There is a legal limit on detaining suspects without charging them, there should be a legal limit on taking their stuff without charging them. Without a time limit, it's just theft.
The cable companies paid good money to their government lobbyists to cure the problem of streaming video killing their business model. As with all laws, this one is aimed to fix a problem.
People who can afford expensive lawyers (corporations) are not subject to any law they disagree with. And our current legal system holds the next person in line accountable when the person who committed the crime can't be punished.
Soldiers get put in prisoner of war camps till the end of fighting, if they do illegal stuff they get a military trial. Civilians get arrested by police and tried by a civilian court. Now Obama just has to choose what side of that line to put the Gitmo detainees on. Or he could just make up some crazy new status called unlawful combatant and make up new rules for them. But that would be illegal.
Revolt against the government is an act of desperation. The people of the USA are not desperate, they still have too much to lose by fighting. So long as the US government ensures most of the people have something to lose they won't revolt, regardless of what happens.
You are mistaking communism with fascism. Communists want all the power run directly from the top, not all power run from the corporations. If all the big multinational corps were owned and operated by the members of congress then the USA would be communist. When the corps need to lobby/buy the gov to get anything done it's fascist.
You didn't even mention secret laws. How can you be held responsible for a law you can't legally know about? The constitution of the USA should definitely ban secret laws.
the only way to make unconstitutional search and seizure legal is to change the constitution. passing a law in congress doesn't work. I don't recall any constitution changes happening in the last 20 years.
walk down the hallways with a short range directional microcell, and watch for the phone. Basic RDF tech, circa 1935 using a computer (so you can get a patent).
You can plan around them getting another phone from you, because they are on a three year contract. And they will probably buy the same phone (they know it) or upgrade. So it really is free money. It would be easy to stop, every phone has a serial number. Just have a list of stolen phones and don't let them be used.
You can't punish the premium number guys, they might not have anything to do with this. (They could have 4 or 5 legit numbers in the list) A better way would be to have a pop up screen/window asking permission for anything that costs money. (and have something similar for roaming costs)
computer voting IS inherently less secure than paper voting. Paper can have watermarks, fingerprints, ink chemical analysis- it is usually possible to tell a fake ballot from a real one. An electronic ballot, you just can't tell. 2- it takes a lot of people to stuff thousands of ballot boxes with paper, and the more people who know what you're doing the more chance someone will talk. It only takes 1 programmer or cracker and your e-voting system is compromised. 3- paper ballots don't change who you voted for when you put them in the ballot box. If you load your exploit code into ram on the voting computer then a single power cycle and it's gone. 4- you can see how paper voting works, and all the voters can understand the process. With e-voting the majority of the voters have no choice but to trust you. The reason democracy is more stable than other governments is because the people trust the system not to cheat them. They can get bad things changed without a revolution. If you take away that trust then the people will revolt, and e-voting isn't provably trustworthy.
If this had happened in the usa i would assume some juniior intern from india had set up the system. However as it is from India i would think they use their best and brightest for everything (as opposed to exporting them).
It's important that you NOT have proof of who you voted for when you leave the voting station. Having proof means you can sell your vote, or get blackmailed to vote for their candidate. The reason behind voting in private instead of public show of hands is to keep the voting unbiased.
The biggest reason to ban robotic soldiers is because people (humans) get sick of war. They (eventually) make it stop. Robots think what they are programmed to think, and wage war for as long as they are ordered to fight. In a country with a robotic army the only thing preventing war is the morals of the government. History has shown that trusting to your governments morals is a bad bet.
The best outcome would be a government run national cellphone service, run as a not for profit. Add unlocked phones and free tethering and you've got a winner. I know Americans are allergic to government run anything, but it works well for roads.
It's cheaper to build solar arrays on the ground than space. Even with batteries for at night and a larger array to charge them it's still much cheaper.
You are assuming this really was the Syrian army. I'm sure the NSA would have no difficulty running this as a false flag operation, they could intercept the passwords or use their access to twitter management to do this easily. It certainly makes the media want to champion the cause of military intervention.
This would be great if it was applied to all copyrights. Orphaned books and music and movies. Unfortunately i don't think that's what they have planned.
By your logic government should not pay for public roads. It should all be privately owned toll roads. And get rid of the public fire department, you can pay for that if you need it (or they can buy your house when it catches fire- it worked in ancient Rome).
The purpose of government is to act as the collective will of the people, and having public roads/sewer/water/police/internet is the best way to do it.
Just because that's true(cheaper, better) everywhere it's been tried doesn't mean the USA couldn't make universal health care cost more and not be good.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a legal limit on detaining suspects without charging them, there should be a legal limit on taking their stuff without charging them. Without a time limit, it's just theft.
