"-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;" vastly stripped down surveillance. BTW, that's their job.
"-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;" wanting to be ab; to execute legal warrants is no making surveillance inescapable.
"-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration" there wasn't enough troops to deal with the war. What would you have him do? All this shows ois the the previous administration underestimated needed capacity.
"-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)" and?
"-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries." which is far fewer if they used none drone weaponry. Civilian deaths is tragic, but historically it's a lot less now then any other war.
"-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval." He has congressional approval. More specifically, the office of the presidency has authorization. YOU might want to ask yourself why the pubs scream about this, but don't actually talk about removing the power congress gave him? too wit: "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
"-- let every single bankster off the hook." fasle. several are in jail, and most DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW. Why is that hard to understand?
"-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out." So you don't remember what Obama originally wanted? What we have in a compromise. Do try to remember history.
"-- opposed an international treaty on banning cluster bombs." Sigh. Did you just go to a web site and copy and paste? How about you find out why things are done, then be specific?
You take you guns, I'll take missiles. Hey, I win! Guns are useless against the government. Actions, words, advocacy, the law. These things work. You just need to get off you apathetic ass.
Wow, you use bold letter so everyone can really notices how wrong you are. HAve you heard of 'Encryption'?
The constitution says the government can search your think if they follow procedure. Holder wanting to be able to execute lawful warrants is a reasonable thing for him to advocate for.
Obama hasn't violated any Constitution, regardless of how popular it is to claim he has. The office of the presidency was given permission to do everything he has done right after 9/11.
IF the pubs were serious, they would take a vote to remove it.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Angry? they write your congress person. Tell them you want that authorization removed. Let people know. Screaming on/. about something you don't understand does not help you.
Calm down Frances, you are mostly wrong. The rest, well it's just inaccurate.
Do you think that the fact he was speaking to the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online might be why he brought up children?
If he was at the Global Alliance Against Terrorism Online, do you think he might have mention terrorism?
The government has a right to search you if it goes through the channels in the constitution. YOu do NOT have a right to hide info from the government if they go through the proper steps.
And you know what? that's reasonable.
"America is marching into becoming a facist state," Still? by golly we've been becoming a fascist state as long as I can remember. I"m sure we will get there any time now. Nothing in the article at all is fascist.
The only crazy thing is that you seem to thing a random post on/. is correct and don't bother to research even them most simplest detail's regarding something as important as this topic.
Wrong. Also: Learn to research. HInt: it doesn't mean read 1 line that confirms a bias. No, base jumping does NOT constitute ANY form of terrorism in the US.
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
What he wants is: When a person or corporation is handed a search warrant, to be ab;e to conduct said warrant. This can be Apple using keys to give them data.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" But not on other peoples property, like, say, servers not on your property.
" against unreasonable searches and seizures" vague and up for interpretation. On purpose because what is 'unreasonable' can vary based on the situation.
"and no Warrants shall issue," But nothing in your quote says Warrants have to be issued.
"but upon probable cause," situational. - And they would be able to do that with some encryption schemes. So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.
"We do not agree that no problems have occurred on in-service airplanes, since the wi-fi... testing that disclosed this susceptibility was conducted on an in-service airplane fitted with phase 3 display units,"
Airline contracts are more complicated then that. For example, you can buy a Boeing airplane but order you own engines to be put in. I don't know if it applies to this case, but I suspect the people dealing with this do.
" Better yet, if you can provide religious rationale for preserving that information it tends to survive for even longer periods of time" information the fanatics think is valuable stay around, not so much for other works that are often actively destroyed.
The internet is far better, because it's everyone preserving everything. give or take, regardless if one group doesn't like it.
"Simple fact. " actually, it isn't. It's a theory that can only be test if everyone is dead in 200 years. Based on history it's likely, but still a theory. Noit that I expect you to understand what fact, theory, law, or hypothesis are.
" The survival of the "species" is in fact the survival of -information-," false.
"for which there are much less costly approaches" no, there aren't.
