Once any of the US stealth aircraft were made public any group of good engineers and scientists could use pictures and the published performance details to deduce the geometry, exhaust configuration, and some good ideas about how to duplicate the paint and surface radar absorbing materials. What they can't see is the integrated computer technology that controls the flight controls, weapon systems,comm systems, electronic radar counter measures, and targeting systems. Its the combination of those systems that really makes the plane deadly. However, investment in stealth technology has always been risky because you could spend billions of dollars on the technology and someone could probably create a counter measure for a fraction of the cost if they are aware you possess the capablility in the first place. Today everybody knows the US has stealth capability but in 1991 the F-117 must have been a real eye opener for military strategists across the world.
When I said SCO had a weak case I was speaking as an IT professional with 10+ years of development experience working with the Unix source code involved in the case. The cases coming up today are mainly in the smart phone industry. This includes patent challenges to the hardware, software, and the ever popular and nebulous patented system designs and methodologies. MS, Goggle, Motorola, AT&T, CISCO, Oracle, and Apple have all been challenged in some capacity. These cases are in areas where cross licensing was either turned down or not even offered. I have no doubt the big companies will compromise with each other after the initial posturing phase is over with. The real threat to both the big corporations down to the individual developers are the patent holding firms looking for a quick buck. Even if 90% of their patent holdings are proven to be BS the remaining 10% that are upheld spells trouble. These companies wouldn't be playing this game if there wasn't a pretty good chance to make money in the first place. I doubt they entered this arena without first consulting with knowledgeable technical and legal resources who can understand and assess both the technical and legal pros and cons of a particular patent.
I am not saying the risks are any greater know then they were 2 or 3 years ago I am saying the patent lawsuits and counter claims have started to gain momentum. SCO had a weak case from the beginning and the courts clearly recognized that. There are claims being filed know that are just as dubious but what happens when Google loses their fight with with Oracle. What happens when the patent holding companies, companies with no stake in implementing the patented technology, begin getting favorable rulings? Most of the big companies have signed cross licensing agreements over the past couple of years in an effort to avoid legal entanglements and expense but that will be no protection against the patent factories. I don't suggest people stop using whatever they are using I just pointing out the increasing complexity and absurdity of the entire process.
Why would it impede implementation? Android and the underlying Linux code has already attracted the attention of companies looking to make a fast buck by claiming patent or licensing violations by their competitors. When a corporation commits to using a certain technology they are potentially putting themselves at risk, especially if there are companies and individuals making patent claims against any of the technology they are using. Even if the claims are BS the company would still have to spend the money to fight back against the claims. If someone was to come up with a totally new OS and app stack that is not dependent in any current source code you could set a new baseline for determining prior work claims and patent violations. Sort of like starting over again and doing it right this time in regards to openess.
I have never had a hard time challenging charges on any of my credit cards. It's only happened a few times but the CC company voided the charges and issued me a new card within 2 days. I think my bank also provides protection against online related fraud.
It might serve as a quick way to develop and present new prototypes in the early stages of the development cycle. The actual tools used in the development would of course take over any functionality in the prototype.
This was already a complicated issue to explain to even those knowledgable with FOSS with all the differing licenses and requirements but now that the corporate lawyers from every major tech company in the world has gotten involved things will come to a standstill with everyone afraid of potential lawsuits for any new development or implementation utilizing FOSS as the starting point. The only positive thing I can see is if someone might be pressed to develop an entirely new framework (OS, DB, and development tools) that is not evolved from any exisiting work products. I know it's practically impossible but there might be someone with the brains to pull it off.
I am going try and not be rude or condescending but your idealism and fanciful wishes do not lend themselves to reality.
"No, but it will create less of a mess than replacing justice with vengeance"
Like I clearly stated you will never find a situation where everyone agrees on what is justice and what is vengeance. The people who have lost someone close to them in a terrorist attack are likely to have a different definition of justice then those who have not been personnally effected by the violence.
"Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay. People can be imprisoned for a long time without a formal charge, let alone a fair trial. The principle that people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law is the very basis of the modern rule of law."
