Slashdot Mirror

What they are doing is illegal.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

The KKK is the end game of what a vigilante group looks like.

What the KKK stands for is abhorrent. However, this group is no better than them using the very same sort of shame and cowardly tactics the KKK uses. I do not praise this group for doing this. I look upon them with the same derision I do the KKK.

Be better than them or be the same as them. Their concept of justice is nothing more than guidelines for others to follow because they believe they are 'better' than the rest of us. It is still racism and bigotry. It is not OK even when used against the KKK or anyone.

Tesla has issued a press release stating they have open sourced their patents. But open source isn't (so far as I am aware) a legal term of art, especially with regards to patent law. Nor is a press release a legal release. (Though it may establish intent.)

Specifically, such a press release establishes promissory estoppel. If you make a promise that you would reasonably expect would induce others to take some action, you cannot later retract that promise, even if the promise wasn't committed in any sort of formal contract.

Oh, and in case you weren't joking at all, it's The Powers That Be.

I guess the question is this:

Does this surprise anyone, anyone at all? Is anyone gasping because they're shocked that such would be proposed? Anyone? Anyone?

No... Me either...

*sighs* I tell you what, it's seriously reaching the point where we the people need to remind the government who is in charge. No, I am not advocating violence. Yes, I am advocating forcing them to listen.

However, on the subject of violence... The government should fear the citizens, not the other way around. Fear, having a meaning akin to respect as well as what one might normally define it as.

See definition 4 here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Of course, if need be, the other definitions work.

Perhaps someone should tell Microsoft that "binged" is already a word, and it's neither pronounced nor defined they way they apparently hope it will be.

Ahh, the old cherry pick by someone who is not very good at it. I never complained about the legal definition of rape, I provided a fact.

The definition of Rape has changed over time.

The prevailing common law definition being most often sited is defined so that women are the only possible victim. Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will.

Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case..

Wow, you just proved my point.

Interesting and twisted way of looking at the Penn State case which I had not considered. Oh, Bill Clinton called and said "position does not matter when allegations are made". Yup, he is scum but the court of public opinion convicted him long before the sweater ever came out.

they can shoehorn the global warming agenda in under the guise of healthcare

And any disagreement is, of course, offensive , like a slap in the face, and thus equivalent to verbal assault.

Which is still an assault and therefor must be prosecuted — because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In a few easy steps all haters can be sent to Gulag, problem solved.

they can shoehorn the global warming agenda in under the guise of healthcare

And any disagreement is, of course, offensive , like a slap in the face, and thus equivalent to verbal assault.

Which is still an assault and therefor must be prosecuted — because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In a few easy steps all haters can be sent to Gulag, problem solved.

It is a portmanteux (2) of Slashdot Advertisement. It was first typed by a member of the Slashdot Numbered Rage Brigade in response to a story on Slashdot that he perceived as an advertisement. While the original thread is lost to antiquity, Slasheologists are unanimous in opinion that the offending story was probably about something new from Microsoft.

That would essentially make them their agents. I don't mean it like an actual FBI agent but someone representing their interest which technically makes them the same.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

The key is NOT evidence. Therefore, destroying it cannot be destruction of evidence. And there can also be no conspiracy for destroying non-evidence. The evidence, if anything, is in the phone, which they already have possession of.

As I wrote: "Willfully destroying something necessary to obtain evidence most likely counts" for obstruction and conspiracy. Its about "blocking" the pursuit of "justice" sometimes.

You wrote "most likely". In other words, you are just making a guess with no basis in law. Neither the key nor the source code are evidence.

No, I'm merely being informal. Want formality:

"Obstruction of Justice
A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.
Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient."
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Destruction of the key is concealment of documents.

In the U.S. it's called "due process of law".

