It's alluded to in the summary, and spelled out in TFA - both companies have shown interest in providing internet access in underserved areas through aerial platforms:
Incorrect.
The correct answer is both companies have no idea what the fuck they're doing, so they're throwing money at whatever they can in the hope that something sticks and draws press publicity.
Remember, Facebook is the same company that had no problem showing beheading videos, while having an advertiser supported business model.
Think about that: Why would any company place their valuable brand ad next to a beheading video?
Plus feel free to look up horrifying shit on Google or YouTube and check to see if brands want their ads placed next to them.
And everything in Google is ultimately an advertising-based business model, including Google Earth.
So, these west coast tech idiots have absolutely NO idea what they're doing, as they try to replicate the success of east coast advertising businesses. They're so fucking bad at advertising, that somehow they caused geeks to think of advertising as bad.
Meanwhile, non-geeks are able to sell local newspapers and magazines with hundreds of ad pages BECAUSE of the advertising.
Right now, advertising business model is some mysterious secret art that west-coast geeks can't figure out. Even with 1.5 billion viewers, Facebook only ends up making $6billion/year on ads, something Hearst does with just a few million subscribers.
But the geeks have money, and they'll keep trying.
It's incredible how bad tech geeks are at advertising business models. Just completely clueless.
Sorry, you are a narcissist if you think you, and not the Supreme court, gets to decide what is/isn't constitutional.
Is there anything else a precious snowflake princess like you think is important?
In this life, you don't get to follow orders of those in higher power above you, and the US government has higher power above you.
If the US government decides it is constitutional, your role in life is to obey.
Perhaps in your next life you should decide to have more power than the US government? But for now, we socialists will prefer that you do as we say, if you wish to remain in our land we control.
We prefer not to have freedom-loving libertarians.
Freedom loving libertarians do not help me, so why should we allow them to live in our society?
Did you pay for my health care? Do you want to pay for my health care? Then why the fuck should I let you live in this property we control? What exactly are you doing for me?
It's sad when libertarians learn that life isn't free, that no one is interested in giving them freedom.
It's just a basic rule of socialization: you make friends by doing stuff for them. Too bad unsocialized geeks that tend to lean libertarian never figured this out.
Normal, socialized people are statists.
Normal, socialized people are never libertarian.
Libertarians are generally just terrible, god-awful people. There is a reason they have that social stigma.
The quicker you nerds figure out why everyone hates you, the better off you will be.
Or you can just figure out that, no, there is nothing wrong with metadata collection by the NSA.
Remember, this is metadata, not data. Government has the right to collect information. Government has the right to maintain its powers. They don't have the right to collect your private communications without a warrant. And metadata isn't private.
Courts have already decided this.
You will have to catch up with what the courts have already decided.
Sorry, but normal, socialized people do not care about metadata privacy. We are not geeks, and do not care about what geeks care about. We consider geeks to be unsocialized and uncivilized, with way too much precious snowflake syndrome. Geeks are far too narcissistic and introverted to be helpful to socialized people. They are generally to be avoided, and mistrusted.
That is why normal people, like me, and President Obama, do not trusts geeks, and their concerns. We do not respect them.
It's a sad realization, but you geeks are going to have to face the fact that you're terrible people that the rest of society do not care for.
Maybe in the next life, you will learn to socialize, learn to make friends and influence people, instead of whine about why you are so important and libertarian and how awesome you are, because you are such precious snowflakes.
The rest of us will just continue with our normal lives, with a big, socialized government that provides necessary services that we want government to provide.
We will continue to maintain a big, powerful government, because we prefer a stronger government, instead of a weaker one.
“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”
So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.
What was the problem again?
"BUT GOVERNMENT NEEDS OVERSIGHT!"
That's exactly what the FISA court does. What? You don't trust the people you gave trust to?
The NSA may be efficient at amassing lots of data. But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence. They are efficient at creating haystacks, but that doesn't mean they are finding many needles.
Since you're speculating, it's just as useful to say that the NSA has the ability to find exactly what they need from vast quantities of data.
You know, one of these days, you will be the one arrested and thrown in prison without due process for 'terroristic acts', or some other set of stacked charges that cannot be challenged in court because they're matters of 'national security'.