The Patriot Act and Guatanemo has not taken away any legal protections from US citizens. Those measures provide a framework for handling non-US citizens engaged in hostile actions against the US and it's allies. The people in Guatanemo were collected in other countries and are classified as enemy combatants not criminals and they have released a lot of the people who were kept there. They have tried to release others only to find out that no country is willing to accept them. The US could have legally executed a lot of these people using the Vienna Conventions which allow execution of those detained on the battlefield that are not displaying marks identifying them as participants in the ongoing battle. . When this rule was written it's main target was spys. The terrorists also violate the rules regarding the involvement of civilians and civilian structures such as hospitals, schools, and mosques for military purposes. People have been trying to use the Vienna Conventions to critizize the military efforts targeting terrorist groups and non-state actors but they like to cherry pick only those laws that support their position and ignore the laws that do not support their position. And if you are referring to Manning he is being held in pre-trial detention which is legal in both civilian and military justice systems. He still has the right to a fair trial and legal representation. The Military justice system is a little different from the civilian justice system but those who join the military know that upfront before voluntarily commiting themselves to the military rules and regulations. Manning knew full well the consequences of his actions and is lucky he hasn't been charged with more serious offences such as treason which allows for execution for punishment. I personally don't believe he should be charged with treason. I also don't believe he deserves some draconian 50 year prison sentence either but he does deserve some jail time if convicted.
"Of course not. Arrest them and try them in court. Don't murder them right back. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Those taken into custody in the US do have civilian trials and the same legal protections as anyone else. How would you arrest and try terrorists from all over the globe? Your talkng about literally thousands if not millions of arrests and trials under a multitude of jurisdictions. The attempt to enact this type of policy is pure folly. It's like saying the US should have arrested the Germans instead of fighting them in WW2. If the US government wanted to operate under an eye for an eye manner they would be targeting civilians on purpose like the terrorists do. Hell the military has JAG officers on the front lines to review battle plans to test the legality of the action.
"Like Tunesia, Egypt and Libya?" Yes their leaders are responsible for the acts commited in the name of their government. Of course all those who supported these leaders actions also share some responsibility for the outcome.
"I'm not sure who exactly you mean by "the real palestinian leaders". There are a lot of different factions among Palestinians, some of which try to direct the anger and unrest about Israelian atrocities into action against Israel, others are striving for peace against all odds, and certainly some of them are mer
Under paying the workers to helps maintain cheaper exports which the Chinese depend on. It's the cost that allows them to attract more customers because they sure as hell don't rely on quality. Countries outsource to China because it is cheaper than using domestic workers.
I have also seen things like admin accounts being used by a group of people. Especially developers. The worst is when the developer hard codes the DB sign in information in the app config file they are working on and sometimes forgetting to remove the hard coded account when the app leaves the development department.
Yea whats the penalty for breaking this rule? It's like how the US actually declare suicide against the law. Why pass a law that when broken has no chance of ever being adjudicated.
Over the past 23 years I have also seen how large corporations manage their IT departments and I have seen quite a few competent IT managers that have actual development experience in their backgrounds. I have also not seen any evidence of kickbacks from vendors being SOP as you stated. Contrary to popular belief there are some corporations that do support and manage their IT departments policy, intelligent hiring practices, and well thought out procedures. Trying to reconcile the IT data handling requirements with the business data requirements can be difficult. Just like the parent in this thread said it can be a fine line between securing data while also providing access.
