post-apocalyptic pop culture, Vidergar found.

Shows like AMC's "The Walking Dead" and movies like 2007's "28 Weeks Later" help people work through how they'd act in a survivalist situation, she said.

"Zombies are important as a reflection of ourselves," Vidergar said. "The ethical decisions that the survivors have to make under duress and the actions that follow those choices are very unlike anything they would have done in their normal state of life."

What's more, Vidergar said, zombie apocalypse tales actually invoke hope amidst destruction and death, as survivors battle for their lives.

"Even if as a society we have lost a lot of our belief in a positive future and instead have more of an idea of a disaster to come, we still think that we are survivors, we still want to believe that we would survive," Vidergar said. http://www.livescience.com/27287-zombie-apocalypse-world-war-ii.html

And from http://www.policymic.com/articles/29334/the-walking-dead-why-are-americans-so-obsessed-with-zombies

In order to understand the connection between zombie movies and American unhappiness, we have to start at the beginning. The first popular zombie movie was in 1968, a tumultuous year in American politics with the Vietnam War, the unrest at the Democratic Convention, and the general malaise of the 1960s. The film, (which, incidentally, was one of the first movies to have a black man play a lead character), “terrified” audiences around the country with its portrayal of huge mobs eating all they come into contact with and destroying society in a blithering mass. The film’s iconic images of the dead, staring blankly into the eyes of horrified survivors, are not hard to tie to the growing disconnect between the youth and the more established generations, th

It may be the "right thing" to pay their taxes, but let's face it, they're just walking in Steve's tax-evading footsteps.

You know, the lease-a-new-car-every-6-months-so-he-never-has-to-get-license-plates Steve Jobs?

Or the "park in the handicap zones when you want to because you're big shit Steve Jobs" and the cops are unlikely to hassle you?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/7868/apple-icheat-how-the-world-s-biggest-company-also-became-the-most-unethical

That's definitely fair response.

First: While he may have some assaults on his record, he wasn't arrested for doing some kind of violent hacking. In fact, with the exception of the insulin and pacemaker hacks, it's hard to see what a violent hack would actually be.

Second: He actually did uncover some government wrongdoing.

Third: I agree that a second offense should be punished more harshly. That being said, 10 years is way too harsh even for a second offense. His first sentence was also too harsh. You don't see these kinds of punishments for other white collar crimes, do you?

1. While true, defence of others is just as good as defending oneself.

2. a. Torture is going to far in any case. I don't remember the torture part, that definitely isn't justified, will have to check the articles on that.
b. Yah that is a bit much for just running away with money, I thought there was blackmail involved there too

So, now that I said that.... I did some looking it up....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/10/02/feds-allege-silk-roads-boss-paid-for-murders-of-both-a-witness-and-a-blackmailer/

âoeIâ(TM)d like him beat up, then forced to send the bitcoins he stole back. like sit him down at his computer and make him do it,â reads a message from the Roberts account, included in the complaint.

In a followup message, however, prosecutors say that Ulbricht asked to âoechange the order to execute rather than torture,â fearing that because the employee had spent time in prison, he might act as an informant against the Silk Road rather than risk being charged himself. In the messages reproduced in the complaint, Ulbricht is said to have added that âoehe had never killed a man or had one killed before, but it is the right move in this case.â

so it wasn't torture and murder together. In fact, in slightly different circumstances, such actions would even be legal in some places like Texas where a person is authorized to use force to secure the reuturn of their property (some conditions apply, IANAL: http://www.policymic.com/articles/46995/ezekiel-gilbert-texas-man-who-killed-prostitute-not-going-to-jail - though I will note I disagree with the characterization of her as a prostitute, prostitutes have sex for money, she was a con artist if all stories in the case are taken as true)

So overall they reduce to about the same. I dunno they all were engaged in illegal business and when in an illegal business you know people can't sue you so the stakes are higher. Anyone stealing large amounts and posing a threat to others in the business should really expect that sort of retaliation.

I don't see why normal social mores and norms about murder should be considered to apply in such situations, everybody knew what they were getting into from the start.