This only happens if you're an idiot, like the average libertarian that infests this site.
Smart socialists know how to always remain in power.
The worst people in the world are those that don't know how to socialize with other members of society, and socialization is formally structured in society through a government.
When you people state "I fear and mistrust government", what the rest of us hear is "I fear and mistrust other members of society".
So, when you hate the rest of society so much, why exactly should we allow you to live with us again? Because all we hear from you is "Me! Me! Me!"
Can you explain how you benefit us? Do you think you produce more tax revenue than we pay for you? Do you think the road we paved for you all the way out to your private secluded hideout so you can avoid the rest of society came for free?
Is that what you want us to hear from you libertarians? That you're a precious snowflake and that you don't want to do what government tells you to do, because you're a precious snowflake?
You will note that this anti-socializition is extremely common among those that society traditionally rejects, such as geeks and other assorted libertarians. Remember, groups are far stronger than individuals. We socialists recognized that long time ago, which is why we can get things that libertarians cannot, such as a publicly funded health-care system.
Meanwhile, we socialist statists will do fine without your support, since there are so few of you - you will notice that no one in the real world actually complains about the NSA spying, because most people are well socialized, unlike the geeks. In the real world, no one gives a shit about the kind of privacy you think is important. The only real privacy we believe in are physical privacy, not internet ones, since the internet doesn't represent real-world. (you were actually mistaken all along in your view that the internet mattered..)
But it is your job to decide if you wish to remain with us.
Eventually you will decide to lick government's boot, and you will learn that it is better for you that way.
You know those filters used to remove American's data from surveillance? Those were there to PROTECT our privacy.
So what exactly is Snowden complaining about? Why would the US government have classified filters if their objective was privacy violations?
He really didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. That's the problem you get with mouth-breathing libertarians, like the kind that infest white-male nerd sites.
I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.
This is precedent setting here as well. Usually the creator of the medium owns the copyright, not a contributor. It would change everything if new rule stands.
One point though is that the producer didn't get a release from the actress at all, so any modern release should cover any effects of changes to the film. This might case might be a unique one because of that.
This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.
Religion serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.
Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology. Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?
Some of the shit we know & see these days must be completely insane to the mind of a primitive person that would actually thinks religion is real.
And of course, you'll notice that religion is strong in non-socialized rural environments, where people don't get to normally interact with other races & cultures. Once they actually start to interact with black or gay people they end up figuring out that they're not so bad, and that their religion was probably lying to them all along.
Living in suburban sprawl is not living. It is mere existence.
The suburbs are where humanity goes to die. You will notice that no culture comes from the suburbs either.
Suburbs should just be banned.
The houses/roads/buildings in the suburbs should be torn down, replaced with trees that were originally there.
Of course, it will be difficult for the lazy to get away from the suburbs, but with appropriate government force, they will have no choice but to comply, and will eventually get over it.
Remember, all the disclosures show that they're filtering communications data from American citizens.
Why would the NSA keep a top-secret program to filter out communications from Americans, if they weren't interested in privacy rights?
(And it's perfectly fine for the NSA to wiretap foreigners, because fuck-em.)
Really, the only people complaining about the NSA are whiny libertarians, such as all the 12-year olds that infest this site. They just whine all the time because they are not intelligent people.
No need to break them up. Just make sure they're following the laws, which as the disclosures indicate, they are.
OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.
The way socialism works is that rich people pay for the benefits of poor.
That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.
The rich need public education so that their employees can read and follow instructions and do math. They need roads to drive their goods. They need a military to protect their resources. They need everything government provides.
The poor do not give a shit about any of this. It is the rich that need this the most.
You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.
Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry
Private industry cannot produce an efficient systems-level product. They will always be overpriced compared to government. It is why it only costs 50 cents to deliver mail via USPS instead of $15 to deliver it via UPS/FedEx.
A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.
A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.
A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.
You mistake is assuming that class divisions exist because of tyranny. It actually exists because of choice.
We have a government that takes away from the rich and give to the poor because the rich and poor are both there by choice.