Justice is malleable and based totally on the circumstances. Trying to adhere to an idealized universal definition of justice will never leave everyone satisifed. This is the 3rd time this week I have seen someone state that basic civil rights have been suspended. Can you give me an example of this terrible situation? So we should just ignore people who commit random murder in job lots because it might advertise their existence and help recruiting? Sort of just close your eyes and hope it all just goes away? A Nations actions are initiated by it's leaders. The real palestinian leaders, the ones holed up in their villas in Syria and Lebanon know that if they cross a line Israel would have no problem eliminating them. Their only defense is propaganda and sadly people are falling for it instead of doing independent research themselves and really looking at the facts. You might still feel the same way after but you may not either. Besides the palestinian leaders make a ton of money running waepons and black market goods that they high jack from International donor shipments into the "occupied territories". Israel is in the spot they are in because they didn't roll over and die when 5 Arab armies evacuated the "palestinian" territory and then attacked the Jews in 1948. The Arabs lost. The Arabs re-armed and gave it another shot in 1967 and not only got beat but lost territory to the defending army. Next time you look at a map check out the size of Israel. Any competent military commander would want to enlarge the area between itself and it's enemies and that is what Israel did. They took another shot in 1973 and caught the Israelis off guard and had the best chance to win and still lost because of incompetent military commanders. The Arabs had the latest Russian SAMs, wire guided anti-tank weapons, and night vision gear for their tanks and infantry and they still lost. That is the humiliation that drives thier hatred not any land issue. Egypt signed a psuedo peace treaty and Israel returned the Sinai to them. That could have been a start of peace but the Egytption leader was assinated for trying to make peace. It just happens that those responsible for that assisination morphed in to the Muslim Brotherhood after being inprisoned in Egypt by the Egyptions themselves but somehow their brutal treatment by fellow Arabs needs to be taken out on the Jews.
Terrorism works because it only took about 24 hours for people to start blaming the US for 9/11 instead of the people who actually did it. That one example, all though their are a lot of others have vendicated those committing terroristic acts. There used to be a pretty standard procedure for dealing with terrorists and that was no negotiating. No matter what the cost never give in to terrorist threats or you will just be inviting more in the future. Just like the first time you pay ransom for someone kidnapped you have opened the door for more kidnappings in the future. Too many people lend credibility to those commiting terrorist actions. A prime example is any time the US or Israel is attacked you will not find it hard to find plenty of people saying they deserved it. People will justify anything today if it supports their way of thinking. So if you already hate someone and someone attacks them then your beliefs have been supported. The evolution of humanity is the best example of applied force using violence. Only the strongest survive.
I don't consider Israel a pariah at all. Their enemies have spent 45+ years spouting lies and BS that even good meaning people of today do not know the real facts. I am not arguing that Israel is always right by any means but until their antagonists are ready to admit their cupalbility to the conflict the situation will stay the same. And people have been predicting the fall of the US for 200+ years so I doubt I will lose any sleep over this issue. As long as everything stays OK for about 60 more years I will be content.
This entire thread has been about US citizens supposedly losing their "rights". This theory was supported by arguing the government can take any information they want at any time and use it against you. My reply was that this is a false accusation that can not be supported once you look at the law and the protections you have under the law. Your last response does not enter into this discussion in any way and I should probably have ignored you from the start.
Hunting down and killing people like him is a demonstration of intent, capability, and dedication. The whole point of the US response post 9/11 has been to generate a level of fear and uncertainty in those who encourage or participate in actions against the US. Ditto for Guatanemo. You can't stop all terrorist attacks no matter how many security precautions you put in place. Eventually someone will succeed. But you can make a lasting impression on those thinking about participating in a terrorist attack. You know why the Arabs make only half assed attacks against Israel? It's not because they can't get the necessary weapons it's because they are scared shitless of Israel's army and intelligence agencies. It's their fear combined with their humilation of getting their assess handed to them whenever they have started a standup fight with Israel and not Palestinian land issues that drive their foaming at the mouth radicalization. Where did this fear come from? The Jews have always had long memories and have chased Nazi's all over the world for 40 years. When their olympic athletes were murdered Israel took years to hunt down and kill anyone who was involved with that action while simulataneously warning other countries to shut up and stay out of it. Israel doesn't need to get anyones "permission" to take out their enemies.The much vaunted "international community" couldn't find a set of balls at a NBA all-star game let alone actually do anything to stop Israel or the US for that matter. On the flip side no one has every really feared the Americans. People think Americans are soft and weak with no stomach for violent retaliations that might make them look bad. Look at how the US restrained themselves from marching on Baghdad to take out Saadam in the first Iraq war because the "international community" might get upset. Also remember that the American's toughest battle in the first Iraq war was keeping Israel from retaliating after Iraq started throwing SCUDS into Israel. Think of all the trouble that could have been averted had the US told the "international community" to get bent and proceeded to downtown Baghdad. Some times an example needs to be made. The application of violence has always been the most effective means of making a point and there has not been a single world changing event of any consequence that was not settled using violence of some sort. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
Perserving your "freedoms"? Are you suggesting a new addition to the Bill of Rights? Also remember the patent holders (those who actually might implement the patented technology, not just patent holding companies) face a big risk every time they force an patent conflict into court. A company invoking their patent rights always has to worry about the patent being shot down when put under scrutiny.