Perhaps we will get a chance to see how that would work

The few times some soldiers were caught doing something like that, it were a major scandal and they got prosecuted

Oh really? So please tell me what happened to the murderers in the "Collateral Murder" video?

Hint: http://www.policymic.com/articles/57263/collateral-murder-shooters-bradley-manning-exposed-go-free-while-he-goes-to-prison

But if you had bothered to even give those links a cursory look, you would find that they DO CARE what you said, and if the NSA doesn't personally care, they know agencies that do, and they freely share what they learn.

The story is fairly straightforward. A unit of the DEA known as the Special Operations Division has been receiving and distributing vast levels of intelligence from agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security. Upon receiving information about a particular transaction or meeting place, DEA agents go make arrests, using traffic stops as pretext.

There is nothing "beneath them". In order to hold that view, you have to subscriber to the whole "Defenders of America" flag wrapping nonsense. These agencies have ceased working for YOU.

You can't worry about the consequences will have on the people, and ignore the fact that some how, somewhere along the line, this government has taken it upon itself to vet every communication, be party to ever conversation, and monitor every action, and watch every person. Where did that idea of government EVER come from?

For they will be operating inside normal parameters to kill 50 civilians for each terrorist, enemy soldier or robber in US soil. Because police (or at least, swat teams) WILL use them.

...eight times more likely to die at the hands of a policeman in the US than by acts of terrorism...

So I'm more likely to die by terrorist action, than to die by terrorist action? I'll have to think about that one.

[not really joking, but wishing I were...]

Irrational fears, indeed. We all know that you're eight times more likely to die at the hands of a policeman in the US than by acts of terrorism, right?

It is biologically possible and actually not difficult at all to rape a man.

From a very quick google.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013870/Robber-broke-hair-salon-beaten-black-belt-owner-kept-sex-slave-days--fed-Viagra.html
http://www.policymic.com/articles/33593/canadian-man-sexually-assaulted-by-four-women-showing-rape-goes-both-ways
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/06/chicago-woman-charged-with-raping-a-man-at-gunpoint-stealing-his-iphone/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/07/four-women-wanted-in-alleged-sex-assault-of-19-year-old-man-in-downtown-toronto/

There are also a number of stories I know from an all female residence at the university I went to where girls get a guy drunk at university part and take turns having sex with him when he's passed out. It's a frosh week hazing ritual of sorts, but it's not rape of course because guys don't get raped so afterwards they'll always make a joke of it and act macho, but essentially he has sex with multiple partners without his consent. I can see people laughing already saying to themselves, "yeah like he didn't want it."

You are part of the cattle (and get years or decades of jail for things that are crimes, affects noone or make your rights prevail), or you are above the law, getting more money and support if you violate constitution amendments, get promoted if found that you intentionally lied to the congress, or get a small fine if is found that you you knowingly launder money for terrorist and drug cartels.

There are countries where law and justice seem to be antonyms.

Well, if Bush does it, then it must be ok. I however can't help but not a key difference between those attacks and Benghazi. Namely, that those attacks were much smaller in scale, were over quickly, and for which the US has considerable local protection.

For example, the most similar of the Bush-era attacks involved five gunmen breaking into the consulate at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and were quickly counterattacked by Saudi "security forces". The Benghazi consulate attacks reported involved hundreds of attackers with no support for US staff from local authorities for about seven hours. And that outcome turned out as uneventful as it did, because someone in Tripoli apparently decided on their own initiative to commandeer an airplane and fly into Benghazi and organize a rescue effort.

Afterward, the Obama administration took it upon itself to blame the Benghazi attacks on a rather offensive YouTube video, but one nobody had heard of before. That was probably because the attacks occurred before the upcoming November elections in the US.

So what makes Benghazi special is the weak tactical situation, the large scale of the attack, and most importantly, the tepid and politically self-serving response of the Obama administration to the attack.

Unions care about union members insofar as that is where the union's power lies.

Can the propaganda.The union members ARE the union.

Unions are no longer worker organizations, and haven't for some time.

Utter bullshit. I suspect that the company you worked for you were in management. Read my previous comment. Everything the union does is voted on by the union members.

They are political organizations.