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

Shove your golden due process of law up your ass. Lula has been hiding evidence, lying through his teeth with plenty of evidence that he can't hide against his ridiculous claims, moving compromising documents to secret places, and otherwise doing everything he can to obstruct the law. What the fuck does he have to hide? Only fools can still harbor any hope that he is innocent of anything. There are videos on YouTube of him bragging and mocking about how he has pulled off dirty tricks on national and international entities by lying shamelessly. The guy is a filthy criminal and heads an alleged "labor party" that has been using "social" demagogic rhetoric to rob an entire country blind. Brazil has never been is worse shape. He and his sons have amassed a level of personal wealth that none of their legitimate activities could even remotely possibly justify. Judge Moro is some kind of Elliot Ness who is doing the unthinkable in this country, which is going against the powerful and cleaning up some of the perennial mess.

In the U.S. it's called "due process of law".

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

Exactly.

And, what does this say about the "science" of Climate Change?

There is Real Science going on. But it is obfuscated by publicity seeking (Mann) alarmists (Gore) and legions of clingers eager to show their allegiance to the most recent Cause Celeb.

I suspect if you found a REAL scientists, not saddled with preconceived notions, fear of Scientific Shunning, and didn't hate people, they'd probably admit that the Science is kinda still not well understood.

FFS? Please clarify.

To be fair, phishing is a word - in English. It's jargon but it's still a word. There is also spear-phishing. That's definitely English, just not classic English but English is not a dead language.

For the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
"phishing." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. 2011. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
For Collins English Dictionary:
"phishing." Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014. HarperCollins Publishers 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
For Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words:
"phishing." Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group. 2008. Diagram Visual Information Limited 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

It appears to date back at least as far as 1991.

To be fair, phishing is a word - in English. It's jargon but it's still a word. There is also spear-phishing. That's definitely English, just not classic English but English is not a dead language.

For the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
"phishing." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. 2011. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
For Collins English Dictionary:
"phishing." Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014. HarperCollins Publishers 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
For Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words:
"phishing." Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group. 2008. Diagram Visual Information Limited 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

It appears to date back at least as far as 1991.

To be fair, phishing is a word - in English. It's jargon but it's still a word. There is also spear-phishing. That's definitely English, just not classic English but English is not a dead language.

For the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
"phishing." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. 2011. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
For Collins English Dictionary:
"phishing." Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014. HarperCollins Publishers 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
For Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words:
"phishing." Dictionary of Unfamiliar Words by Diagram Group. 2008. Diagram Visual Information Limited 24 Feb. 2016 http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

It appears to date back at least as far as 1991.

For the record... Productize is a word. It's not just a word, spell check knows it is a word. It even has a meaning. However, I am pretty sure you're not actually supposed to use that word.

However, no one (and I believe by laws) can simply place a damage value on to this kind of harm.

Nonsense. It's done all the time.

Sometimes, especially when a wrong is fairly egregious, but the actual damages are difficult or impossible to calculate, a Judge will award a "nominal damage" amount to the claimant. Usually, the sum is somewhere between $1 and $1,000.

plagiarize
1. To reproduce or otherwise use (the words, ideas, or other work of another) as one's own or without attribution.
2. To plagiarize the words, ideas, or work of (another person).
v.intr.
To present another's words or ideas as one's own or without attribution.

The NC always gives credit to the studio that made the movie, I don't think he's trying to say the movie is his own work. Also given some of his views on the movies themselves I don't think he'd WANT them to be his. Not to mention Channel Awesome is a business. The NC makes money off of his reviews, both in terms of views of the videos and the ADs he places in them. (Not to mention the CA store....) CA has been in business since 2008. If he was doing something any where near plagiarism, I think the MPAA would have dealt with him by now. Especially given his reviews tend not to show the movies in their best light.

the nostalgia critic pretty much puts the whole movie in his "review" videos while contributing not much more than making funny faces and pretending to be upset

Yes, that's the point. His reviews are a satire. Don't like it? Then go watch something else. That being said, he does pick apart the movies to find something to make a joke on or to support his (presented) views. Yes this is needed, as sometimes the joke or viewpoint would make no sense without context. (Something that copyright explicitly has an exemption for.)

I'm not defending youtube's current system, but that guy has no room to complain when he's downright uploading whole movies and contributing nothing to the equation.

