Write out the truth table for each output as a Karnaugh map incorporating every input. Count the number of gates needed to solve the map, and that's your answer for that output bit. Repeat for every other output bit. Add all those numbers together, and that's a fair estimate of how many gates you'll need.
Of course, this method requires that your number of input bits must be fairly small. Don't forget that memory counts as both input (when read) and output (when written). For nontrivial applications, you'll find that the number of gates quickly approaches "a lot".
I actually wasn't intending trolling, but just a counterpoint. The Second Amendment does not effect the First Amendment's protection nor even invoke its spirit.
Sorry, recruit, but as of the Arms Reallocation Act of 2015, we no longer issue standard weapons to our infantry. You'll have to file form FU-2A to request a specially-assigned rifle for training purposes and general use.
Just a point of fact, it's legal to yell "fire" falsely in a theater. I've done it personally.
The current standard test is whether any speech will incite "imminent lawless action". Inciting a panic will likely result in injuries, property damage, and reckless behavior as people rush to exit, so it's reasonable to censor such things.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
The Constitution only limits the federal government's ability to regulate firearms. The states can individually decide what to do, including setting age limits.
In the example I gave, though, I'll agree that I should use more careful wording or hire a speechwriter to express my opinions without offending people (too much), but the opinion itself should never need to be repressed.
That was really my whole point. I've worked in finance, and know enough to see the numbers as indications rather than facts. That's also why I didn't worry too much about using the figure that includes operational assets like buildings, and vehicles.
Basically, I don't think it's ever really been argued that AT&T has the bandwidth to support unlimited data, but for hegemonic reason just doesn't allow access to it. Rather, the most common argument I've seen is that AT&T is intentionally avoiding network upgrades so they can maintain inflated prices. I think the numbers support that.
Yet AT&T profited by $7.3 billion last year, which is enough to replace 2.3% of their assets (including buildings and wires). They've had sustained profits for many years, but yet there's still not enough bandwidth.
I spent some time volunteering in Africa, and I've seen the problems of hunger firsthand.
There is enough food overall... not much excess, but often enough for everyone to survive. The problem is that, for example, the food is over on the fertile side of a mountain ridge, while the starving people are on the other side. The only pass is controlled by a local oppressor who charges high tolls to use "his" road, and he's able to bribe the government agents and local police into letting him stay.
One option is to just keep paying the tolls, and those starving people keep starving... but it's easy, and offends nobody.
Someone with wealth could pay the toll or use a different route, and bring ample food to support the locals, but then they're dependent on those gifts, and the oppressor could start using force to maintain his rule. The money used for support is also a drain on the provider's economy, so the future stability of such a supply is questionable.
The reliance on the pass could be removed, but that means improving local production. It's a long process, at best, and requires a large start-up cost.
Finally, we could just use force. Send in a squad of trained soldiers to forcibly allow traffic through the pass, even if that means killing the armed guards enforcing the tolls. Through overwhelming force, ensure that no replacements will be able to oppress traffic again.
Of course, force is never easy. There's always the risk that the oppressor will fight back, or that a new oppressor will patiently wait until the squad leaves to take over again. There will be some locals who oppose the intrusion, especially since they have been told (often by the oppressor himself) that the greatest embarrassment they could have is to accept help from outsiders. There will also be those who don't understand the connection between the tolls, the food supply, and standard of living - they just think they're poor because God is punishing them (and the church's leaders don't understand well enough to change that, either).
Going from that 0% to a sustained 0.1% is the hardest step, because it means removing the long-term limits that have already exhausted the local ability to provide for themselves. Once those barriers are gone and food is available at reasonable prices, going to 0.2% or higher is just a matter of doing the same thing more... move more trucks of tubers, make more salable products, and so forth. It's an upward spiral, but starting the process isn't easy.
...so you don't bother reading, don't try to understand, and move off-topic to ignore the arguments that are actually relevant. I'll try explaining once more, real slow.