The rich desire to be rich, which is fine, and we create a government that allows them to be rich by taxing them more as they gain more wealth. We use the taxes to pay for the services they need to become rich, such as education (need to make sure their employees can speak english and follow math instructions), roads (need to make sure their company goods can be transported), the military (need to protect their resources), patents (need to allow them a monopoly on their ideas), and basically every single function of government.
It is government that allows one to be wealthy.
Don't believe me?
Take away a function of government, and see how much it damages the wealthy.
That includes things like all social services (unemployment, health care, retirement, etc..) that you mistakenly assume benefit the lazy, but actually exist because it benefits the wealthy.
Really, the precious snowflake libertarians exist because they are ignorant of the overall system. It is amusing when we liberal statists watch these precious snowflake libertarians talk about their rights and freedoms and other dumb retarded shit we feed them to work harder, when we know exactly why they are mistaken and laugh at them.
These idiots actually think the money they earned is because of their hard work. LOL.
They have no idea about the Matrix we liberal statists built for them.
The tea-party libertarians don't exactly refute the narcissistic, psychopathic, sadistic stereotype.
Just this week, Republican tea-party libertarian precious snowflake Senator Ted Cruz single-handedly almost caused the US to default on its debt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
An action like that would have caused great harm to many Americans, whom he has no empathy for.
That's exactly narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic.
Really libertarians, if you don't want to be considered narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic, you'll have to behave in socialized ways that would show empathy towards your fellow citizens. That means it will cost you. You will have to pay a personal price to maintain socialization, since socialization is a personal expense.
In political structured form, we call this "taxes".
This is why we statists call you libertarians "precious snowflakes", because your narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism causes you to desocialize and make the mistaken assumption that society values you. The rest of society, the people with power over you, hardly cares about people that do not show empathy towards others, since people are territorial, and we have no interest in allowing you to live in our territory for free.
You have to pay those in power to live. Life isn't free, and it isn't about you.
Decide how you will pay us statist to allow you to live in our state.
Apple at least doesn't try to give you the illusion of openness. They make it very clear you're dealing with Apple's overall direction, which makes the system simpler to deal with - you know exactly what's going on, and you know that Apple sells systems, not subtly advertisement-driven operating systems like Google.
It's far easier to deal with something you understand than with something that's trying to hide its motives.
Those with power get to do whatever they want to those with less power.
It is how life works.
In life, you actually CAN'T do what you want. You can only do what those in power allow you to do.
This is a basic fact-of-life that libertarians do not comprehend. They mistakenly assume life comes for free, because they were mistakenly taught that way. They do not know about the real power structure in society, that they are of limited power, and that those in power have no interest in giving away their powers.
The most useful takeaway from this for libertarians is to understand that, no, you are not a precious snowflake. There are powers greater than you. You are worthless scum, and your only hope in life is to attach yourself to those of greater power.
We big-government socialists understand that. We know that, hey, individuals are insignificant, that corporations are powerful, and that government is most powerful. We therefore use the powers of government to fight against corporations. That is why we get free shit like healthcare and other government stuff.
I would encourage you to think how this structure applies to your privacy rights. Corporations want to eliminate your privacy for the purposes of profit. Your only hope to fight against that is to consider how government can protect you.
You already saw how government protects you through the Snowden disclosures, where the NSA actually has filters to protect US citizens' privacy. (because fuck foreigners).
If the government wasn't interested in your privacy rights, why would they have a classified system designed to protect and filter your private data in the first place? "huuurrr durrr but NSA is scary hurrr!"
So, get over yourselves and your precious snowflakeness, and quickly figure out how you use government to your advantage, because you're worthless on your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Closed source was always safer.
Not sure where you got that idea that open source was safer?
It's alluded to in the summary, and spelled out in TFA - both companies have shown interest in providing internet access in underserved areas through aerial platforms:
Incorrect.
The correct answer is both companies have no idea what the fuck they're doing, so they're throwing money at whatever they can in the hope that something sticks and draws press publicity.
Remember, Facebook is the same company that had no problem showing beheading videos, while having an advertiser supported business model.
Think about that: Why would any company place their valuable brand ad next to a beheading video?
Plus feel free to look up horrifying shit on Google or YouTube and check to see if brands want their ads placed next to them.