1. He does not upload entire movies.
2. Learn the defintion of plagiarize.
3. That's your opinion. To many others he is an entertainer, and definitely contributes something to the public.

n. pl. species

1. Biology A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The species is the fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus. Species names are represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

Aussie word?

Would like to know the meaning & etomology, especially if it's perjorative, please.

Bloody hell. Can't you do even a little research yourself?

cobber from the free dictionary.

cobber from wiktionary.

Both have the etymology of the word.

Perhaps try not constantly posting Apple shilling and see how you get on.

Is it "Linux Shilling" when users continuously trumpet that "Open Source is teh Bestest. Always!"?

If so, then why oh why is it NEVER EVER EVER called that on Slashdot?

However, I don't think you know what the term "Shill" really means.So, here you go.

So, as you should be able to plainly see, an "enthusiast" (which I most certainly am) != a "Shill" (which I most certainly am NOT).

And "free speech" SHOULD apply to everyone here, even Apple enthusiasts, and without fear of Punish-modding. Remember, the Slashdot Axiom: " '-1 Disagree' is NOT a mod option for a reason.".

But obviously, you don't share that opinion, do you?

Here is a word you've obviously never heard of. Check it out.

That would be great, if spheroidal wasn't a word, and sphere and spheroid didn't mean two different things.

Sam

From http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

spherical (sfîr-kl, sfr-) also spheric (-k)
adj.
1.
a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular.
b. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere.
2. Of or relating to a sphere.
3. Of or relating to celestial bodies.

I can only assume one of three things are true:
1) You saying that the earth does not have a shape approximating that of a sphere?
2) You are saying that the earth is a two dimensional ellipse that when spun around one of its axis forms a spheroid. (of course that would make the earth flat, being only two dimensions).
3) You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

In case the reason is 3, then is the earth spheroidal in shape by nature or is it spherical and only deformed into such shape from the forces exerted by its revolution? Furthermore, isn't spherical just a subset of spheroidal? If so, in the case of planetary bodies in this solar system, is not the term synonymous?

And why did you get taught how to write on sheets of slate probably brought by the hundredweight form a building contractor? Because to buy paper and pencils, or even paper, pens and ink, was a continuing expenditure, while slates and slate pencils were a capital expenditure, but not a continuing cost.

Or maybe False Consensus?

When I specifically went looking

It's called Experimenter Bias.

Seriously, how much longer are you Microsoft holdouts going to put up with this imperialistic, authoritarian bullshit from Microsoft?

I think its called Stockholm syndrome. http://medical-dictionary.thef...

You have to admit - it fits.

Very interesting how different countries handle this. In the US, I believe the Statute of Limitations pauses ("tolls") when someone is "on the run" and outside of the arm of the law. Basically, if you cannot be arrested, the clock is stopped. You have to be where they can arrest you for the clock to be moving, at least in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations#Tolling_and_the_discovery_rule

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tolling+the+Statute

Don't you mean "bask" as Basque is generally a people.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

1. A member of a people of unknown origin inhabiting the western Pyrenees and the Bay of Biscay in France and Spain.
2. The language of the Basques, of no known linguistic affiliation.

See also:

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

1. To expose oneself to pleasant warmth.
2. To take great pleasure or satisfaction

I was going to quote OED but the formatting is terrible and I'm too lazy to fix it. It says the same thing but with longer words.

So, having said that, "woosh?" or are you being serious?

Don't you mean "bask" as Basque is generally a people.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

1. A member of a people of unknown origin inhabiting the western Pyrenees and the Bay of Biscay in France and Spain.
2. The language of the Basques, of no known linguistic affiliation.

See also:

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

1. To expose oneself to pleasant warmth.
2. To take great pleasure or satisfaction

I was going to quote OED but the formatting is terrible and I'm too lazy to fix it. It says the same thing but with longer words.

So, having said that, "woosh?" or are you being serious?

It seems like nowadays some federal agency steps in and declares that they're the governing authority on something, that their decisions are law, and everyone should obey.

