Can't you do the same thing on a public forum? e.g. I generate a public key with no personally identifable information, and give it to you. To contact me, you encrypt your message with my public key, and post it to e.g. USENET. I then connect to USENET, download a bunch of posts, try to decrypt everything with my private key, and keep the ones that are successful.
Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops. This is the right way to do it. Men have needs, and they need to be taken care of when deployed. We should be paying women(and men) to deploy with our troops and take care of those needs. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Make them official government employees, pay them well, give them excellent benefits, screen them constantly for STDs, and our troops will have better morale with fewer sexual assaults, fewer STDs, and fewer war babies. This is a win for everyone.
That's what I said, they're criminals. I could pass my own "laws" saying that I have the right to take all your stuff, and then take all your stuff. And then I could claim that it's "legal" because I followed the letter of my "laws". But I'd still be a thief, because I have no authority to pass laws.
Similarly, no one in congress has the authority to pass laws that violate the constitution. When they do pass such laws, and enforce them, they are criminals just as surely as I am in the analogy above.
Unfortunately, until it's challenged and while the executive decides to follow through, it's law.
No, it's still illegal, whether or not the criminals in office choose to care about the law.
It's a conundrum on how we're going to course correct things.
We're not. They control all three branches of the government, the media, and the entire party apparatus. There are literally no workable options. It's all downhill from here until the tyranny is so unbearable that the average person prefers to fill the streets with blood than to continue submitting.
You're an optimist. An independent judiciary would never have allowed secret courts in the first place. An independent judiciary would have denied at least one request for national security letters.
No, it's worse than that. All three branches of our government, which are supposed to serve as checks on each other, have conspired against the Constitution. They are ALL criminals.
The Constitution is the law, and it has not been rewritten. The government can obey the Constitution, it can rewrite the Constitution, or it can completely ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. It has chosen the last option.
We are ruled by criminals. Not just in the winking "crooks & liars" way, but geniune thugs no different than any other strongman government.
The PATRIOT act does not supercede the constitution. This man has a constitutional right to speak out against the government, telling his personal story about how he is being oppressed by the government is absolutely protected by the first amendment.
The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.
Then you have an inability to read plain English. The 4th amendment is clear, no warrants shall issue without probable cause and without specifically describing the places to be searched and things to be siezed.
There are two justifiable opinions here: 1) Generalized surveillance is bad, so the NSA must be stopped. 2) Generalized surveillance is good, so the Constitution must be amended to allow it.
Those are the ONLY defensible positions. Encouraging the government to break the law makes you nothing but a craven authoritarian.
It is Obama and the Executive Branch's job to enforce existing law. They're doing that.
Perjury is against existing law. When can we expect prosecutions of the DNI for perjuring himself in front of Congress?
The 4th amendment is also existing law, and Obama isn't enforcing that one either. It's clear at this point that Obama's oath to defend the Constitution is completely broken, and he deserves impeachment at best.
Whether or not Snowden gets punished for breaking the law matters much less than whether or not Obama gets punished for breaking the highest law of the land. He won't, and that is how we know the rule of law is meaningless in the United States.
This is a perfect example of why left-wing politics are so unsuccessful.
No, the reason why left-wing politics are unsuccessful is that people are easily scared, and conservativism is the politics of fear. Good policy is based on logic and evidence, not emotion and rhetoric. But emotion and rhetoric are what move people.
You say that as if right-wing politics is so much more successful.
Are you kidding? The whole world is engulfed in right wing politics these days. Our "socialist" president is a Reagan Republican. The Tea Party had huge successes, while Occupy was effectively suppressed. In Canada and the UK there's Harper and Cameron. The whole of Europe is pushing austerity instead of bailing out the little guy.
That's cute to try and make an equivalence, but one is the president,
If the president does it, it's legal? Is that the argument you're going for?
And the president didn't break the law
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating the Constitution is breaking the law. Impeachment may be our only recourse under the law, and our government is too corrupt to deliver justice, but Obama is a criminal all the same.
also he doesn't run the NSA
The president is commander in chief of the military, and the NSA is a branch of the DOD. Obama is responsible.
