My point was that the CIA had pointers (including some provided by allies), while the NSA was in the dark. I won't comment of what you say about what they did with said informations. It doesn't match what I remember reading on the subject, but I'm not very sure of my sources.
Seriously, it's nice that the NSA comes out as overwhelmed with data it can't exploit (although, as some have already pointed out, that's not particularly new - see 9/11 for an example too obvious to pass), but every internal security agency in the West has been saying so for years (or rather, members of said organizations complained about it anonymously or through their unions). Intelligence requires data, but mass collection of data is of dubious help when the people in charge of examining it is already understaffed for exploiting classically collected data.
Too easy to work around. What we need is properly staffed security services. Enough workforce that the investigations can be efficient without throwing due process down the drain. You can't do that with mass surveillance. Almost all attackers in France had been on the radar of French services at some point. They went off the radar because they were considered less threatening, and France didn't have enough people to keep an eye on them while other individuals seemed more dangerous at the time.
I'm no expert on the subject, and I'm not even from the UK. I base my view on the vulgarized analyses I've seen from actual experts on French media, plus some web-browsing to check for different angles.
If the UK leaves the EU, most French experts I've heard and read claim Scotland leaving the UK to join the EU separately is a credible scenario. But I've also read analyses stating that Scotland would have too much to lose, and that while it's possible, it's far to be likely. It's true that the Scottish National Party got a lot of traction in Scotland on the last General Elections, but I think it may have been for reasons that haven't much to do with separatism, and a lot to do with the SNP's social platform, which was appealing to disappointed former Labour voters. So things are not clear-cut. Interesting indeed.
The intention of Guantanamo was to detain terrorist suspects, enemy combatants and their associates, to either gain intelligence from them or simply to get them out of circulation.
Nope, the intention of Guantanamo was to terrorize. The goals you put forward would have been fulfilled more efficiently with regular, lawful, procedures and standard interrogation techniques. But the point wasn't to gather intelligence. It was to terrorize. Guantanamo is a terrorist enterprise.
Not even that. For one thing, in the USA, putting a prisoner in total isolation for years is considered routine, while elsewhere it's considered torture.
I think the GP meant that shareholders should push to have more influence, not that they have. As in, invest in a company, be ready to contribute to its debt - and if you're not ready for it, don't invest.
A supposed news piece that starts with "rumor?" I naïvely hoped it was a piece of information about how that kind of rumor spreads, but no. Journalism is dead, at least here.
One hour between buses? Around commuting hours? Sorry to break it to you, but it isn't a case for buses inherently sucking, it's a case for the bus system you tried sucking super-hard.
That's a rather extreme view you have. If anything, buses consume much less fossil energy (you forgot gas in your list, by the way) than cars. Now the technology isn't yet up to the task for making them carbon-free, but it's getting there, and in the mean time their flexibility can make them (if correctly managed - big "if", I know) a way to reduce traffic and therefore carbon consumption. At the very least it's a step in the right direction. You can't change everything overnight, putting rail-tracks in place isn't a light endeavor. I'm all for having more of them, but neglecting other options in the mean time isn't smart.
I'm telling you, as a long time Green sympathizer, that the idea of "fuck this, let's force the issue at gunpoint" is something that comes to my mind every so often, and I think it's the same with most people of my political leaning, but we don't indulge in it, because authoritarianism is not our thing. So, we indeed dream of taking your big pickup off the road, but in practice we aim to make it more and more inconvenient for you to use it, while making credible alternatives more convenient to use. It's complicated, it's challenging, it's not immediately rewarding, but it's the only democratic way to do it.
I know it's recessing, and has been for quite a while, to the point of actually waning, but the USA has been known for a long time for its obsession with big cars, with the idea that small cars are inherently shitty. While marginal, this meme seems to be still alive, despite every fact against it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Neo-Nazi Sex Robot" sounds like a good name for a rock band. Or an electro-punk song.
My point was that the CIA had pointers (including some provided by allies), while the NSA was in the dark. I won't comment of what you say about what they did with said informations. It doesn't match what I remember reading on the subject, but I'm not very sure of my sources.