Once again because there is nothing to get. Your innuendos,weak equivocations, and unwillingness to confront reality leaves your arguments meaningless. If you "get it" why can't you prove it?
Maybe it's because there is nothing to get? This whole thread has been about US citizens losing their rights. I asked for some examples of this horrible situation and have got nothing but people trying to justify their opinion with 100% BS. Trying to get information when investigating a crime is not taking your rights. If the information is offered up freely what is the problem? If the information is not offered up freely the person being asked for the information can seek redress from the courts which is exactly what happens. People have been acquitted of charges when the the judicial system overrides the enforcement agencies when it is determined that the information was obtained by violating the well defined legal standards.
So the government or other law enforcement agencies cannot even ask for information up front when investigating a crime? I suggest you take some remedial courses in how to use your brain.
Yes, In some cases the government or other law enforcement agencies can just ask for the information. However, the entity can challenge that request and fight it in court. 3rd parties can also challenge the request in court. The phone companies who provided data to the government recieved critisism because they did not challenge the request and kept it secret which prevented any one else from challenging the request. The US has a sepration of powers and one thing that allows is for the courts to get the final say on whether information can be obtained or used in prosecuting someone accused of breaking the law. This whole thread was about people supposedly losing their "freedoms" and I still don't see any evidence to support this.
Retrieving information from any Internet provider still requires a warrant. The US government has demonstrated this in their efforts to retrieve data on 3 particular users associated with Wiki-leaks. Even then they only petitioned for a limited amount of information on the accounts but not the content of any messages sent or received by these users. The users are appealing the decision. This doesn't look like any "spying" I am familiar with. Spying usually denotes some secrecy and these requests are out in the open.
Slashdot Mirror
Just making the tools that make the tools that finally make the widget is daunting.
Once any of the US stealth aircraft were made public any group of good engineers and scientists could use pictures and the published performance details to deduce the geometry, exhaust configuration, and some good ideas about how to duplicate the paint and surface radar absorbing materials. What they can't see is the integrated computer technology that controls the flight controls, weapon systems,comm systems, electronic radar counter measures, and targeting systems. Its the combination of those systems that really makes the plane deadly. However, investment in stealth technology has always been risky because you could spend billions of dollars on the technology and someone could probably create a counter measure for a fraction of the cost if they are aware you possess the capablility in the first place. Today everybody knows the US has stealth capability but in 1991 the F-117 must have been a real eye opener for military strategists across the world.
When I said SCO had a weak case I was speaking as an IT professional with 10+ years of development experience working with the Unix source code involved in the case. The cases coming up today are mainly in the smart phone industry. This includes patent challenges to the hardware, software, and the ever popular and nebulous patented system designs and methodologies. MS, Goggle, Motorola, AT&T, CISCO, Oracle, and Apple have all been challenged in some capacity. These cases are in areas where cross licensing was either turned down or not even offered. I have no doubt the big companies will compromise with each other after the initial posturing phase is over with. The real threat to both the big corporations down to the individual developers are the patent holding firms looking for a quick buck. Even if 90% of their patent holdings are proven to be BS the remaining 10% that are upheld spells trouble. These companies wouldn't be playing this game if there wasn't a pretty good chance to make money in the first place. I doubt they entered this arena without first consulting with knowledgeable technical and legal resources who can understand and assess both the technical and legal pros and cons of a particular patent.
I am not saying the risks are any greater know then they were 2 or 3 years ago I am saying the patent lawsuits and counter claims have started to gain momentum. SCO had a weak case from the beginning and the courts clearly recognized that. There are claims being filed know that are just as dubious but what happens when Google loses their fight with with Oracle. What happens when the patent holding companies, companies with no stake in implementing the patented technology, begin getting favorable rulings? Most of the big companies have signed cross licensing agreements over the past couple of years in an effort to avoid legal entanglements and expense but that will be no protection against the patent factories. I don't suggest people stop using whatever they are using I just pointing out the increasing complexity and absurdity of the entire process.