Morality, which is nothing more than a public opinion of judgement, is the basis of law, because that's what starts the legislative process. Once the legislative process is complete, that public opinion is no longer relevant to answering the question "did this person break this law?", since the relevant law is fixed by necessity. Since that question of fact is still open in Snowden's case, any comment implying that morality should be a part of judging Snowden's case is absurd.
Cold fjord understands this, and generally keeps his comments within the realm of law, usually discussing Snowden's current case and the relevant facts and questions. That is the extent of our discussion that relates to the original topic. You've extended the discussion far beyond its scope.
In a purely theoretical discussion of what the law should be for the sake of the future, morality is indeed relevant, but those are rare here, and those are not the discussions referred to in the original topic. Regardless of what should be law, there are two paths for changing laws: lawsuits and legislation. The lawsuits are underway, and getting legislation passed is a lengthy process.
Getting legislation through Congress means convincing a few hundred politicians that it's the right thing to do (because morality is a factor here). Per the limitations of law and reality, those politicians are typically older than the typically-young activists, and hold older views. They must be convinced. Politically, it's less risky to do nothing that to support a controversial bill, so causes must have significant support before they will see representation in Congress. At a federal level, consider the fights for marriage equality and marijuana legalization. Both have high levels of support (often polled in the majority) outside of Congress, but there has been no federal bill passed in their support. Historically, consider the civil rights movement, which culminated in a decade of intense activism before Congress passed desegregation laws, and another decade before such laws became standard.
Note that during that time, there were several election cycles. I have never said or implied that activism is somehow limited to a single cycle, but rather that an election is the time where it is most feasible to choose a representative who is more amenable to one's views.
If you can't understand that and insist on waiting for yet another reiteration, I'm terribly sorry, but your trolling has exhausted my patience and spare time. Take a civics course and try reading again.
An excellent way to proclaim that you don't understand what's going on.
law should always be on the mend, in the direction of morality
Nope. Changing the law in effect during a trial means that the law is unpredictable, undermining the entire legal system itself. That's why the Constitution forbids changing laws ex post facto - the British monarchs and nobles would change the laws to get whatever justice they wanted, fitting their own morality. Of course, given how easily humans can justify their behavior, that's less of a "morality" and more merely "opinion".
While the morality (and the underlying opinions) can change continuously, the law itself, within the context of a single case, must stay fixed for the law to have any effect. If every case is subject to the whims of the public, every accused can simply claim that they have a noble cause, and the case becomes a trial by media in the court of public opinion.
And even if there is, public opinion around it would take time to mature
By design, in the United States the opposite is true. The law moves more slowly than public opinion. Elections (the primary means for changing opinions in government) only happen every few years per office. There's time for opinion (and outrage) to flare up, mature, and settle down before anyone is driven to make radical changes.
So any purpose for public discourse is necessarily for the future, even if the discourse is apparently of history, even ancient history
From what I see, that future is pretty badly doomed due to a widespread lack of civics and political science education. As noted, we've had mutable laws before, and we've had Anonymous's vigilante justice before. Both ended badly, yet every time a new article is posted here about Snowden's latest juicy detail, the Slashdot hivemind is quick to demand throwing due process out the window in favor of rewarding Snowden and threatening Keith Alexander. Those comments are not about the uncertain future, but the present and current cases. These are commenters wanting to throw out the rule of law in favor of a tyranny of the majority.
Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
Try reading that part again, and the illustrations around it.
America has rule of law. There is no king to simply declare the standards of behavior. There is only the objective law. There is no "right" or "wrong", only "legal" and "illegal". We can't just have a law that says "Snowden is innocent of all crimes, because he did good stuff", because that can't be fairly applied to anyone in the future. We have to define appropriate criteria for the judges to apply.
Morality is relevant when creating and revising the law, because morality is the basis thereof. During the application of the law, though, the nebulous concept of "morality" is just a bias that interferes with the objective law. That's why I linked to the dissection of the Zimmerman case, because that was a very blatant example of the public's subjective biases interfering with the objective rule of law.