Because it is. Congress delegates authority to executive agencies to handle the pesky details that congress doesn't want to deal with because they have important things to do like raise funds for their election campaigns. The courts have been fine with it so long as Congress spells out the limits and so long as the agency doesn't overstep their bounds. For this case, the NLRB has jurisdiction over private sector labor disputes and so can make a ruling like they did. Still subject to local laws, as pointed out in the summary.

As an investment, Bitcoin might still end up being a scam.

No need for the qualifier. Even if we accept that Bitcoin itself isn't a scam, Bitcoin routinely is used for scams and even when it is used honestly it's generally a terrible investment positively dripping with risk.

You do run a bit of currency risk but if you make many small transactions you'll lose some and win some, it's a quite okay facilitator of trade.

"A bit of currency risk"? Presumably you mean exchange rate risk and it is WAY more than "a bit" (no pun intended). Bitcoin is terribly volatile compared with traditional currencies so anyone who plans to hold it for any length of time is taking a LOT of exchange rate risk. If you hold it in an exchange you also are taking on agency risk, counterparty risk, and several other types of risk each of which is larger than for large traditional currencies like the dollar, yen or euro.

As an investment, Bitcoin might still end up being a scam.

No need for the qualifier. Even if we accept that Bitcoin itself isn't a scam, Bitcoin routinely is used for scams and even when it is used honestly it's generally a terrible investment positively dripping with risk.

You do run a bit of currency risk but if you make many small transactions you'll lose some and win some, it's a quite okay facilitator of trade.

"A bit of currency risk"? Presumably you mean exchange rate risk and it is WAY more than "a bit" (no pun intended). Bitcoin is terribly volatile compared with traditional currencies so anyone who plans to hold it for any length of time is taking a LOT of exchange rate risk. If you hold it in an exchange you also are taking on agency risk, counterparty risk, and several other types of risk each of which is larger than for large traditional currencies like the dollar, yen or euro.

I know, I know... But, I'll answer anyhow.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

I'd like to see how Bain Capital would build an interstate highway system.

Very good example, Señor Guevara, very good — once a government starts doing it, nobody else will touch it. You can't fight cityhall, as the saying goes. And this is exactly, what will happen to the Internet, once the government starts doing it — complete with police enforcing "traffic" laws.

But to answer your question, consider the rail-roads built across this nation by private concerns...

Call me when a private corporation can get a human into orbit without killing him.

It will happen, when there is something useful for him to do there.

You are an idiot.

You are an asshole, PopeRatzo. As are all statists.

Sorry, non-native english speaker here. I looked up the word "annealer", which seems to mean "To subject (glass or metal) to a process of heating and slow cooling in order to toughen and reduce brittleness". I do not understand the concept of the D-Wave machine by any means, but does this describe the way in which the device zeros in onto the right answer? Is that the meaning of the word in this context?

Yeah, at least that shreds light on the true meaning of holistic!

Now, let me try and explain these comments from a non-chauvinist point of view. Etymologically, the term whore is related to desire, wish, aspiration —our noblest qualities. Nowadays it is used to indicate females who vilify those qualities by turning them into a source of profit. By extension, human males use the term to refer to just any woman, thereby unwittingly recovering the original, etymological meaning. That attitude is considered bad, for obvious reasons. However, we must admit that it emphasizes how we routinely ruin our best resources in an attempt to make more money. Like most occurrences of indecent language, it reminds us of what we really are, our success in building a logic that obscures our true essence notwithstanding.

Wikimedia is not using its resources to get rich. It complies with the spirit (and the letter) of free software. So, why should we use AI to help us editing our knowledge? Possibly, our rational knowledge is artificial already, in a sense. We wouldn't need to take recourse to circumlocutions meant to exclude rationality from our emotive talking otherwise. Free sex was already attempted in the 60s. I hope free software is blessed by a better fate.

if you set in train an activity or an event, you make it begin

So the first AC reply to your comment is correct.

This again?

democracy
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."

No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.