Furthermore, the electronic eavesdropping was signed off by FISA, congress and the supreme court
ALL of whom have conspired to violate our Constitutional rights. That's how little the rule of law matters in the US anymore.
Vacuum isn't necessary. Just 100% CO2 in a cylinder on one end of the bag, and a one way valve on the other end of the bag. Release the CO2 slow enough that it has time to fully mix. When you've released 1 volume of CO2, the concentration of air is 50% normal. 2 volumes, 25%, 10 volumes 0.1%. That should be plenty low to suffocate anything.
You can OD on water too, doesn't mean it's toxic. What I mean is that it doesn't directly exert toxic effects on any organ, the way acetaminophen does to the liver. People who are maintained on clean, metered doses of opiates are just as healthy as anyone else.
I don't think the cost is an issue. Opiates are cheap enough as it is, without inflated prices due to illegality, addicts can be maintained on heroin or morphine for pennies a day.
And no, my goal isn't government noninterference. The government exists to enable us to live better lives. If free people choose to take drugs, the job of the government is to regulate that industry so that they can do so as safely as possible with as few costs to other people, just like they do with any other recreational activity.
Consider motorcycling. That's a very risky recreational activity. The government hasn't banned it, but they have implemented helmet laws to keep those who choose to do it safer. That's the kind of regulation that should be applied to drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you do the same thing on a public forum? e.g. I generate a public key with no personally identifable information, and give it to you. To contact me, you encrypt your message with my public key, and post it to e.g. USENET. I then connect to USENET, download a bunch of posts, try to decrypt everything with my private key, and keep the ones that are successful.
Hookers supposedly got their name from General Hooker in the Civil War, who maintained a brothel for his troops. This is the right way to do it. Men have needs, and they need to be taken care of when deployed. We should be paying women(and men) to deploy with our troops and take care of those needs. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Make them official government employees, pay them well, give them excellent benefits, screen them constantly for STDs, and our troops will have better morale with fewer sexual assaults, fewer STDs, and fewer war babies. This is a win for everyone.
HDCP is broken. How do they expect to prevent people from dumping the digital video stream?
That's what I said, they're criminals. I could pass my own "laws" saying that I have the right to take all your stuff, and then take all your stuff. And then I could claim that it's "legal" because I followed the letter of my "laws". But I'd still be a thief, because I have no authority to pass laws.
Similarly, no one in congress has the authority to pass laws that violate the constitution. When they do pass such laws, and enforce them, they are criminals just as surely as I am in the analogy above.
Unfortunately, until it's challenged and while the executive decides to follow through, it's law.
No, it's still illegal, whether or not the criminals in office choose to care about the law.
It's a conundrum on how we're going to course correct things.
We're not. They control all three branches of the government, the media, and the entire party apparatus. There are literally no workable options. It's all downhill from here until the tyranny is so unbearable that the average person prefers to fill the streets with blood than to continue submitting.
The myth is that it's legal. What the NSA is doing is criminal.
You're an optimist. An independent judiciary would never have allowed secret courts in the first place. An independent judiciary would have denied at least one request for national security letters.
No, it's worse than that. All three branches of our government, which are supposed to serve as checks on each other, have conspired against the Constitution. They are ALL criminals.
Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis!
The Constitution is the law, and it has not been rewritten. The government can obey the Constitution, it can rewrite the Constitution, or it can completely ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. It has chosen the last option.
We are ruled by criminals. Not just in the winking "crooks & liars" way, but geniune thugs no different than any other strongman government.
The PATRIOT act does not supercede the constitution. This man has a constitutional right to speak out against the government, telling his personal story about how he is being oppressed by the government is absolutely protected by the first amendment.
Exactly. Anyone involved in issuing or enforcing this gag order is committing a consipracy against rights, and is a criminal.
The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.
Exactly. Let us know when the AI generates the formula, instead of just plugging words into it.
