The problem is... even if we accept the current administration is entirely virtuous (despite all indications to the contrary) and are not using the data in inappropriate ways, we have no guarantee that the next administration will be equally virtuous or the one after that.
Ultimately, if we the people allow the government the power to know everything about our daily activities, the inevitable eventual outcome is a totalitarian police state.
As for you're statement that "Western spying is subject to a tremendous amount of oversight by the right people"... that is clearly false... without truthful testimony to Congress, congressional oversight is meaningless.
And the President is supposed to act as a check on Congress and to defend the Constitution NOT to keep Americans "safe"!
So nobody is doing their damn job except the watchers....
It may be that that would be the best thing for the rest of us... it would certainly illustrate the scope of the problem of governmental overreach to the NSA apologists and defenders of the "sacrifice anything in the name of safety" mindset.
Correct... the only difference being the level of culpability of the actor...
All of the following situations are accidents resulting in death...
you trip at a crosswalk and knock someone in front of a bus... accidental death
you get into a scuffle and knock down your adversary who hits his head and dies... manslaughter
you get behind the wheel drunk off your ass and mow down an old lady crossing the street... negligent homicide
You rob a convenience store and the old man behind the counter has a heart attack and dies... first degree murder (in many jurisdictions)
in none of these cases did you intend for anybody to die, but they did (that's the "accident" part), but in each case there is an escalating level of criminal culpability associated with your actions contributing to the fatal outcome.
not to mention inaccurate... an accident is never without fault and to suggest that it is is asinine.
an accident is something that occurs without intent therefore every collision that isn't a deliberate act is an accident.
the fact that it wasn't intentional doesn't absolve the actor from responsibility for their actions.
The elimination of the right to not incriminate yourself doesn't just apply to the crime you are currently accused of but to anything you may have done
The prosecutors only goal is to get convictions, by hook or by crook, he's just as happy if he can get you on an unrelated charge or use an unrelated charge as leverage in a plea bargain.
Here's a scenario...
Three weeks ago you uncharacteristically stopped for a beer after work, drank too much and drove home.
When you got there you realized you were definitely over the legal limit and realizing how lucky you were
that nothing bad happened vowed to never to do that again .
Today you're on trial for stealing a car (you didn't do it!)
The prosecutor asks if you ever committed a crime( it's relevant). You're under oath, so since you have to answer, you say that you have.
The prosecutor asks you what crime (still relevant). You admit to driving drunk. He asks when( still relevant). you answer 3 weeks ago.
Depending on the jurisdiction you've just confessed to a felony in open court. You are subsequently acquitted of the GTA charge and convicted of the DWI and go to jail.
Since you aren't a habitual drunk driver and no one was harmed on the single occasion of your lapse in judgement,
it seems pretty obvious that you (and society) are harmed by your incarceration and no benefit accrues to anyone
except the prosecutor (+1 convictions).
If that doesn't illustrate the benefit to society of the protections against self incrimination to you then nothing will.
I think that very few people disagree that climate change is happening. The only real question, for most people, is whether or not it's caused by humanity, the reason being, if we caused it we can stop it. I say that is hubris. Thinking we did it without conclusive proof is hubris and thinking we can fix it if we didn't cause it is really hubris.
In addition... a massive die off of humanity could only improve the species. I guess that makes me some variety of asshole.
from the article "published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity.
"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.
So looking at the numbers 11994 papers reviewed of which 4000 took a stance on the cause of global warming of which 97.1% agreed it was anthropocentric.
Do the math.... { 97.1% of ((4000-83)/11994) } = 31.7% ... that's pretty low for overwhelming scientific consensus in my book!!!
Also from the article "Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October."... so by the very numbers presented in the article a higher percentage of Americans believe that AGW is real (42 % vs. 31.7% ) than the percentage of scientific papers reviewed in the "meta-study"... seems the AGW propaganda machine is working...
Actually what the post says is "an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. "
So my question would be...what percentage of all articles took a stance on the cause of global warming? If the percentage of articles that took a stance on the cause of global warming is less than 100% then the 97.1% statistic is misleading... exactly how misleading is determined by the actual percentage of published articles that didn't take any stand.
eg: if 50% of published articles took no stand then the actual number of agree-ers is 48.5%...
So... I will go on believing that the cause of current climate change is not primarily anthropocentric until someone without a political agenda, can provide me with a model of climate change that takes all contributing factors into account, not just the easily measured ones.
Hello?... because "almost as fast" = "slower"... resulting in a net increase, duh!. Plus "burning it" isn't the only way that C02 is increased it's also increased by air burners breathing in and out... so stop it!!
Are you being deliberately dim? You are paying for a new phone whether you get one or not because the plans offered cost the same whether or not you bring your own device. I can attest from personal experience with Sprint... even if you bring your own device they still won't give you a new line without a 2 year service contract that costs exactly the same as it does if you get one of their "free" or "low cost" phones..
it is in your normal field of vision... it just doesn't overlay your entire field of view... you don't move your head to look at it... therefore it's a HUD. And i believe i suggested this or similar tech... imagine what Samsung will be doing with flexible see-thru displays in a couple of years.
The original implementation of transformational tech isn't always (in fact is hardly ever ) the product that has economic success.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, if we the people allow the government the power to know everything about our daily activities, the inevitable eventual outcome is a totalitarian police state.