The cable companies paid good money to their government lobbyists to cure the problem of streaming video killing their business model. As with all laws, this one is aimed to fix a problem.
People who can afford expensive lawyers (corporations) are not subject to any law they disagree with. And our current legal system holds the next person in line accountable when the person who committed the crime can't be punished.
If you can do the job from home, then so can someone with better (on paper) qualifications in the 3rd world, getting paid 1/10.
Soldiers get put in prisoner of war camps till the end of fighting, if they do illegal stuff they get a military trial. Civilians get arrested by police and tried by a civilian court. Now Obama just has to choose what side of that line to put the Gitmo detainees on. Or he could just make up some crazy new status called unlawful combatant and make up new rules for them. But that would be illegal.
Revolt against the government is an act of desperation. The people of the USA are not desperate, they still have too much to lose by fighting. So long as the US government ensures most of the people have something to lose they won't revolt, regardless of what happens.
You are mistaking communism with fascism. Communists want all the power run directly from the top, not all power run from the corporations. If all the big multinational corps were owned and operated by the members of congress then the USA would be communist. When the corps need to lobby/buy the gov to get anything done it's fascist.
Calling a right wing politician like Obama a communist? You have no idea what a communist is.
You didn't even mention secret laws. How can you be held responsible for a law you can't legally know about? The constitution of the USA should definitely ban secret laws.
Libertarians like to keep government from interfering in corporate gouging, and no party in power is anti-corporate.
the only way to make unconstitutional search and seizure legal is to change the constitution. passing a law in congress doesn't work. I don't recall any constitution changes happening in the last 20 years.
voting 3rd party isn't worthless, the major 2 see the lost votes and alter their platforms to try and catch those lost votes.
walk down the hallways with a short range directional microcell, and watch for the phone. Basic RDF tech, circa 1935 using a computer (so you can get a patent).
You can plan around them getting another phone from you, because they are on a three year contract. And they will probably buy the same phone (they know it) or upgrade. So it really is free money. It would be easy to stop, every phone has a serial number. Just have a list of stolen phones and don't let them be used.
You can't punish the premium number guys, they might not have anything to do with this. (They could have 4 or 5 legit numbers in the list) A better way would be to have a pop up screen/window asking permission for anything that costs money. (and have something similar for roaming costs)
computer voting IS inherently less secure than paper voting. Paper can have watermarks, fingerprints, ink chemical analysis- it is usually possible to tell a fake ballot from a real one. An electronic ballot, you just can't tell. 2- it takes a lot of people to stuff thousands of ballot boxes with paper, and the more people who know what you're doing the more chance someone will talk. It only takes 1 programmer or cracker and your e-voting system is compromised. 3- paper ballots don't change who you voted for when you put them in the ballot box. If you load your exploit code into ram on the voting computer then a single power cycle and it's gone. 4- you can see how paper voting works, and all the voters can understand the process. With e-voting the majority of the voters have no choice but to trust you. The reason democracy is more stable than other governments is because the people trust the system not to cheat them. They can get bad things changed without a revolution. If you take away that trust then the people will revolt, and e-voting isn't provably trustworthy.
If this had happened in the usa i would assume some juniior intern from india had set up the system. However as it is from India i would think they use their best and brightest for everything (as opposed to exporting them).
It's important that you NOT have proof of who you voted for when you leave the voting station. Having proof means you can sell your vote, or get blackmailed to vote for their candidate. The reason behind voting in private instead of public show of hands is to keep the voting unbiased.
The biggest reason to ban robotic soldiers is because people (humans) get sick of war. They (eventually) make it stop. Robots think what they are programmed to think, and wage war for as long as they are ordered to fight. In a country with a robotic army the only thing preventing war is the morals of the government. History has shown that trusting to your governments morals is a bad bet.
The best outcome would be a government run national cellphone service, run as a not for profit. Add unlocked phones and free tethering and you've got a winner. I know Americans are allergic to government run anything, but it works well for roads.
It's cheaper to build solar arrays on the ground than space. Even with batteries for at night and a larger array to charge them it's still much cheaper.
You are assuming this really was the Syrian army. I'm sure the NSA would have no difficulty running this as a false flag operation, they could intercept the passwords or use their access to twitter management to do this easily. It certainly makes the media want to champion the cause of military intervention.
This would be great if it was applied to all copyrights. Orphaned books and music and movies. Unfortunately i don't think that's what they have planned.
By your logic government should not pay for public roads. It should all be privately owned toll roads. And get rid of the public fire department, you can pay for that if you need it (or they can buy your house when it catches fire- it worked in ancient Rome). The purpose of government is to act as the collective will of the people, and having public roads/sewer/water/police/internet is the best way to do it.
Just because that's true(cheaper, better) everywhere it's been tried doesn't mean the USA couldn't make universal health care cost more and not be good.