And everything in Google is ultimately an advertising-based business model, including Google Earth.
So, these west coast tech idiots have absolutely NO idea what they're doing, as they try to replicate the success of east coast advertising businesses. They're so fucking bad at advertising, that somehow they caused geeks to think of advertising as bad.
Meanwhile, non-geeks are able to sell local newspapers and magazines with hundreds of ad pages BECAUSE of the advertising.
Right now, advertising business model is some mysterious secret art that west-coast geeks can't figure out. Even with 1.5 billion viewers, Facebook only ends up making $6billion/year on ads, something Hearst does with just a few million subscribers.
But the geeks have money, and they'll keep trying.
It's incredible how bad tech geeks are at advertising business models. Just completely clueless.
The engineer behind the heart bleed bug is named in national news: http://www.latimes.com/busines...
Sorry, you are a narcissist if you think you, and not the Supreme court, gets to decide what is/isn't constitutional.
Is there anything else a precious snowflake princess like you think is important?
In this life, you don't get to follow orders of those in higher power above you, and the US government has higher power above you.
If the US government decides it is constitutional, your role in life is to obey.
Perhaps in your next life you should decide to have more power than the US government? But for now, we socialists will prefer that you do as we say, if you wish to remain in our land we control.
Actually, it seems they've already crushed them on specs, since A7 is 6-wide execution pipeline, while this is 3-wide.
We Apple fanboys will forever torment and humiliate the Android poors.
Most people are statists.
We prefer a strong controlling government.
We prefer not to have freedom-loving libertarians.
Freedom loving libertarians do not help me, so why should we allow them to live in our society?
Did you pay for my health care? Do you want to pay for my health care? Then why the fuck should I let you live in this property we control? What exactly are you doing for me?
It's sad when libertarians learn that life isn't free, that no one is interested in giving them freedom.
It's just a basic rule of socialization: you make friends by doing stuff for them. Too bad unsocialized geeks that tend to lean libertarian never figured this out.
Normal, socialized people are statists.
Normal, socialized people are never libertarian.
Libertarians are generally just terrible, god-awful people. There is a reason they have that social stigma.
The quicker you nerds figure out why everyone hates you, the better off you will be.
Or you can just figure out that, no, there is nothing wrong with metadata collection by the NSA.
Remember, this is metadata, not data. Government has the right to collect information. Government has the right to maintain its powers. They don't have the right to collect your private communications without a warrant. And metadata isn't private.
Courts have already decided this.
You will have to catch up with what the courts have already decided.
Sorry, but normal, socialized people do not care about metadata privacy. We are not geeks, and do not care about what geeks care about. We consider geeks to be unsocialized and uncivilized, with way too much precious snowflake syndrome. Geeks are far too narcissistic and introverted to be helpful to socialized people. They are generally to be avoided, and mistrusted.
That is why normal people, like me, and President Obama, do not trusts geeks, and their concerns. We do not respect them.
It's a sad realization, but you geeks are going to have to face the fact that you're terrible people that the rest of society do not care for.
Maybe in the next life, you will learn to socialize, learn to make friends and influence people, instead of whine about why you are so important and libertarian and how awesome you are, because you are such precious snowflakes.
The rest of us will just continue with our normal lives, with a big, socialized government that provides necessary services that we want government to provide.
We will continue to maintain a big, powerful government, because we prefer a stronger government, instead of a weaker one.
Thanks.
“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”
So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.
What was the problem again?
"BUT GOVERNMENT NEEDS OVERSIGHT!"
That's exactly what the FISA court does. What? You don't trust the people you gave trust to?
Use iTunes for new releases instead of DVDs.
Don't complain about it.
The NSA may be efficient at amassing lots of data. But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence. They are efficient at creating haystacks, but that doesn't mean they are finding many needles.
Since you're speculating, it's just as useful to say that the NSA has the ability to find exactly what they need from vast quantities of data.
Look! I can make up shit too!
You know, one of these days, you will be the one arrested and thrown in prison without due process for 'terroristic acts', or some other set of stacked charges that cannot be challenged in court because they're matters of 'national security'.
This only happens if you're an idiot, like the average libertarian that infests this site.
Smart socialists know how to always remain in power.