Of course they are, just as management is. They lobby for laws benefiting unions and more importantly, the union membership just as management lobbies for weaker worker protections.

Yes, the contribute to campaigns of candidates friendly to unions and the workers who ARE the unions. They campaign against union-hostile and worker-hostile politicians.

My union has a voluntary fund for political purposes rather than using dues for that purpose (YMMV). I gladly have $8 deducted from my monthly salary so my union can lobby for candidates who want to make my life as a worker better, rather than candidates who would write laws that would hold me down.

Unions do not negotiate. The coerce. Look at what happened with Hostess. They refused to negotiate in any meaningful way and the company shut down.

Ah, I see, you read FOX and nothing else. Try Wikipedia -- mismanagement killed Hostess, not the union. After they'd spent money like a drunken congresscritter they insisted on all sorts of "concessions" like slashing wages to make up for their poor management.

Also have a look at This:

Most of whatâ(TM)s written about Hostessâ(TM)s shuttering is partisan puffing that wants to blame everything on the union, or on the hedge funds, or on management. Itâ(TM)s a testament to how politically divided our writer class is, but it is not accurate. There is no way to look at the saga without concluding that, much like an instinct-less teen in a horror film, the company and its employees deserved the end they got due to roundly-shared stupidity. Hostessâ(TM)s demise collects the worst elements in modern business into one shrink-wrapped sponge cake: union short-sightedness, managerial ineptitude and avarice, and badly spent millions.

Unions give you a lot of things, yes. But they do not create these things: they take them from other people.

Yes, they take them from the company.

They take and take and take until there is nothing left, to the point where it doesn't matter, because you no longer have a job.

Then explain why my dad was in the IBEW for 40 years and retired with a nice, fat pension and why all of the electric companies he'd worked for are all still generating and delivering power? Explain why American unionized automakers compete successfully with nonunion automakers? Explain why Disney is still in business, when they've been union since the 1940s? Face it, the only time you're going to hear about a union is when it's threatening a strike or its company goes out of business.

For the union bosses to stay in power (which gives them money(ever meet a poor union boss?)

No, and I've never heard of a poor union member, either. Meanwhile McDonald's and WalMart workers have food stamps and medical cards. Ever meet a poor board member or CEO?

they have to keep giving their members more and more, which in turn builds the dependency of the members.

That's what they're there for! Yes, I'm dependent on my union, I don't WANT to be on food stamps.

BTW, I retire with a pension next year. Do you think that would happen without a union? Damned right I'm dependent. With only social security I'd be poor as a churchmouse.

My union works for ME. I'm damned glad I have it. And I'm REALLY going to enjoy that ret

I wouldn't put it past the government to be the catalyst to initiate a stressful event for the sake of military testing. It wouldn't be the first time. http://www.policymic.com/articles/16852/the-federal-reserve-bomb-plot-why-the-fbi-helped-a-terrorist-try-to-blow-up-the-fed

After all, do YOU know anyone that "willingly" opted in to download this app? I wonder if it's already built into some phones... http://cryptome.org/2013/08/assange-google-nsa.htm

His mistake was not what he disclosed, nor was his mistake disclosing it to the press. His mistake was disclosing it through a dubious organization that operates on the fringes of the law rather than going directly to a reporter at a major news organization.

Your mistake is that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Manning went to mainstream media like NYT and WaPo first and they turned him down. Only then he went to WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks arranged a consortium of major newspapers to disclose the information responsibly, and the only reason the cables got leaked wholesale was because of the gross negligence/incompetence of a Guardian journalist, i.e., "a reporter at a major news organization".

That targets 1 person assumed traitor, terrorist, criminal or whatever, they don't thow a nuke into a populated city to kill just one person, or very few ones. What about US policy, where 50 civilians are killed for every terrorist?

You're aware of this stuff, right?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english

Is it possible to admit that all leaders have problems and none of them are only "Bad" or only "Good"?

"Unwitting", "puppets"?

You underestimate how well-informed many firearms hobbyists are about corporate support for the NRA and how delighted we are to get it!

We WELCOME those corporate dollars because they directly help us get the results we want. Businesses which donate to the NRA often proudly advertise that fact, and I prefer to vote with my wallet and shop there as to millions of firearm enthusiasts.