But you do show the talent to conveniently forget when it suits you that laws are modified outside of judiciary
I'm not "forgetting" that at all. New legislation won't affect any current legal matters such as Snowden's case or any lawsuits pending against the United States. It is only a likely avenue for stopping future spying, as noted.
Since the original topic of discussion was cold fjord's perspective on current matters, I didn't (and still don't) see the point in discussing what Congress could do to change future matters.
Because morality is no longer within the universe of discourse.
Morality was the issue when the original legislation was passed, and it will be the issue again when a lawsuit gets suitably far along to consider overturning such legislation. Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
As a less-emotionally-charged car analogy, consider how absurd it would be to debate whether we measure a distance in kilometers or miles, when the point of the discussion is comparing fuel efficiency of two vehicle models. We have already determined the standard for comparison (distance over fuel), and now it's time to determine the facts (which vehicle performs better). Afterward, we can review the results and decide whether we feel the metric was appropriate (accounting for the environmental toll of manufacturing a hybrid car, for instance) to get the result that seems "just".
From a scientific perspective, it seems backwards... we apply the metric, then think about whether it was right or not? Well, yes, because we're not running a science experiment. Democracy isn't science. It's engineering. This is one round of an iterative refining process. Slowly but surely, we form a set of laws that fit the common sense of morality, but to do so requires an evaluation phase that is free from the influence of mob mentality and social bias.
In an ideal world, Snowden would turn himself in, get a fair trial, and be found guilty. From the information I've seen, it's pretty clear he broke a good number of espionage laws, and depending on intent there's a case for treason, as well. Again speaking of ideals, his lawyer should appeal, and contest that the crimes were justified. Then ideally the court would consider morality and find that the existing espionage and treason laws are unfairly biased in favor of the state's authority, rather than promoting general welfare, and require changes to such laws so that whistleblower protection applies properly in such circumstances.
Of course, that ideal situation doesn't fix the NSA. For that, the best bets are the lawsuits currently in progress by the ACLU et al. arguing that the NSA's actions are inherently illegal, for any reason. Even if those lawsuits are unsuccessful, a good outrage over perceived rights provides a good opportunity for political endeavors. As we approach the next Congressional election cycle, I'll be surprised if we don't see half a dozen bills introduced to specifically limit surveillance. Of course, by the time such bills become law, the angry mob will move have moved on to its next cause célèbre, but that doesn't matter. We'll just start the next iteration of the refinement process.
Yes, you seem to agree with the hivemind's worldview. Congratulations, I guess.
Now, try considering things from a different perspective: In the 1950s through 1970s, the US government's biggest concern was the infiltration of Communists and their left-wing ideology into the government. Surely you remember McCarthy's witch-hunts? The FBI was concerned about the Communists' ability to manipulate the American people through influential figures, so naturally they investigated most influential radicals and countered their influence.
Of course, in hindsight we call those "radicals" better terms like "visionaries", "martyrs", and "activists", but at the time they were cause for concern. History written by the victors and so forth...
Are citizens to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Yes? Right, then the [government is] considered WRONG by default. In short: That the government is considered guilty unless proven innocent is a CORE principal to the establishment of law
That's a false dichotomy. In many cases (such as most criminal cases found "not guilty"), there is nobody at fault. Not the individual, and not the government. Bad things may have happened, but nobody actually intended them. That's mens rea - the criminal intent. If nobody is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intended criminal harm, nobody is guilty. That is the default state.
To accuse and convict the government of something, you'll need proof. That's what the ACLU et al. are doing now, with limited success.
My current non-technical manager is my first stop when I need corporate permission to do something, or if I need a resource that isn't directly given to me. He manages most of the non-technical aspects of being employed here, so I can do my job without wasting my own time on the paperwork.