As for you're statement that "Western spying is subject to a tremendous amount of oversight by the right people" ... that is clearly false ... without truthful testimony to Congress, congressional oversight is meaningless.
And the President is supposed to act as a check on Congress and to defend the Constitution NOT to keep Americans "safe"! So nobody is doing their damn job except the watchers ....
Are you suggesting that since our anal orifice is already stretched we should just roll over and get out the Vaseline(Tm) ?
he said the "Tea Party thugs" ... by which i infer he means the thugs that later formed the Tea Party ...
It may be that that would be the best thing for the rest of us ... it would certainly illustrate the scope of the problem of governmental overreach to the NSA apologists and defenders of the "sacrifice anything in the name of safety" mindset.
All of the following situations are accidents resulting in death ...
you trip at a crosswalk and knock someone in front of a bus ... accidental death
you get into a scuffle and knock down your adversary who hits his head and dies ... manslaughter
you get behind the wheel drunk off your ass and mow down an old lady crossing the street ... negligent homicide
You rob a convenience store and the old man behind the counter has a heart attack and dies ... first degree murder (in many jurisdictions)
in none of these cases did you intend for anybody to die, but they did (that's the "accident" part), but in each case there is an escalating level of criminal culpability associated with your actions contributing to the fatal outcome.
not to mention inaccurate ... an accident is never without fault and to suggest that it is is asinine.
an accident is something that occurs without intent therefore every collision that isn't a deliberate act is an accident.
the fact that it wasn't intentional doesn't absolve the actor from responsibility for their actions.
i love that ... only way it could be better is if it were also dipped in chocolate!
A simple majority and their ideals are screwed over in the name of "safety". We are so fucked!
Here's a scenario... Three weeks ago you uncharacteristically stopped for a beer after work, drank too much and drove home. When you got there you realized you were definitely over the legal limit and realizing how lucky you were that nothing bad happened vowed to never to do that again .
Today you're on trial for stealing a car (you didn't do it!) The prosecutor asks if you ever committed a crime( it's relevant). You're under oath, so since you have to answer, you say that you have. The prosecutor asks you what crime (still relevant). You admit to driving drunk. He asks when( still relevant). you answer 3 weeks ago. Depending on the jurisdiction you've just confessed to a felony in open court. You are subsequently acquitted of the GTA charge and convicted of the DWI and go to jail.
Since you aren't a habitual drunk driver and no one was harmed on the single occasion of your lapse in judgement, it seems pretty obvious that you (and society) are harmed by your incarceration and no benefit accrues to anyone except the prosecutor (+1 convictions).
If that doesn't illustrate the benefit to society of the protections against self incrimination to you then nothing will.
C'mon everyone killer robots are a great idea ... Remember ED-209 ?
True ... rocket science is easier.
+1 - wish i had mod points.
I think that very few people disagree that climate change is happening. The only real question, for most people, is whether or not it's caused by humanity, the reason being, if we caused it we can stop it. I say that is hubris. Thinking we did it without conclusive proof is hubris and thinking we can fix it if we didn't cause it is really hubris. In addition ... a massive die off of humanity could only improve the species. I guess that makes me some variety of asshole.
So looking at the numbers 11994 papers reviewed of which 4000 took a stance on the cause of global warming of which 97.1% agreed it was anthropocentric. Do the math .... { 97.1% of ((4000-83)/11994) } = 31.7% ... that's pretty low for overwhelming scientific consensus in my book!!!
Also from the article "Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October." ... so by the very numbers presented in the article a higher percentage of Americans believe that AGW is real (42 % vs. 31.7% ) than the percentage of scientific papers reviewed in the "meta-study"... seems the AGW propaganda machine is working ...
Actually what the post says is "an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. " So my question would be ...what percentage of all articles took a stance on the cause of global warming? If the percentage of articles that took a stance on the cause of global warming is less than 100% then the 97.1% statistic is misleading ... exactly how misleading is determined by the actual percentage of published articles that didn't take any stand.
eg: if 50% of published articles took no stand then the actual number of agree-ers is 48.5% ...
So ... I will go on believing that the cause of current climate change is not primarily anthropocentric until someone without a political agenda, can provide me with a model of climate change that takes all contributing factors into account, not just the easily measured ones.
Hello? ... because "almost as fast" = "slower" ... resulting in a net increase, duh!. Plus "burning it" isn't the only way that C02 is increased it's also increased by air burners breathing in and out ... so stop it!!
Hammers are almost never useless.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1+1=1+ -1; 2=0 :)
Umm ... i got that ... i just thought it important enough to make it explicit to the "sarcasm deaf"
yeah ... the publicly available police records written by the police .....
Are you being deliberately dim? You are paying for a new phone whether you get one or not because the plans offered cost the same whether or not you bring your own device. I can attest from personal experience with Sprint ... even if you bring your own device they still won't give you a new line without a 2 year service contract that costs exactly the same as it does if you get one of their "free" or "low cost" phones..
Dude ... he was being sarcastic ... jeez!!
* note to tech world we really need a sarcasm font !!
I think he meant professional paid lobbyists ... not lobbying in general.
it is in your normal field of vision ... it just doesn't overlay your entire field of view ... you don't move your head to look at it ... therefore it's a HUD. And i believe i suggested this or similar tech ... imagine what Samsung will be doing with flexible see-thru displays in a couple of years.
The original implementation of transformational tech isn't always (in fact is hardly ever ) the product that has economic success.