The worst people in the world are those that don't know how to socialize with other members of society, and socialization is formally structured in society through a government.
When you people state "I fear and mistrust government", what the rest of us hear is "I fear and mistrust other members of society".
So, when you hate the rest of society so much, why exactly should we allow you to live with us again? Because all we hear from you is "Me! Me! Me!"
Can you explain how you benefit us? Do you think you produce more tax revenue than we pay for you? Do you think the road we paved for you all the way out to your private secluded hideout so you can avoid the rest of society came for free?
Is that what you want us to hear from you libertarians? That you're a precious snowflake and that you don't want to do what government tells you to do, because you're a precious snowflake?
You will note that this anti-socializition is extremely common among those that society traditionally rejects, such as geeks and other assorted libertarians. Remember, groups are far stronger than individuals. We socialists recognized that long time ago, which is why we can get things that libertarians cannot, such as a publicly funded health-care system.
Meanwhile, we socialist statists will do fine without your support, since there are so few of you - you will notice that no one in the real world actually complains about the NSA spying, because most people are well socialized, unlike the geeks. In the real world, no one gives a shit about the kind of privacy you think is important. The only real privacy we believe in are physical privacy, not internet ones, since the internet doesn't represent real-world. (you were actually mistaken all along in your view that the internet mattered..)
But it is your job to decide if you wish to remain with us.
Eventually you will decide to lick government's boot, and you will learn that it is better for you that way.
You know those filters used to remove American's data from surveillance? Those were there to PROTECT our privacy.
So what exactly is Snowden complaining about? Why would the US government have classified filters if their objective was privacy violations?
He really didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. That's the problem you get with mouth-breathing libertarians, like the kind that infest white-male nerd sites.
I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.
This is precedent setting here as well. Usually the creator of the medium owns the copyright, not a contributor. It would change everything if new rule stands.
One point though is that the producer didn't get a release from the actress at all, so any modern release should cover any effects of changes to the film. This might case might be a unique one because of that.
This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.
Religion serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.
Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology. Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?
Some of the shit we know & see these days must be completely insane to the mind of a primitive person that would actually thinks religion is real.
And of course, you'll notice that religion is strong in non-socialized rural environments, where people don't get to normally interact with other races & cultures. Once they actually start to interact with black or gay people they end up figuring out that they're not so bad, and that their religion was probably lying to them all along.
Living in suburban sprawl is not living. It is mere existence.
The suburbs are where humanity goes to die. You will notice that no culture comes from the suburbs either.
Suburbs should just be banned.
The houses/roads/buildings in the suburbs should be torn down, replaced with trees that were originally there.
Of course, it will be difficult for the lazy to get away from the suburbs, but with appropriate government force, they will have no choice but to comply, and will eventually get over it.
So there should be no private energy companies?
No there shouldn't.
Energy should be a socialized service.
Remember when California tried to privatize energy, and there were constant blackouts? HAHA
No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care?
Those aren't public services.
Public services should NEVER be run by private companies, since they are inefficient and wasteful.
There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society.
Communications is so critical that the US Constitution writes in the Postal service as part of it.
Internet communications should be treated as a basic service.
Once this happens, we can restructure more government services to be properly internet enabled.
Really, private companies do not serve the interests of the public. They never have. They never will.
Private companies are great at the luxuries of life, not the basics.
Remember, all the disclosures show that they're filtering communications data from American citizens.
Why would the NSA keep a top-secret program to filter out communications from Americans, if they weren't interested in privacy rights?
(And it's perfectly fine for the NSA to wiretap foreigners, because fuck-em.)
Really, the only people complaining about the NSA are whiny libertarians, such as all the 12-year olds that infest this site. They just whine all the time because they are not intelligent people.
No need to break them up. Just make sure they're following the laws, which as the disclosures indicate, they are.
OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.
The way socialism works is that rich people pay for the benefits of poor.
That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.
The rich need public education so that their employees can read and follow instructions and do math. They need roads to drive their goods. They need a military to protect their resources. They need everything government provides.
The poor do not give a shit about any of this. It is the rich that need this the most.
That is why they get to pay for it.
You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.
Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry
Private industry cannot produce an efficient systems-level product. They will always be overpriced compared to government. It is why it only costs 50 cents to deliver mail via USPS instead of $15 to deliver it via UPS/FedEx.
A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.
A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.
A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.
which is why Glass will never take off.
Consumer products are only successful if they're marketed to cool, sociable people, not loser nerds with no lives.
You mistake is assuming that class divisions exist because of tyranny. It actually exists because of choice.
We have a government that takes away from the rich and give to the poor because the rich and poor are both there by choice.
The rich desire to be rich, which is fine, and we create a government that allows them to be rich by taxing them more as they gain more wealth. We use the taxes to pay for the services they need to become rich, such as education (need to make sure their employees can speak english and follow math instructions), roads (need to make sure their company goods can be transported), the military (need to protect their resources), patents (need to allow them a monopoly on their ideas), and basically every single function of government.
It is government that allows one to be wealthy.
Don't believe me?
Take away a function of government, and see how much it damages the wealthy.
That includes things like all social services (unemployment, health care, retirement, etc..) that you mistakenly assume benefit the lazy, but actually exist because it benefits the wealthy.
Really, the precious snowflake libertarians exist because they are ignorant of the overall system. It is amusing when we liberal statists watch these precious snowflake libertarians talk about their rights and freedoms and other dumb retarded shit we feed them to work harder, when we know exactly why they are mistaken and laugh at them.
These idiots actually think the money they earned is because of their hard work. LOL.
They have no idea about the Matrix we liberal statists built for them.
You're welcome.
The tea-party libertarians don't exactly refute the narcissistic, psychopathic, sadistic stereotype.
Just this week, Republican tea-party libertarian precious snowflake Senator Ted Cruz single-handedly almost caused the US to default on its debt:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
An action like that would have caused great harm to many Americans, whom he has no empathy for.
That's exactly narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic.
Really libertarians, if you don't want to be considered narcissistic, psychopathic, and sadistic, you'll have to behave in socialized ways that would show empathy towards your fellow citizens. That means it will cost you. You will have to pay a personal price to maintain socialization, since socialization is a personal expense.
In political structured form, we call this "taxes".
This is why we statists call you libertarians "precious snowflakes", because your narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism causes you to desocialize and make the mistaken assumption that society values you. The rest of society, the people with power over you, hardly cares about people that do not show empathy towards others, since people are territorial, and we have no interest in allowing you to live in our territory for free.
You have to pay those in power to live. Life isn't free, and it isn't about you.
Decide how you will pay us statist to allow you to live in our state.
Apple at least doesn't try to give you the illusion of openness. They make it very clear you're dealing with Apple's overall direction, which makes the system simpler to deal with - you know exactly what's going on, and you know that Apple sells systems, not subtly advertisement-driven operating systems like Google.
It's far easier to deal with something you understand than with something that's trying to hide its motives.
Those with power get to do whatever they want to those with less power.
It is how life works.
In life, you actually CAN'T do what you want. You can only do what those in power allow you to do.
This is a basic fact-of-life that libertarians do not comprehend. They mistakenly assume life comes for free, because they were mistakenly taught that way. They do not know about the real power structure in society, that they are of limited power, and that those in power have no interest in giving away their powers.
The most useful takeaway from this for libertarians is to understand that, no, you are not a precious snowflake. There are powers greater than you. You are worthless scum, and your only hope in life is to attach yourself to those of greater power.
We big-government socialists understand that. We know that, hey, individuals are insignificant, that corporations are powerful, and that government is most powerful. We therefore use the powers of government to fight against corporations. That is why we get free shit like healthcare and other government stuff.
I would encourage you to think how this structure applies to your privacy rights. Corporations want to eliminate your privacy for the purposes of profit. Your only hope to fight against that is to consider how government can protect you.
You already saw how government protects you through the Snowden disclosures, where the NSA actually has filters to protect US citizens' privacy. (because fuck foreigners).
If the government wasn't interested in your privacy rights, why would they have a classified system designed to protect and filter your private data in the first place? "huuurrr durrr but NSA is scary hurrr!"
So, get over yourselves and your precious snowflakeness, and quickly figure out how you use government to your advantage, because you're worthless on your own.