Since I'm currently working in a very large company, it's very valuable to have someone who knows and understands the full layout of the corporate hierarchy, and has the rapport with all the "friends in high places" to call immediately and get things done.
Cold fjord starts from a basic assumption: The government is not inherently evil. This is the basic tenet that garners so much hatred from the hivemind. Many Slashdotters have decided, with or without reason, that the government is bad unless it is handing out welfare*, especially if the government tries to gather information of any kind.
From that perspective, the next progression is whether the government's courts are supposed to decide what is right or wrong. Many Slashdotters say "yes", but the US justice system isn't actually designed that way. The courts decide whether the law was infringed, and it's the legislature's job to pass laws that meet current standards for morality. Only once the facts of a case have been decided at trial, and the case is still at odds with the law, then it is appropriate to permitted for the appellate court to overturn a law.
This is why, on stories about judges saying this-or-that, cold fjord keeps discussing legality rather than morality. So far, no there is no court ruling that actually determines the surveillance program's legality. There are conflicting opinions, but neither has enough jurisdiction to affect much. At this point, morality is irrelevant. Right now courts are just trying to figure out whether the NSA willfully broke the law, which hinges on the modern interpretation of a 200-year-old intentionally-vague document.
* I mean that in the "promote the general welfare" sense, not necessarily the "welfare program" connotation.
Then again, he could simply be a Tom Clancy/Civil War Buff kind of guy who has made a serious hobby out of all this and keeps scrapbooks on the subject.
It's not even that hard. Most of cord fjord's references show up on the first page of Google searches for relevant terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're robots with no AI functionality?
Write out the truth table for each output as a Karnaugh map incorporating every input. Count the number of gates needed to solve the map, and that's your answer for that output bit. Repeat for every other output bit. Add all those numbers together, and that's a fair estimate of how many gates you'll need.
Of course, this method requires that your number of input bits must be fairly small. Don't forget that memory counts as both input (when read) and output (when written). For nontrivial applications, you'll find that the number of gates quickly approaches "a lot".
I actually wasn't intending trolling, but just a counterpoint. The Second Amendment does not effect the First Amendment's protection nor even invoke its spirit.
Sorry, recruit, but as of the Arms Reallocation Act of 2015, we no longer issue standard weapons to our infantry. You'll have to file form FU-2A to request a specially-assigned rifle for training purposes and general use.
Good point... so perhaps the Second Amendment is actually completely irrelevant to the First, contrary to what OP claims?
I wouldn't feel anything. I'd be dead.
Just a point of fact, it's legal to yell "fire" falsely in a theater. I've done it personally.
The current standard test is whether any speech will incite "imminent lawless action". Inciting a panic will likely result in injuries, property damage, and reckless behavior as people rush to exit, so it's reasonable to censor such things.
Per Wikipedia:
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
The Constitution only limits the federal government's ability to regulate firearms. The states can individually decide what to do, including setting age limits.
Is that any different from technologists opining on economic or sociopolitical issues they don't understand?
Speech isn't free if it's censored out of fear.
In the example I gave, though, I'll agree that I should use more careful wording or hire a speechwriter to express my opinions without offending people (too much), but the opinion itself should never need to be repressed.
Yes, indeed. I find it so much easier to speak freely knowing that everybody in the room could kill me in a moment if I piss them off enough.
</sarcasm>
they could do a lot more than they have been.
That was really my whole point. I've worked in finance, and know enough to see the numbers as indications rather than facts. That's also why I didn't worry too much about using the figure that includes operational assets like buildings, and vehicles.
Basically, I don't think it's ever really been argued that AT&T has the bandwidth to support unlimited data, but for hegemonic reason just doesn't allow access to it. Rather, the most common argument I've seen is that AT&T is intentionally avoiding network upgrades so they can maintain inflated prices. I think the numbers support that.
Yet AT&T profited by $7.3 billion last year, which is enough to replace 2.3% of their assets (including buildings and wires). They've had sustained profits for many years, but yet there's still not enough bandwidth.