Most firearms owners are as far as can be from the criminal CHUDs who commit crimes with guns. We want those people either locked up or dead and we demand to be able to defend ourselves from them. You may have a personal police officer to babysit you but I don't. I don't have a personal fire department either, so I own both fire extinguishers and firearms. I have put out small fires over the years with the extinguishers, and deterred assault (without firing) with my weapons.

Of course I want the NRA and its corporate and private donors to fight for our COLLECTIVE good.

[quote]
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear

According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding. This includes voluntary donations made during gun purchases at the point of sale as well as programs like the "round-up" campaign, operated by the NRA-ILA and retailers, where consumers can round a purchase up to the nearest dollar for donation to support lobbying efforts. With that said, gun manufacturers do donate to the NRA as well. For example, Sturm, Ruger, and Co., ran the "Million Gun Challenge" in 2011, which directly ties gun sales to donations with the target being one million dollars.
[/quote]

When the target of snooping were foreing citizens all was OK, no reason to complain. Then they started watching "suspicious people", but it was for national security, just a few, is justified. Now is on everyone, specially US citizens, your time to complain has passed already.

Now wait for the same sequence with drones. Just try to avoid the wrong neighbourhoods

50 civilians are killed by drones for every terrorist. I suppose that at least same amount of false positives will go for the information gathered by the government's data snooping operations, but with far more hits as there is a lot of information gathered. And those false positives effect could go to just stipping you of any privacy left, no matter if you are an US citizen, to get visit from the Feds, to "dissapear". Don't be afraid just of the Big Brother, now the Texas sharpshooters will be in your next nightmare.

That was an accident. this ones were not, and wasnt exactly transporters on the ground. Weddings, schools, sports, funerals and other "suspicious" meetings of people, most civilians, by far, and that in a lot of countries. Yes, there are been a lot of terrorist attacks this last decade. But the head of the organization behind them wasn't hidden in caves or under false names, but sit in the White House.

I've given this a lot of thought, and compiled a solid rant on the subject.

My thesis about privacy in 2013 - 2020:

Lets start with some facts:
1. The Spy agencies in NZ, UK, USA, Australia and Canada spy on everyone, even their own citizens. 2. The UK copies literally everything that traverses the Internet and keeps it for 3 days for analysis (EVERYTHING!) 3. The USA shares this information (including commercial secrets) with its private enterprises to help them win international business. 4. So many people work for these agencies that from time to time this information is made public. 5. Nobody really cares. 6. The chances of any of these organisations giving up such a valuable source of power are about the same as global nuclear disarmament 7. It’s only a matter of time until the local police have access to all this information. 8 . In 2001, as sysadmin of BSSC I could read the email of every teacher and every student at that school, without leaving a trace of evidence, nor with any fear of punishment for wrongdoing.

So, I assert: You have no privacy online. You never really did. It was only by unspoken rule of sysadmins that we let you have the illusion of privacy. Ed Snowden betrayed sysadmins.

Strangely, Google poise to release the most important advancement toward our goal of total access to information - a video camera strapped to every second person’s head (Google Glass), and people are up in arms (9) and so are the governments best poised to take advantage! (10).
I think we’ve got it all wrong. Let’s stop bitching about this rampant surveillance and embrace it.

Let’s get our spy agencies to make everything they’ve got available to everyone! Let’s mandate that every Google glass camera must be on all the time, every phone must have its microphone on all the time, every GPS recording its location and all this content uploading to the cloud!

Information WANTS to be free! EVERYONE should have access to EVERYTHING!

Then it will hardly be accessed, because if Facebook status updates have proven anything it’s that it’s no fun spying on all your friends if all they do all day is play Farmville.

Finally, these civil libertarians realise that nobody really cares about them, or their “right to privacy”, and we will be able to make the most out of google glass (11).