"If one is going to place a massive-scale financial proposal on the table," So? It won't literally be built out of money. It will be built from other materials and people will gte paid to make those materials. It will also create a massive multi-industry wide RnD project.
" I prefer that proposal be accurate as stated." no, you are a hater that intentional distorting context and demand unreasonable form of speech to be used for a public idea.
"but getting to Mars does nothing to help us in the even of our sun's death." Not true. The tech developed to do that will be the basis for the tech to go beyond mars. We won't do anything if we never start.
Or we create an energy source and we don't need the sun for energy any more. Of course, it's still not relevant except to a pedant. Diversifying so we can exit for a billion years is a good thing.
The universe is creating time/space as it expands. It isn't expanding nto anything. Assuming it is expanding and simply not infinite.
It's confusing because they should use the word expanding, Stretching is more accurate. Reasonable explanation: http://curious.astro.cornell.e...
If you want to get deeper then that explanation then... Good! But you will need to start learning a lot which is also good, but time consuming, so it is understandable that people don't do that.
"All observations from the perspective of science indicate the matter in the universe is finite." wrong. We don't know. It may very well be infinite.
"as the usable energy of the universe inexorably declines toward zero." also, wrong.. for two reason. All energy is usable. How to use it is a different question. One we have solved several time with different materials. The energy can never be zero. The space it occupies can increase.
You are also making the mistake of underestimating what humans can achieve, given enough time and motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
"-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;"
vastly stripped down surveillance. BTW, that's their job.
"-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;"
wanting to be ab; to execute legal warrants is no making surveillance inescapable.
"-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration"
there wasn't enough troops to deal with the war. What would you have him do? All this shows ois the the previous administration underestimated needed capacity.
"-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)"
and?
"-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries."
which is far fewer if they used none drone weaponry. Civilian deaths is tragic, but historically it's a lot less now then any other war.
"-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval."
He has congressional approval. More specifically, the office of the presidency has authorization. YOU might want to ask yourself why the pubs scream about this, but don't actually talk about removing the power congress gave him?
too wit:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
"-- let every single bankster off the hook."
fasle. several are in jail, and most DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW. Why is that hard to understand?
"-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out."
So you don't remember what Obama originally wanted? What we have in a compromise. Do try to remember history.
"-- opposed an international treaty on banning cluster bombs."
Sigh. Did you just go to a web site and copy and paste? How about you find out why things are done, then be specific?
You take you guns, I'll take missiles.
Hey, I win!
Guns are useless against the government. Actions, words, advocacy, the law. These things work.
You just need to get off you apathetic ass.
Wow, you use bold letter so everyone can really notices how wrong you are. HAve you heard of 'Encryption'?
The constitution says the government can search your think if they follow procedure.
Holder wanting to be able to execute lawful warrants is a reasonable thing for him to advocate for.
Obama hasn't violated any Constitution, regardless of how popular it is to claim he has. The office of the presidency was given permission to do everything he has done right after 9/11.
IF the pubs were serious, they would take a vote to remove it.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Angry? they write your congress person. Tell them you want that authorization removed. Let people know. Screaming on /. about something you don't understand does not help you.
Seriously? not eve the original quote from the actual person?
This is the bigger problem, uneducated buffoons also get to vote.
Calm down Frances, you are mostly wrong.
The rest, well it's just inaccurate.
Do you think that the fact he was speaking to the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online might be why he brought up children?
If he was at the Global Alliance Against Terrorism Online, do you think he might have mention terrorism?
The government has a right to search you if it goes through the channels in the constitution. YOu do NOT have a right to hide info from the government if they go through the proper steps.
And you know what? that's reasonable.
"America is marching into becoming a facist state,"
Still? by golly we've been becoming a fascist state as long as I can remember. I"m sure we will get there any time now.
Nothing in the article at all is fascist.
The only crazy thing is that you seem to thing a random post on /. is correct and don't bother to research even them most simplest detail's regarding something as important as this topic.