I spent some time volunteering in Africa, and I've seen the problems of hunger firsthand.
There is enough food overall... not much excess, but often enough for everyone to survive. The problem is that, for example, the food is over on the fertile side of a mountain ridge, while the starving people are on the other side. The only pass is controlled by a local oppressor who charges high tolls to use "his" road, and he's able to bribe the government agents and local police into letting him stay.
One option is to just keep paying the tolls, and those starving people keep starving... but it's easy, and offends nobody.
Someone with wealth could pay the toll or use a different route, and bring ample food to support the locals, but then they're dependent on those gifts, and the oppressor could start using force to maintain his rule. The money used for support is also a drain on the provider's economy, so the future stability of such a supply is questionable.
The reliance on the pass could be removed, but that means improving local production. It's a long process, at best, and requires a large start-up cost.
Finally, we could just use force. Send in a squad of trained soldiers to forcibly allow traffic through the pass, even if that means killing the armed guards enforcing the tolls. Through overwhelming force, ensure that no replacements will be able to oppress traffic again.
Of course, force is never easy. There's always the risk that the oppressor will fight back, or that a new oppressor will patiently wait until the squad leaves to take over again. There will be some locals who oppose the intrusion, especially since they have been told (often by the oppressor himself) that the greatest embarrassment they could have is to accept help from outsiders. There will also be those who don't understand the connection between the tolls, the food supply, and standard of living - they just think they're poor because God is punishing them (and the church's leaders don't understand well enough to change that, either).
Going from that 0% to a sustained 0.1% is the hardest step, because it means removing the long-term limits that have already exhausted the local ability to provide for themselves. Once those barriers are gone and food is available at reasonable prices, going to 0.2% or higher is just a matter of doing the same thing more... move more trucks of tubers, make more salable products, and so forth. It's an upward spiral, but starting the process isn't easy.
...so you don't bother reading, don't try to understand, and move off-topic to ignore the arguments that are actually relevant. I'll try explaining once more, real slow.
Morality, which is nothing more than a public opinion of judgement, is the basis of law, because that's what starts the legislative process. Once the legislative process is complete, that public opinion is no longer relevant to answering the question "did this person break this law?", since the relevant law is fixed by necessity. Since that question of fact is still open in Snowden's case, any comment implying that morality should be a part of judging Snowden's case is absurd.
Cold fjord understands this, and generally keeps his comments within the realm of law, usually discussing Snowden's current case and the relevant facts and questions. That is the extent of our discussion that relates to the original topic. You've extended the discussion far beyond its scope.
In a purely theoretical discussion of what the law should be for the sake of the future, morality is indeed relevant, but those are rare here, and those are not the discussions referred to in the original topic. Regardless of what should be law, there are two paths for changing laws: lawsuits and legislation. The lawsuits are underway, and getting legislation passed is a lengthy process.
Getting legislation through Congress means convincing a few hundred politicians that it's the right thing to do (because morality is a factor here). Per the limitations of law and reality, those politicians are typically older than the typically-young activists, and hold older views. They must be convinced. Politically, it's less risky to do nothing that to support a controversial bill, so causes must have significant support before they will see representation in Congress. At a federal level, consider the fights for marriage equality and marijuana legalization. Both have high levels of support (often polled in the majority) outside of Congress, but there has been no federal bill passed in their support. Historically, consider the civil rights movement, which culminated in a decade of intense activism before Congress passed desegregation laws, and another decade before such laws became standard.
Note that during that time, there were several election cycles. I have never said or implied that activism is somehow limited to a single cycle, but rather that an election is the time where it is most feasible to choose a representative who is more amenable to one's views.
If you can't understand that and insist on waiting for yet another reiteration, I'm terribly sorry, but your trolling has exhausted my patience and spare time. Take a civics course and try reading again.
Possibly on my bookshelf, or maybe in his office.
I already did, but it is stupid.