Why would it impede implementation? Android and the underlying Linux code has already attracted the attention of companies looking to make a fast buck by claiming patent or licensing violations by their competitors. When a corporation commits to using a certain technology they are potentially putting themselves at risk, especially if there are companies and individuals making patent claims against any of the technology they are using. Even if the claims are BS the company would still have to spend the money to fight back against the claims. If someone was to come up with a totally new OS and app stack that is not dependent in any current source code you could set a new baseline for determining prior work claims and patent violations. Sort of like starting over again and doing it right this time in regards to openess.
I have never had a hard time challenging charges on any of my credit cards. It's only happened a few times but the CC company voided the charges and issued me a new card within 2 days. I think my bank also provides protection against online related fraud.
Wouldn't this make the elephants sticky?
It might serve as a quick way to develop and present new prototypes in the early stages of the development cycle. The actual tools used in the development would of course take over any functionality in the prototype.
This was already a complicated issue to explain to even those knowledgable with FOSS with all the differing licenses and requirements but now that the corporate lawyers from every major tech company in the world has gotten involved things will come to a standstill with everyone afraid of potential lawsuits for any new development or implementation utilizing FOSS as the starting point. The only positive thing I can see is if someone might be pressed to develop an entirely new framework (OS, DB, and development tools) that is not evolved from any exisiting work products. I know it's practically impossible but there might be someone with the brains to pull it off.
I am going try and not be rude or condescending but your idealism and fanciful wishes do not lend themselves to reality. "No, but it will create less of a mess than replacing justice with vengeance" Like I clearly stated you will never find a situation where everyone agrees on what is justice and what is vengeance. The people who have lost someone close to them in a terrorist attack are likely to have a different definition of justice then those who have not been personnally effected by the violence. "Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay. People can be imprisoned for a long time without a formal charge, let alone a fair trial. The principle that people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law is the very basis of the modern rule of law." The Patriot Act and Guatanemo has not taken away any legal protections from US citizens. Those measures provide a framework for handling non-US citizens engaged in hostile actions against the US and it's allies. The people in Guatanemo were collected in other countries and are classified as enemy combatants not criminals and they have released a lot of the people who were kept there. They have tried to release others only to find out that no country is willing to accept them. The US could have legally executed a lot of these people using the Vienna Conventions which allow execution of those detained on the battlefield that are not displaying marks identifying them as participants in the ongoing battle. . When this rule was written it's main target was spys. The terrorists also violate the rules regarding the involvement of civilians and civilian structures such as hospitals, schools, and mosques for military purposes. People have been trying to use the Vienna Conventions to critizize the military efforts targeting terrorist groups and non-state actors but they like to cherry pick only those laws that support their position and ignore the laws that do not support their position. And if you are referring to Manning he is being held in pre-trial detention which is legal in both civilian and military justice systems. He still has the right to a fair trial and legal representation. The Military justice system is a little different from the civilian justice system but those who join the military know that upfront before voluntarily commiting themselves to the military rules and regulations. Manning knew full well the consequences of his actions and is lucky he hasn't been charged with more serious offences such as treason which allows for execution for punishment. I personally don't believe he should be charged with treason. I also don't believe he deserves some draconian 50 year prison sentence either but he does deserve some jail time if convicted. "Of course not. Arrest them and try them in court. Don't murder them right back. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Those taken into custody in the US do have civilian trials and the same legal protections as anyone else. How would you arrest and try terrorists from all over the globe? Your talkng about literally thousands if not millions of arrests and trials under a multitude of jurisdictions. The attempt to enact this type of policy is pure folly. It's like saying the US should have arrested the Germans instead of fighting them in WW2. If the US government wanted to operate under an eye for an eye manner they would be targeting civilians on purpose like the terrorists do. Hell the military has JAG officers on the front lines to review battle plans to test the legality of the action. "Like Tunesia, Egypt and Libya?" Yes their leaders are responsible for the acts commited in the name of their government. Of course all those who supported these leaders actions also share some responsibility for the outcome. "I'm not sure who exactly you mean by "the real palestinian leaders". There are a lot of different factions among Palestinians, some of which try to direct the anger and unrest about Israelian atrocities into action against Israel, others are striving for peace against all odds, and certainly some of them are mer
Under paying the workers to helps maintain cheaper exports which the Chinese depend on. It's the cost that allows them to attract more customers because they sure as hell don't rely on quality. Countries outsource to China because it is cheaper than using domestic workers.