I'm being redundant because understand is important.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...
Fortunately, there's more to it then that.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...
Wrong. Also: Learn to research. HInt: it doesn't mean read 1 line that confirms a bias. No, base jumping does NOT constitute ANY form of terrorism in the US.
Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
18 U.S.C. 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
Idiot.
What he wants is:
When a person or corporation is handed a search warrant, to be ab;e to conduct said warrant.
This can be Apple using keys to give them data.
Why? it would only matter if you were suspected of murder, and it' only one data point.
Also, duckduckgo spread malware, so be careful
He never say or implies a backdoor.
Wanting a companies to hand over keys when presented with the lawful warrant is not a back door.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
But not on other peoples property, like, say, servers not on your property.
" against unreasonable searches and seizures"
vague and up for interpretation. On purpose because what is 'unreasonable' can vary based on the situation.
"and no Warrants shall issue,"
But nothing in your quote says Warrants have to be issued.
"but upon probable cause,"
situational. - And they would be able to do that with some encryption schemes. So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.
I like how you think children never get in situation where they need protection.
"“It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy"
and he is absolutely correct.
I would rather tech companies put their money into lobbyist, and media to be sure all request are specific and have a warrant.
or not.
"We do not agree that no problems have occurred on in-service airplanes, since the wi-fi... testing that disclosed this susceptibility was conducted on an in-service airplane fitted with phase 3 display units,"
Airline contracts are more complicated then that.
For example, you can buy a Boeing airplane but order you own engines to be put in.
I don't know if it applies to this case, but I suspect the people dealing with this do.
If you're go to is a exaggerated fictional character, maybe you should sit down and consider that you are actually wrong?
" Better yet, if you can provide religious rationale for preserving that information it tends to survive for even longer periods of time"
information the fanatics think is valuable stay around, not so much for other works that are often actively destroyed.
The internet is far better, because it's everyone preserving everything. give or take, regardless if one group doesn't like it.
You have created an device that hold information for billions of years and can spontaneously create human beings?
"Simple fact. "
actually, it isn't. It's a theory that can only be test if everyone is dead in 200 years. Based on history it's likely, but still a theory.
Noit that I expect you to understand what fact, theory, law, or hypothesis are.
" The survival of the "species" is in fact the survival of -information-,"
false.
"for which there are much less costly approaches"
no, there aren't.
"If one is going to place a massive-scale financial proposal on the table,"
So? It won't literally be built out of money. It will be built from other materials and people will gte paid to make those materials.
It will also create a massive multi-industry wide RnD project.
" I prefer that proposal be accurate as stated."
no, you are a hater that intentional distorting context and demand unreasonable form of speech to be used for a public idea.
"but getting to Mars does nothing to help us in the even of our sun's death."
Not true. The tech developed to do that will be the basis for the tech to go beyond mars.
We won't do anything if we never start.
Become self sufficient will be done by doing it.
Or we create an energy source and we don't need the sun for energy any more.
Of course, it's still not relevant except to a pedant. Diversifying so we can exit for a billion years is a good thing.
The universe is creating time/space as it expands. It isn't expanding nto anything.
Assuming it is expanding and simply not infinite.
It's confusing because they should use the word expanding, Stretching is more accurate.
Reasonable explanation:
http://curious.astro.cornell.e...
If you want to get deeper then that explanation then ... Good! But you will need to start learning a lot which is also good, but time consuming, so it is understandable that people don't do that.
The only points that matter. All else doesn't get shit done.
"All observations from the perspective of science indicate the matter in the universe is finite."
wrong. We don't know. It may very well be infinite.
"as the usable energy of the universe inexorably declines toward zero."
also, wrong.. for two reason.
All energy is usable. How to use it is a different question. One we have solved several time with different materials.
The energy can never be zero. The space it occupies can increase.
You are also making the mistake of underestimating what humans can achieve, given enough time and motivation.
I suspect you don't know what entropy means, however if you do, safe guarding humans species for billions of years is still a good thing.