Check the dictionary. "An arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus the procedures by which a person is arrested must comply with the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment or the arrest will be invalidated and any evidence seized during the arrest or confessions made after the arrest will typically be suppressed."

I believe I posted quite a bit of information on what, precisely, the Courts have decided constitutes "reasonable." It's got nothing to do with Cletus. People get searches thrown out all the time, assuming they're wealthy enough to have their own attorney.

The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable.

Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.

Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.

Reread the Fourth Amendment. It specifically says that reasonable searches are legal. It specifically authorizes a procedure to legalize unreasonable searches. By use of the legal phrase "search and seizure" it specifically exempts all government information-gathering that is related to the President's Commander-in-Chief power. None of this is Judicial tinkering, none of it is unconstitutional, and none of it was opposed by the Founders or they would have written a very different Fourth Amendment.

I really, truly, feel for the poor fools who have deluded themselves into thinking their Sixth Grade teacher was not lying through her teeth when she described the Founders solely as champions of freedom; and implied that the Constitution was intended to do anything but create a strong enough state-structure to keep the Brits out with exactly enough freedom to keep the hoi polloi appeased. Anti-freedom elements require to keep said hoi polloi appeased were included with nary a blink.

The Fourth is actually probably the worst of the lot. It's sold as a "Right to Privacy," when it's written solely as a restriction on data-gathering for legal proceedings.

And if Obama announced he was cutting an anti-terror program Clapper said was useful how long do you think it would be before there was a movement in Congress to thwart him by adding a line item to the budget? A couple of those schmucks would actually switch over from strong pro-Civil liberties to strong-anti Civil Liberties simply to spite Obama. Hell, the NSA's specific budget is classified. For all we know there's already that line item.

And I think you're severely under-estimating all of DC's culpability in this. Bush had pretty much a blank check to do whatever he wanted on September 12th, 2001 (note: this is actually how Checks and Balances are supposed to work. The President gets checked, and can do jack-squat, until there's a crises, then he assumes powers similar to those of an Ancient Roman Dictator). He approved this programs. Any attempt by him to disclaim the damn things is one of those age old "lying or stupid?" things. Obama has a little more deniability, because PRISM was actually passed as legislation by Congress before he became President. But not really, because he voted for it.

People like to delude themselves that some stupid bureaucrat deep in the bowels of some agency that nobody had heard of prior to these programs being enacted is the whole problem, and that One Simple Trick (either a Court Case, or the President's signature) will end it.

But the Courts aren't gonna step on Congress's toes, especially when all Constitutional cases against the programs can be brought into pretty serious question law simply by checking a couple legal dictionaries, both Presidents clearly prefer a world where this shit happens to one where it doesn't, and Congress itself has ay least one statute authorizing the whole shebang.

The least difficult fix is Congress.

So it looks like he was already a control freak back in 2011, and was attempting to reserve the right to impose retrospectively whatever licence he felt like issuing in the future. I suspect this wouldn't stand up to serious legal scrutiny, but it was already a big red flag before he went off the rails completely.

Correct. You can only change the license for future versions of software. You cannot retroactively change the license for previously released versions.

My understanding of the legal principle at work is called estoppel. (IANAL)

Basically, you cannot prohibit someone from doing something that you already permitted them to do. If you allowed them to use your software before (the previous or current versions) you cannot later go back and say "I changed the license on you." Sure, you can change the license for future versions of the software. From my reading of his website, he is the sole author of the program, so he holds the copyright. He can choose to release the next version under a different license. But you are not allowed to retroactively change the license for previous versions.

Do you mean "incidentaloma," perhaps? I was unable to find your word at The Free Dictionary or at the OED site. What does this have to do with finding a tumor without having exhibited signs or, basically, by accident? I'm assuming they'd not just be doing this sort of testing at random or anything but will be limiting its use to just those who appear to be suffering from viral infections. (Is it considered an infection if it is viral and not bacterial?)

After the 'review' button, well, this reply looks as if I'm attempting to be snarky. I'm not, really. I simply don't get it. Also, using a reasonable approximation of good grammar while having the option to show the domain name enabled is rather confusing. Oh well, hopefully you can parse it. I don't think it's that confusing. This subject is, however, confusing to me, at least. Woohoo! I'll just shotgun those commas. No, no I haven't slept.