Sources:
1. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-whistleblower-edward-snowden-on-global-spying-a-910006.html
2. http://mashable.com/2013/06/21/gchq-spy-agency-taps-global-internet/
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html
4. Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden
5. http://www.news.com.au/
6. http://io9.com/5969204/could-nuclear-disarmament-actually-increase-our-chance-of-an-apocalypse
7. “if the information is there, it’s already collected, why not use it to prosecute the crime? Why are you protecting the guilty? If you’re innocent you will want us to use this information to exonerate you.”
8. I read your email. Get over it.
9. http://www.policymic.com/articles/29585/3-new-ways-google-glass-invades-your-privacy
10. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57591975-93/google-glass-privacy-concerns-persist-in-congress/
11.

Burnt out houses, neighborhoods leveled with just empty lots and streets. I've worked in the area and it's hard not to be depressed sometimes.

It's being used as a dumping ground for toxic waste and if you want to see America's decline, just drive through the city. You can see homes where there's been a fire yet you see signs that people still live there. Houses with sagging roofs that look like they're ready to fall down.

The old Packard plant is still there. I visited it on one of my last trips. It's been abandoned (except for one section on the far end) since 1958 and they're still arguing how they'll clean it up. It looks like the county is finally going to auction it off, but who'd buy it? I looked at it and remembered all of those Packard V12s that powered PT boats in WWII, a lot of those engines even live on believe it or not...

There's a lot of history there and it's still a good place to visit. I especially like visiting the Henry Ford Museum and all around Detroit there's a lot of built up areas, Troy, Dearborn that seem relatively normal.

Let's consolidate this so people aren't confused.

Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?

Sorry, that is BS. Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. Hellfire missiles are not WMDs in the military context even if they are for US domestic criminal law. So, suggesting that the President is using WMDs is nonsense. It would also be nonsense domestically in the US since government has the legal authority to use lethal force with weapons not available to civilians. Second, the US isn't deliberately attacking innocent civilian populations. The terrorists do, as did the Boston bomber. Launching a Hellfire missile at a SUV of senior al Qaida or Taliban members traveling down a road isn't going to kill many people other than the intended targets. So third, the 50:1 casualty rate is fiction. If it were true, you would need to find 50,000 dead civilians in the drone attack areas of Pakistan - there would be no way to cover that up. That is obviously nonsense as noted by the Pakistani government spokesman below. That doesn't mean that attacks are never made in error, or that innocent people are never killed. But that is a different question from deliberately targeting them.

Pakistan drone strikes: 2012

Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome

“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”

He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.

From a wider angle, taking Afghanistan into account, it is the Taliban causing most of the casualties. And you would expect that since one of their key means of attack is bombs and mines placed along roads that kill whomever comes along, as well as bombings in market places, and attacks on institutions like schools. Those are mainly going to kill civilians.

Taliban Causes Most Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan, U.N. Says

Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.

The SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is not limited to geographic area. The US government and Pakistan have had an arrangement.

Ex-Pakistani President Musharraf admits secret deal with U.S. on drone strikes

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Ex-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged his government secretly signed off on U.S. drone strikes, the first time a top past or present Pakistani official has admitted publicly to such a deal.

Pakistani leaders long have openly challenged the drone program and insisted they had no part in it. Musharraf's admission, though, suggests he and others did play some role, even if they didn't oversee the program or approve every attack.

Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?

Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.

I'm not too familiar with definitions or jargon but is this an example of "powning" someone?

Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?

Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.

How telling others (specially, US citizens) that they are being spied put your own people in danger? Who is behaving wrong there? Or spying all the world is a god given priviledge? Is not that they won't abuse that privilege,

I don't want anybody hurt, but give government free card to do anything and they will be the terrorists. If you think that that terror campaign only goes to a few countries, think again, they want to go against hackers too (so better you don't live in the same area that someone downloading an mp3). And if that don't worry you because you, after all, live in US, you probably will be next.

This is about awareness, the rest of the world so they can protect themselves, and you, that should be the one that can do anything about it. But you can keep giving them free pass, in the end, if/when something happens to you or to someone you cares about in the hand of that government you are defending, you will know that was your fault.

He's way of getting awareness is now starting to cause damage. I understand he wants to shut the program down but he's going about it the wrong way. Also it might not be an option to shut it down anyway.