The first computer I ever used, the Atari 800, shipped with 8K of RAM. 640K actually used to be enough for everyone.
The first time you load each game, it will load slowly.
If you close and reload a game, it will load quickly.
If you close a game, load another game, then load the first game it will load slowly again.
Why bother adding 8 gig of solid state storage to your hard disk when you could just add 8 gigs of RAM and use that for disk cache?
Then you have an inability to read plain English. The 4th amendment is clear, no warrants shall issue without probable cause and without specifically describing the places to be searched and things to be siezed.
There are two justifiable opinions here:
1) Generalized surveillance is bad, so the NSA must be stopped.
2) Generalized surveillance is good, so the Constitution must be amended to allow it.
Those are the ONLY defensible positions. Encouraging the government to break the law makes you nothing but a craven authoritarian.
It is Obama and the Executive Branch's job to enforce existing law. They're doing that.
Perjury is against existing law. When can we expect prosecutions of the DNI for perjuring himself in front of Congress?
The 4th amendment is also existing law, and Obama isn't enforcing that one either. It's clear at this point that Obama's oath to defend the Constitution is completely broken, and he deserves impeachment at best.
Whether or not Snowden gets punished for breaking the law matters much less than whether or not Obama gets punished for breaking the highest law of the land. He won't, and that is how we know the rule of law is meaningless in the United States.
This is a perfect example of why left-wing politics are so unsuccessful.
No, the reason why left-wing politics are unsuccessful is that people are easily scared, and conservativism is the politics of fear. Good policy is based on logic and evidence, not emotion and rhetoric. But emotion and rhetoric are what move people.
You say that as if right-wing politics is so much more successful.
Are you kidding? The whole world is engulfed in right wing politics these days. Our "socialist" president is a Reagan Republican. The Tea Party had huge successes, while Occupy was effectively suppressed. In Canada and the UK there's Harper and Cameron. The whole of Europe is pushing austerity instead of bailing out the little guy.
we changed the rules many years ago.
No, "we" didn't "change the rules". The corrupt pieces of shit in government decided on their own to ignore the rules. There's a difference.
That's cute to try and make an equivalence, but one is the president,
If the president does it, it's legal? Is that the argument you're going for?
And the president didn't break the law
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating the Constitution is breaking the law. Impeachment may be our only recourse under the law, and our government is too corrupt to deliver justice, but Obama is a criminal all the same.
also he doesn't run the NSA
The president is commander in chief of the military, and the NSA is a branch of the DOD. Obama is responsible.
Furthermore, the electronic eavesdropping was signed off by FISA, congress and the supreme court
ALL of whom have conspired to violate our Constitutional rights. That's how little the rule of law matters in the US anymore.
Vacuum isn't necessary. Just 100% CO2 in a cylinder on one end of the bag, and a one way valve on the other end of the bag. Release the CO2 slow enough that it has time to fully mix. When you've released 1 volume of CO2, the concentration of air is 50% normal. 2 volumes, 25%, 10 volumes 0.1%. That should be plenty low to suffocate anything.
I can see how both Mannings and Snowden have broken the law.
So has Obama. He deserves the same treatment Manning and Snowden will receive.
I believe the GP was saying that you should replace the air in the bag with 100% CO2, suffocating them.
You can OD on water too, doesn't mean it's toxic. What I mean is that it doesn't directly exert toxic effects on any organ, the way acetaminophen does to the liver. People who are maintained on clean, metered doses of opiates are just as healthy as anyone else.
I don't think the cost is an issue. Opiates are cheap enough as it is, without inflated prices due to illegality, addicts can be maintained on heroin or morphine for pennies a day.
And no, my goal isn't government noninterference. The government exists to enable us to live better lives. If free people choose to take drugs, the job of the government is to regulate that industry so that they can do so as safely as possible with as few costs to other people, just like they do with any other recreational activity.
Consider motorcycling. That's a very risky recreational activity. The government hasn't banned it, but they have implemented helmet laws to keep those who choose to do it safer. That's the kind of regulation that should be applied to drugs.