'If a U.S. entity is serving us with a legally binding subpoena, we contact our customer and work with that customer to fight the subpoena."
How does this work if Amazon are served with a secret order? They are gagged and cannot reveal that it even exists. The customer cannot sue, because he cannot prove the government is snooping on him. And it is no use asking, because the existence of snooping is secret. This is the most outrageous aspect of the whole sorry saga.
In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the "ARA General Belgrano". Three years later in 1985, civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament (Tam Dalyell) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The prosecution in the case demanded that the jury convict Ponting as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government. He had argued that he had acted out of "his duty to the interests of the state"; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government.
You Tories look down on Libertarians like feudal lords used to look down on democrats.
The USA is about the only country in the world which insists on taxing its citizens who are normally resident in another country. And if you renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to have done so for tax reasons, and have to pay an exit tax on all your assets.
Free to go? Not so much. You are an economic hostage.
There is a difference between sharing and collaborating voluntarily, and "sharing" while looking into the barrel of a gun. In the voluntary case, you have the option of removing yourself from the group. Churches and their schisms are an example.
Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Good response. Regarding which liberties to emphasize more, I believe they are indivisible and therefore of equal merit. If they are perceived as conflicting, then somehow the perception must be faulty.
Libertarians harp about economic liberty precisely because it is little mentioned in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, anyway. The founding fathers probably thought the commerce clause took care of it, but they were mistaken.
Every country has a national ID, and every country is poorer than the USA. This is not a coincidence.
The USA has for the last 100 years been the most free, most wealthy country in the world, offering the greatest opportunities to its inhabitants. This is demonstrated by many different measurements, and the fact that foreigners are clamoring to get in. Even poor people in the US are wealthy compared to many other nations. It is not perfect, but overall it is better than anywhere else.
Libertarians believe that social and economic liberty are the cause of this pleasant outcome. If these liberties are constrained, then the outcome will be lower living standards and limited opportunities for the "pursuit of happiness". This does not happen instantaneously - there is a time lag, and a slope, which leads to a "frog in a pot" syndrome. Some democratic societies deliberately choose this path, such as many European countries. And remember, democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
Socially-oriented nations are not sustainable in the long run, as the overhead burden of all the bureaucracy required to maintain the system will drag them down - see Greece, or the US tax code.
So you might think that it is a long way from a national ID to economic collapse, but it is just another straw on the camel's back. How many laws are repealed for every new one? The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of government, and the tyranny of the majority, to prevent these bad outcomes. Just because they may not happen in your lifetime is not a reason to accept them.
In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh was basically shut down for several months by a series of 145 bomb threats that were sent by email, anonymized via Mixmaster.
The problem is not the person who made the bomb threats, it is the person who said "shut down for several months." Home of the brave? Bah! Humbug!
Slashdot Mirror
'If a U.S. entity is serving us with a legally binding subpoena, we contact our customer and work with that customer to fight the subpoena."
How does this work if Amazon are served with a secret order? They are gagged and cannot reveal that it even exists. The customer cannot sue, because he cannot prove the government is snooping on him. And it is no use asking, because the existence of snooping is secret. This is the most outrageous aspect of the whole sorry saga.
In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Royal Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the "ARA General Belgrano". Three years later in 1985, civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament (Tam Dalyell) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The prosecution in the case demanded that the jury convict Ponting as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government. He had argued that he had acted out of "his duty to the interests of the state"; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government.
Jury nullification should be taught in high school civics class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
You Tories look down on Libertarians like feudal lords used to look down on democrats.
The USA is about the only country in the world which insists on taxing its citizens who are normally resident in another country. And if you renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to have done so for tax reasons, and have to pay an exit tax on all your assets.
Free to go? Not so much. You are an economic hostage.
http://world.time.com/2013/01/31/mister-taxman-why-some-americans-working-abroad-are-ditching-their-citizenships/
There is a difference between sharing and collaborating voluntarily, and "sharing" while looking into the barrel of a gun. In the voluntary case, you have the option of removing yourself from the group. Churches and their schisms are an example.
Do you have a Windows phone? If so, you may also need Alt and Del.
The missing ingredient is what Americans call "due process".
A government that acts secretively, capriciously and arbitrarily, without oversight, will become tyrannical.
In response to others, I am under no illusion that the petition, currently with only 6,300 signatures, will make an iota of difference.
Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/overturn-franchise-laws-limit-auto-manufacturers-selling-their-vehicles-directly-consumers/rlShbLzr
I am going to write to his neighbors and reveal that he is a LAWYER.
Oil at $30/bbl will collapse the House of Saud and nobody will care.
http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2013/05/oil-markets-risk-rapid-reprici-1.html
Wait until people start 3-D printing cars. There is your car analogy.
I don't doubt you are correct, by why don't they call their representatives to ask for a lower or zero sales tax instead?
with vinegar and baking soda!
Good response. Regarding which liberties to emphasize more, I believe they are indivisible and therefore of equal merit. If they are perceived as conflicting, then somehow the perception must be faulty.
Libertarians harp about economic liberty precisely because it is little mentioned in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, anyway. The founding fathers probably thought the commerce clause took care of it, but they were mistaken.
If you are withdrawing from another bank, the ATM fee is typically $2. The banks were making out like bandits!
Thieves can break into my house, or hack into my computer, and steal my Bitcoin wallet. Hell, I'll email it to you, if you want.
However, it is encrypted, and good luck with that.
Every country has a national ID, and every country is poorer than the USA. This is not a coincidence.
The USA has for the last 100 years been the most free, most wealthy country in the world, offering the greatest opportunities to its inhabitants. This is demonstrated by many different measurements, and the fact that foreigners are clamoring to get in. Even poor people in the US are wealthy compared to many other nations. It is not perfect, but overall it is better than anywhere else.
Libertarians believe that social and economic liberty are the cause of this pleasant outcome. If these liberties are constrained, then the outcome will be lower living standards and limited opportunities for the "pursuit of happiness". This does not happen instantaneously - there is a time lag, and a slope, which leads to a "frog in a pot" syndrome. Some democratic societies deliberately choose this path, such as many European countries. And remember, democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
Socially-oriented nations are not sustainable in the long run, as the overhead burden of all the bureaucracy required to maintain the system will drag them down - see Greece, or the US tax code.
So you might think that it is a long way from a national ID to economic collapse, but it is just another straw on the camel's back. How many laws are repealed for every new one? The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of government, and the tyranny of the majority, to prevent these bad outcomes. Just because they may not happen in your lifetime is not a reason to accept them.
The real solution is not to require passports to travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aya_(goddess)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80y%C4%81
?
Very annoying that a bunch of computer programmers are posting here who know nothing about engineering!
Seems the appropriate tags should be "pot", "kettle" and "black".
In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh was basically shut down for several months by a series of 145 bomb threats that were sent by email, anonymized via Mixmaster.
The problem is not the person who made the bomb threats, it is the person who said "shut down for several months." Home of the brave? Bah! Humbug!
I could name a dozen countries I would trust to manage the web more than the U.S.
Please name some.