So I agree with you if it's about abuse we have to prevent that but I don't see how him fleeing to Cuba or threatening to release damaging files will prevent abuse. Has the NSA stopped spying on us? No.

How telling others (specially, US citizens) that they are being spied put your own people in danger? Who is behaving wrong there? Or spying all the world is a god given priviledge? Is not that they won't abuse that privilege,

I don't want anybody hurt, but give government free card to do anything and they will be the terrorists. If you think that that terror campaign only goes to a few countries, think again, they want to go against hackers too (so better you don't live in the same area that someone downloading an mp3). And if that don't worry you because you, after all, live in US, you probably will be next.

This is about awareness, the rest of the world so they can protect themselves, and you, that should be the one that can do anything about it. But you can keep giving them free pass, in the end, if/when something happens to you or to someone you cares about in the hand of that government you are defending, you will know that was your fault.

According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear

That got a chuckle out of me. Thanks. I needed that.

I am, obviously, aware that this tragic event took place in the UK but, it seems, that the US led the UK to get involved so where the US goes I'd not be too surprised to see the UK follow. Following our lead hasn't been their best choice (in my humble opinion) but, well, nobody ever listens to a KGIII and the facts remain what they are. As much as we might like it to be different, that's the way it is.

Anyhow, as an interesting aside, though it is tangentially related... It seems that Obama is looking for a repeal of AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force, the "war on terror") which is a good thing. This is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

In a recent speech he had this to say:

“So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end.”

I dare say that it's an excellent thing. Unfortunately I don't have much hope for that being repealed at this time and I'm also skeptical. Here's an interesting link concerning the announcement and is where the above quote is from:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/44327/aumf-repeal-obama-once-again-stands-up-for-democracy

Basically, I see there being a snowball's chance in hell of this being repealed at this time. It just doesn't seem likely. The citizenry of the United States seems to be hoping for an end to the war on terror. It seems that they're tired of having their friends and family being sent home in body bags. True, there aren't a whole lot of deaths these days but it really does appear that people are tired of the war on terror and they're tired of funding it.

Unfortunately, here's my issue, I don't think there's a very high chance of the AUMF being repealed. The politicians haven't actually passed a single law that I think the majority of citizens are happy with. I really can't think of a single thing to come out of this administration that pleases the majority of the populace. I don't really think the legislative branch is in touch with, or cares about, the citizenry that they're elected to represent.

I don't blame the politicians, I don't blame them at all. They're doing what they want to do. I blame the people who elected them. I hold my friends, my family, my neighbors, those who voted, and especially those who didn't vote accountable for the representation (or lack of representation) that we have. We've turned it into a sport where the sole purposes are scoring points of harm against one another, inciting anger, distraction from piss poor legislation being enacted, and a cash grab. We have nobody to blame but ourselves...

So, I suspect that Obama is a smart man. He certainly appears to be very smart and he appears to be a great politician. Just so you know, being a great politician doesn't mean that they're a good person or that they're interested in the well-being of the p

The NRA got their start as a civil rights organization fighting those laws.

LIES.

Yes and no:

The NRA was founded in 1871 after the Civil War by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church (pictured above) and General George Wood Wingate of the Union Army, who were both dismayed at the horrible accuracy of Union soldiers during the Civil War. The original purpose of the organization was for rifle marksmanship training. However despite this, the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. [emphasis mine]

Not to defend him, but the last guy ordered capture and detainment. The current guy by far prefers drone strikes, most of which include civilian casualties, and many of which are ONLY civilian casualties (i.e. no terrorist was hit in the strike.)

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

Also, the last guy didn't lie about WMD's. Yes, there were none, that much is true. However the belief that they were there is not just what the last guy beheld, but numerous other nations did as well. Basically everybody believed there were WMD's, not just the US. It isn't a lie unless you were unaware that you weren't speaking the truth.

Now the current guy? He actively and knowingly lies about who he targets:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html

If you want to talk about innocents being killed, the current guy is much worse. That, and he himself made the argument that he has the right to hit Americans with drone strikes without due process. Personally I'm happy with the one time that this has been done because that asshole had it coming, but it still sets a bad precedent.

Public funding does not create a "level playing field". It creates a strong bias toward incumbents.