I have also seen things like admin accounts being used by a group of people. Especially developers. The worst is when the developer hard codes the DB sign in information in the app config file they are working on and sometimes forgetting to remove the hard coded account when the app leaves the development department.
Yea whats the penalty for breaking this rule? It's like how the US actually declare suicide against the law. Why pass a law that when broken has no chance of ever being adjudicated.
Over the past 23 years I have also seen how large corporations manage their IT departments and I have seen quite a few competent IT managers that have actual development experience in their backgrounds. I have also not seen any evidence of kickbacks from vendors being SOP as you stated. Contrary to popular belief there are some corporations that do support and manage their IT departments policy, intelligent hiring practices, and well thought out procedures. Trying to reconcile the IT data handling requirements with the business data requirements can be difficult. Just like the parent in this thread said it can be a fine line between securing data while also providing access.
Justice is malleable and based totally on the circumstances. Trying to adhere to an idealized universal definition of justice will never leave everyone satisifed. This is the 3rd time this week I have seen someone state that basic civil rights have been suspended. Can you give me an example of this terrible situation? So we should just ignore people who commit random murder in job lots because it might advertise their existence and help recruiting? Sort of just close your eyes and hope it all just goes away? A Nations actions are initiated by it's leaders. The real palestinian leaders, the ones holed up in their villas in Syria and Lebanon know that if they cross a line Israel would have no problem eliminating them. Their only defense is propaganda and sadly people are falling for it instead of doing independent research themselves and really looking at the facts. You might still feel the same way after but you may not either. Besides the palestinian leaders make a ton of money running waepons and black market goods that they high jack from International donor shipments into the "occupied territories". Israel is in the spot they are in because they didn't roll over and die when 5 Arab armies evacuated the "palestinian" territory and then attacked the Jews in 1948. The Arabs lost. The Arabs re-armed and gave it another shot in 1967 and not only got beat but lost territory to the defending army. Next time you look at a map check out the size of Israel. Any competent military commander would want to enlarge the area between itself and it's enemies and that is what Israel did. They took another shot in 1973 and caught the Israelis off guard and had the best chance to win and still lost because of incompetent military commanders. The Arabs had the latest Russian SAMs, wire guided anti-tank weapons, and night vision gear for their tanks and infantry and they still lost. That is the humiliation that drives thier hatred not any land issue. Egypt signed a psuedo peace treaty and Israel returned the Sinai to them. That could have been a start of peace but the Egytption leader was assinated for trying to make peace. It just happens that those responsible for that assisination morphed in to the Muslim Brotherhood after being inprisoned in Egypt by the Egyptions themselves but somehow their brutal treatment by fellow Arabs needs to be taken out on the Jews.
Terrorism works because it only took about 24 hours for people to start blaming the US for 9/11 instead of the people who actually did it. That one example, all though their are a lot of others have vendicated those committing terroristic acts. There used to be a pretty standard procedure for dealing with terrorists and that was no negotiating. No matter what the cost never give in to terrorist threats or you will just be inviting more in the future. Just like the first time you pay ransom for someone kidnapped you have opened the door for more kidnappings in the future. Too many people lend credibility to those commiting terrorist actions. A prime example is any time the US or Israel is attacked you will not find it hard to find plenty of people saying they deserved it. People will justify anything today if it supports their way of thinking. So if you already hate someone and someone attacks them then your beliefs have been supported. The evolution of humanity is the best example of applied force using violence. Only the strongest survive. I don't consider Israel a pariah at all. Their enemies have spent 45+ years spouting lies and BS that even good meaning people of today do not know the real facts. I am not arguing that Israel is always right by any means but until their antagonists are ready to admit their cupalbility to the conflict the situation will stay the same. And people have been predicting the fall of the US for 200+ years so I doubt I will lose any sleep over this issue. As long as everything stays OK for about 60 more years I will be content.