An excellent way to proclaim that you don't understand what's going on.
law should always be on the mend, in the direction of morality
Nope. Changing the law in effect during a trial means that the law is unpredictable, undermining the entire legal system itself. That's why the Constitution forbids changing laws ex post facto - the British monarchs and nobles would change the laws to get whatever justice they wanted, fitting their own morality. Of course, given how easily humans can justify their behavior, that's less of a "morality" and more merely "opinion".
While the morality (and the underlying opinions) can change continuously, the law itself, within the context of a single case, must stay fixed for the law to have any effect. If every case is subject to the whims of the public, every accused can simply claim that they have a noble cause, and the case becomes a trial by media in the court of public opinion.
And even if there is, public opinion around it would take time to mature
By design, in the United States the opposite is true. The law moves more slowly than public opinion. Elections (the primary means for changing opinions in government) only happen every few years per office. There's time for opinion (and outrage) to flare up, mature, and settle down before anyone is driven to make radical changes.
So any purpose for public discourse is necessarily for the future, even if the discourse is apparently of history, even ancient history
From what I see, that future is pretty badly doomed due to a widespread lack of civics and political science education. As noted, we've had mutable laws before, and we've had Anonymous's vigilante justice before. Both ended badly, yet every time a new article is posted here about Snowden's latest juicy detail, the Slashdot hivemind is quick to demand throwing due process out the window in favor of rewarding Snowden and threatening Keith Alexander. Those comments are not about the uncertain future, but the present and current cases. These are commenters wanting to throw out the rule of law in favor of a tyranny of the majority.
You've not addressed why it is so
Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
Try reading that part again, and the illustrations around it.
America has rule of law. There is no king to simply declare the standards of behavior. There is only the objective law. There is no "right" or "wrong", only "legal" and "illegal". We can't just have a law that says "Snowden is innocent of all crimes, because he did good stuff", because that can't be fairly applied to anyone in the future. We have to define appropriate criteria for the judges to apply.
Morality is relevant when creating and revising the law, because morality is the basis thereof. During the application of the law, though, the nebulous concept of "morality" is just a bias that interferes with the objective law. That's why I linked to the dissection of the Zimmerman case, because that was a very blatant example of the public's subjective biases interfering with the objective rule of law.
But you do show the talent to conveniently forget when it suits you that laws are modified outside of judiciary
I'm not "forgetting" that at all. New legislation won't affect any current legal matters such as Snowden's case or any lawsuits pending against the United States. It is only a likely avenue for stopping future spying, as noted.
Since the original topic of discussion was cold fjord's perspective on current matters, I didn't (and still don't) see the point in discussing what Congress could do to change future matters.
Because morality is no longer within the universe of discourse.
Morality was the issue when the original legislation was passed, and it will be the issue again when a lawsuit gets suitably far along to consider overturning such legislation. Until that reevaluation, the law is the standard of behavior that our society is held to, including both the NSA and Snowden.
As a less-emotionally-charged car analogy, consider how absurd it would be to debate whether we measure a distance in kilometers or miles, when the point of the discussion is comparing fuel efficiency of two vehicle models. We have already determined the standard for comparison (distance over fuel), and now it's time to determine the facts (which vehicle performs better). Afterward, we can review the results and decide whether we feel the metric was appropriate (accounting for the environmental toll of manufacturing a hybrid car, for instance) to get the result that seems "just".
From a scientific perspective, it seems backwards... we apply the metric, then think about whether it was right or not? Well, yes, because we're not running a science experiment. Democracy isn't science. It's engineering. This is one round of an iterative refining process. Slowly but surely, we form a set of laws that fit the common sense of morality, but to do so requires an evaluation phase that is free from the influence of mob mentality and social bias.