There ALREADY is a strong bias toward incumbents. Re-election rates pretty much never drop below 90% for House seats and rarely below 75% for Senate seats. Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.

Even the current limits on campaign contributions have greatly increased the percentage of politicians that get re-elected, while also greatly increasing the number of millionaires in congress, since they can just use their own money.

The data I linked to above does not agree with your assertion. Re-election rates haven't changed appreciably since 1980 and there ALWAYS have been a large number of wealthy candidates. George Washington was among the richest Americans of his day and adjusted for inflation was the wealthiest president ever with an inflation adjusted net worth of over $500 million. Jefferson, Jackson and Madison were in the top 5. Mitt Romney by way of comparison would have been the 2nd or 3rd richest ever had be been elected.

A part time job and a summer job could put a pretty huge dent in $13,600 a year.

In the year 2013 during the worst economic times the US has seen in many decades:

1. Those jobs are very hard to come by. Just look at the unemployment rate for kids from 18-24. Just saying that they need to get the gumption and get a job doesn't reflect the reality of what kids have to deal with today.

2. You wouldn't even make close enough to put a ding in those expenses let alone a dent.

3. Average what? Tuition? Books will take up Summer earnings and colleges love adding all these other fees.

4. Unless you're really sharp or majoring in Women's Studies, a part time job during school is a burden and makes it hard to keep grades up and ...

5. In this day and age, kids are competing with people from all over the World. A GPA less than 3.5/4.0 means you are going to have a hard time getting employed. Compared to back in my day, just graduating with a 3.0 meant you were golden.

7. With Globalization, the opportunities available to kids are declining rapidly. Back in my day, Big Corp had an entry level track for us State U. grads and the Fast Track for the Ivy League grads and groomed folks for the future. Today, they want folks who "can hit the ground running" and entry level means two years of experience.

8. There's no going back. This is just a symptom of the rest of the World catching up with the West and our inevitable regression to the mean, if you will, of standard of living. Meaning, there are only so many basic resources on this planet and we are all going to have to reduce out living standards - except for the super rich 1%'ers.

You lost your credibility in the second line:

Perhaps the decade long dearth of any good television is nearing its end!

In chronological order, an abbreviated list:

• Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000)
• The Shield (2002)
• The Wire (2002)
• Arrested Development (2003)
• Deadwood (2004)
• Battlestar Galactica (2004)
• It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (2005)
• Lost (2006)
• 30 Rock (2006)
• Friday Night Lights (2006)
• Dexter (2006)
• Big Love (2006)
• Mad Men (2007)
• Breaking Bad (2008)
• Parks and Recreation (2009)
• Party Down (2009)
• Community (2009)
• Louie (2010)
• Downton Abbey (2010)
• Homeland (2011)

Yeah, it's been a pretty crappy decade. (Any show listed before 2003 had a significant number of episodes in 2003 and beyond.) There are a lot of people out there that feel that this is the new golden age of television.

If you think the USA doesn't like free-for-all of money laundering you should read up on HSBC and Bank of America. Sure, money laundering is a "crime" and stuff but prosecuting it? The problem with Bitcoin is that no one is bribing congress.

"So I went ahead and settled this argument. I looked at the standard for Bitcoins. I saw that the standard indeed didn't establish or guarantee any sort of value for Bitcoins."

You have settled nothing. From USA Today:

"In essence, Bitcoin is similar to the "gold standard," the monetary system in force before modern central banking started to take root in the 1930s. Under the gold standard, each unit of currency was worth a certain amount of gold, leaving governments few means to increase the amount of currency in circulation."

From Paul Krugman (who I think is an incompetent fraud, but just in case you like him):

"In effect, Bitcoin has created its own private gold standard world, in which the money supply is fixed rather than subject to increase via the printing press."

From the Austrian school of economics:

"In short, Bitcoin addresses all of goldâ(TM)s shortcomings... In fact, since Bitcoin is a global network, it would retain its full value between banks on differing continents!"

(But of course, that would depend on a rational market... exactly my original point.)

Face it. Economists from EVERY school of thought disagree with you.

Seriously, I am done here.