This entire thread has been about US citizens supposedly losing their "rights". This theory was supported by arguing the government can take any information they want at any time and use it against you. My reply was that this is a false accusation that can not be supported once you look at the law and the protections you have under the law. Your last response does not enter into this discussion in any way and I should probably have ignored you from the start.
Hunting down and killing people like him is a demonstration of intent, capability, and dedication. The whole point of the US response post 9/11 has been to generate a level of fear and uncertainty in those who encourage or participate in actions against the US. Ditto for Guatanemo. You can't stop all terrorist attacks no matter how many security precautions you put in place. Eventually someone will succeed. But you can make a lasting impression on those thinking about participating in a terrorist attack. You know why the Arabs make only half assed attacks against Israel? It's not because they can't get the necessary weapons it's because they are scared shitless of Israel's army and intelligence agencies. It's their fear combined with their humilation of getting their assess handed to them whenever they have started a standup fight with Israel and not Palestinian land issues that drive their foaming at the mouth radicalization. Where did this fear come from? The Jews have always had long memories and have chased Nazi's all over the world for 40 years. When their olympic athletes were murdered Israel took years to hunt down and kill anyone who was involved with that action while simulataneously warning other countries to shut up and stay out of it. Israel doesn't need to get anyones "permission" to take out their enemies.The much vaunted "international community" couldn't find a set of balls at a NBA all-star game let alone actually do anything to stop Israel or the US for that matter. On the flip side no one has every really feared the Americans. People think Americans are soft and weak with no stomach for violent retaliations that might make them look bad. Look at how the US restrained themselves from marching on Baghdad to take out Saadam in the first Iraq war because the "international community" might get upset. Also remember that the American's toughest battle in the first Iraq war was keeping Israel from retaliating after Iraq started throwing SCUDS into Israel. Think of all the trouble that could have been averted had the US told the "international community" to get bent and proceeded to downtown Baghdad. Some times an example needs to be made. The application of violence has always been the most effective means of making a point and there has not been a single world changing event of any consequence that was not settled using violence of some sort. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
Perserving your "freedoms"? Are you suggesting a new addition to the Bill of Rights? Also remember the patent holders (those who actually might implement the patented technology, not just patent holding companies) face a big risk every time they force an patent conflict into court. A company invoking their patent rights always has to worry about the patent being shot down when put under scrutiny.
Once again because there is nothing to get. Your innuendos,weak equivocations, and unwillingness to confront reality leaves your arguments meaningless. If you "get it" why can't you prove it?
Can't digest any factual information that discredits your built-in bias Huh ?
Maybe it's because there is nothing to get? This whole thread has been about US citizens losing their rights. I asked for some examples of this horrible situation and have got nothing but people trying to justify their opinion with 100% BS. Trying to get information when investigating a crime is not taking your rights. If the information is offered up freely what is the problem? If the information is not offered up freely the person being asked for the information can seek redress from the courts which is exactly what happens. People have been acquitted of charges when the the judicial system overrides the enforcement agencies when it is determined that the information was obtained by violating the well defined legal standards.
So the government or other law enforcement agencies cannot even ask for information up front when investigating a crime? I suggest you take some remedial courses in how to use your brain.
Yes, In some cases the government or other law enforcement agencies can just ask for the information. However, the entity can challenge that request and fight it in court. 3rd parties can also challenge the request in court. The phone companies who provided data to the government recieved critisism because they did not challenge the request and kept it secret which prevented any one else from challenging the request. The US has a sepration of powers and one thing that allows is for the courts to get the final say on whether information can be obtained or used in prosecuting someone accused of breaking the law. This whole thread was about people supposedly losing their "freedoms" and I still don't see any evidence to support this.
Retrieving information from any Internet provider still requires a warrant. The US government has demonstrated this in their efforts to retrieve data on 3 particular users associated with Wiki-leaks. Even then they only petitioned for a limited amount of information on the accounts but not the content of any messages sent or received by these users. The users are appealing the decision. This doesn't look like any "spying" I am familiar with. Spying usually denotes some secrecy and these requests are out in the open.