In an ideal world, Snowden would turn himself in, get a fair trial, and be found guilty. From the information I've seen, it's pretty clear he broke a good number of espionage laws, and depending on intent there's a case for treason, as well. Again speaking of ideals, his lawyer should appeal, and contest that the crimes were justified. Then ideally the court would consider morality and find that the existing espionage and treason laws are unfairly biased in favor of the state's authority, rather than promoting general welfare, and require changes to such laws so that whistleblower protection applies properly in such circumstances.
Of course, that ideal situation doesn't fix the NSA. For that, the best bets are the lawsuits currently in progress by the ACLU et al. arguing that the NSA's actions are inherently illegal, for any reason. Even if those lawsuits are unsuccessful, a good outrage over perceived rights provides a good opportunity for political endeavors. As we approach the next Congressional election cycle, I'll be surprised if we don't see half a dozen bills introduced to specifically limit surveillance. Of course, by the time such bills become law, the angry mob will move have moved on to its next cause célèbre, but that doesn't matter. We'll just start the next iteration of the refinement process.
Let's wait for the proceeding or the full paper even though it's true we should be skeptical at this point.
This is Slashdot. That never happens.
Yes, you seem to agree with the hivemind's worldview. Congratulations, I guess.
Now, try considering things from a different perspective: In the 1950s through 1970s, the US government's biggest concern was the infiltration of Communists and their left-wing ideology into the government. Surely you remember McCarthy's witch-hunts? The FBI was concerned about the Communists' ability to manipulate the American people through influential figures, so naturally they investigated most influential radicals and countered their influence.
Of course, in hindsight we call those "radicals" better terms like "visionaries", "martyrs", and "activists", but at the time they were cause for concern. History written by the victors and so forth...
Are citizens to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Yes? Right, then the [government is] considered WRONG by default. In short: That the government is considered guilty unless proven innocent is a CORE principal to the establishment of law
That's a false dichotomy. In many cases (such as most criminal cases found "not guilty"), there is nobody at fault. Not the individual, and not the government. Bad things may have happened, but nobody actually intended them. That's mens rea - the criminal intent. If nobody is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intended criminal harm, nobody is guilty. That is the default state.
To accuse and convict the government of something, you'll need proof. That's what the ACLU et al. are doing now, with limited success.
My current non-technical manager is my first stop when I need corporate permission to do something, or if I need a resource that isn't directly given to me. He manages most of the non-technical aspects of being employed here, so I can do my job without wasting my own time on the paperwork.
Since I'm currently working in a very large company, it's very valuable to have someone who knows and understands the full layout of the corporate hierarchy, and has the rapport with all the "friends in high places" to call immediately and get things done.
Cold fjord starts from a basic assumption: The government is not inherently evil. This is the basic tenet that garners so much hatred from the hivemind. Many Slashdotters have decided, with or without reason, that the government is bad unless it is handing out welfare*, especially if the government tries to gather information of any kind.
From that perspective, the next progression is whether the government's courts are supposed to decide what is right or wrong. Many Slashdotters say "yes", but the US justice system isn't actually designed that way. The courts decide whether the law was infringed, and it's the legislature's job to pass laws that meet current standards for morality. Only once the facts of a case have been decided at trial, and the case is still at odds with the law, then it is appropriate to permitted for the appellate court to overturn a law.
This is why, on stories about judges saying this-or-that, cold fjord keeps discussing legality rather than morality. So far, no there is no court ruling that actually determines the surveillance program's legality. There are conflicting opinions, but neither has enough jurisdiction to affect much. At this point, morality is irrelevant. Right now courts are just trying to figure out whether the NSA willfully broke the law, which hinges on the modern interpretation of a 200-year-old intentionally-vague document.
* I mean that in the "promote the general welfare" sense, not necessarily the "welfare program" connotation.
Then again, he could simply be a Tom Clancy/Civil War Buff kind of guy who has made a serious hobby out of all this and keeps scrapbooks on the subject.
It's not even that hard. Most of cord fjord's references show up on the first page of Google searches for relevant terms.
Between the crappy editing and the misbehaving mods, Slashdot's quality has taken a nosedive in the last few years.