Seriously, it's nice that the NSA comes out as overwhelmed with data it can't exploit (although, as some have already pointed out, that's not particularly new - see 9/11 for an example too obvious to pass), but every internal security agency in the West has been saying so for years (or rather, members of said organizations complained about it anonymously or through their unions). Intelligence requires data, but mass collection of data is of dubious help when the people in charge of examining it is already understaffed for exploiting classically collected data.
Benjamin Bayart, former president of the non-profit French ISP French Data Network, often nicknames this tendency "Minitel 2.0".
What you say is true on a larger scale, but several scales have to be considered in the mean time.
Idiotic strawman. More processing and more oversight don't mean more surveillance.
Too easy to work around. What we need is properly staffed security services. Enough workforce that the investigations can be efficient without throwing due process down the drain. You can't do that with mass surveillance. Almost all attackers in France had been on the radar of French services at some point. They went off the radar because they were considered less threatening, and France didn't have enough people to keep an eye on them while other individuals seemed more dangerous at the time.
...or a phone whose battery gets so hot it starts a fire?
Wait, didn't that happen to iPhones at some point? Mmmmh, Apple is definitely up to something... /facetious
I'm no expert on the subject, and I'm not even from the UK. I base my view on the vulgarized analyses I've seen from actual experts on French media, plus some web-browsing to check for different angles.
If the UK leaves the EU, most French experts I've heard and read claim Scotland leaving the UK to join the EU separately is a credible scenario. But I've also read analyses stating that Scotland would have too much to lose, and that while it's possible, it's far to be likely. It's true that the Scottish National Party got a lot of traction in Scotland on the last General Elections, but I think it may have been for reasons that haven't much to do with separatism, and a lot to do with the SNP's social platform, which was appealing to disappointed former Labour voters. So things are not clear-cut. Interesting indeed.
Nobody's talking about releasing everyone. You suck at comprehension. Go fuck yourself.
The intention of Guantanamo was to detain terrorist suspects, enemy combatants and their associates, to either gain intelligence from them or simply to get them out of circulation.
Nope, the intention of Guantanamo was to terrorize. The goals you put forward would have been fulfilled more efficiently with regular, lawful, procedures and standard interrogation techniques. But the point wasn't to gather intelligence. It was to terrorize. Guantanamo is a terrorist enterprise.
Not even that. For one thing, in the USA, putting a prisoner in total isolation for years is considered routine, while elsewhere it's considered torture.
To add to what precedes, that's the reason why a vote of separation by Scotland would be legally valid, and the UK couldn't do much about it.
Honestly? Yes.
You declared war? When?
I think the GP meant that shareholders should push to have more influence, not that they have. As in, invest in a company, be ready to contribute to its debt - and if you're not ready for it, don't invest.
A supposed news piece that starts with "rumor?" I naïvely hoped it was a piece of information about how that kind of rumor spreads, but no. Journalism is dead, at least here.
Which results in slower buses for everyone.
I tend to use "Interesting" for that, myself.
You seem to have misread the GP, who was speaking of the lack of electric buses.
One hour between buses? Around commuting hours? Sorry to break it to you, but it isn't a case for buses inherently sucking, it's a case for the bus system you tried sucking super-hard.
That's a rather extreme view you have. If anything, buses consume much less fossil energy (you forgot gas in your list, by the way) than cars. Now the technology isn't yet up to the task for making them carbon-free, but it's getting there, and in the mean time their flexibility can make them (if correctly managed - big "if", I know) a way to reduce traffic and therefore carbon consumption. At the very least it's a step in the right direction. You can't change everything overnight, putting rail-tracks in place isn't a light endeavor. I'm all for having more of them, but neglecting other options in the mean time isn't smart.
That's what was happening on the famous "Disaster Girl" photo.
I'm telling you, as a long time Green sympathizer, that the idea of "fuck this, let's force the issue at gunpoint" is something that comes to my mind every so often, and I think it's the same with most people of my political leaning, but we don't indulge in it, because authoritarianism is not our thing. So, we indeed dream of taking your big pickup off the road, but in practice we aim to make it more and more inconvenient for you to use it, while making credible alternatives more convenient to use. It's complicated, it's challenging, it's not immediately rewarding, but it's the only democratic way to do it.
I know it's recessing, and has been for quite a while, to the point of actually waning, but the USA has been known for a long time for its obsession with big cars, with the idea that small cars are inherently shitty. While marginal, this meme seems to be still alive, despite every fact against it.