Who said jack-squat about war-time? That word does not appear in the Constitution at all.

The constitution does have things to say about war time, or if you prefer times of peace which is kinda the opposite. Certain provisions are relaxed not during times of peace because the authors of the constitution aren't idiots and knew what an existential crisis is.

The only times of peace clause is the one banning states from having a combat Navy. Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of rebellion, the Quartering Amendment (which has featured in one actual case I know of) is suspended in war-time.

BTW, your problem here is you don't understand the architecture. Under a system of Checks and Balances both policy-making branches are supposed to be nigh-tyrinical, their evil checked only by their stubborn refusal to agree on who should be horribly oppressed. These leaves governmental power gobbled almost all of the time. Except during wartime Congress is likely to roll over to the President's demands. Explicit mention of the concept would be against the design principles, because it would allow a potentially-tyrinical President to increase his own power by imagining a never-ending war.

Thus the PATRIOT Act is the system working as designed. The numerous Americans convinced it's a tyrannical attack on their freedom is also working as designed as the people are supposed to be an invisible, powerful, and wonderfully obstreperous branch of government.

Thus whatever it does in furtherance of those orders is a use of the President's Commander-in-Chief power, and not subject to the Fourth Amendment.

Oh yes. I forgot about the bit where the 4th gives exceptions to members of the government who are under the presidents order.

The Fourth does not apply to valid uses of the President's Commander-in-Chief power. His law enforcement power's are constrained by the Fourth. The way the Courts parse this is, if the Army finds out about something illegal in the course of using it's powers, law enforcement can't use the data until they get a warrant and re-aquire it. They can use Spec. Jackson's testimony that he saw that crack to get the warrant, but they can't say the suspect had crack in Court unless their capital-S-law-enforcement-Search turns up the data after Spec. Jackson snitches.

OTOH, if Spec. Jackson caught the suspect doing something clandestine that the Army has proper Commander-in-Chief authorization to stop (hard to imagine in the Continental US, but let's say that Putin's sending saboteurs in via submarine or something) then he can use the data to call in an air strike and kill everyone.

If you're wondering why our legal system is so much more expensive then yours, you now have an example of the complexities of administering a country with a 226-year-old document that only gets updated once a decade or so. You guys have some much older documents, but with Unity of Powers anything that looks obsolete tends to get refreshed by some maddeningly ambitious Minister every time there's a cabinet shake-up.

Funnily enough I'm having trouble in finding it in the one paragraph of text. The bit about "shall not" seems quite clear to me, but would you care to point me to the bit of the 4th (or later amendment) which makes an exception for the army?

"Shall not" applies to "unreasonable searches and seizures." A quick perusal of US legal dictionaries proves that phrase is a law enforcement term.

I'm not even arguing that counter intelligence is unreasonable. Searching and indexing the entire country's papers is unreasonable.

Ever heard the phrase

If they don't offer static addressing, then it's a waste of time.

Sorry, but that's how things are going to be from now on — a government monopoly, the worst combination imaginable. Tech support by municipal workers... Any violation of rules — and you'll get a citation from police (maybe, not today, but soon — just wait). And no alternative, because who is going to compete with the City Hall? It is hard enough to get the permits even when your service does not compete with anything the government already runs...

Ah, and look at all of these fan-boys explaining, why you "don't need" static IP...

They decided to do so because the private ISPs in the area weren't willing to invest more in the local infrastructure

So, private companies, in their greedy quest for the almighty buck, did not see this as a profit-opportunity. Which means, the local residents didn't want the service — not in the sufficient numbers to justify the cost. So, the government decided to use its power to confiscate money at gun-point (also known as "tax collection") to finance a project, that people didn't want to participate in voluntarily. Tyranny has won...

I don't have time to debate the meanings of words. I have to go home and kick the dog. Pay close attention to the definition of share when used as a verb.