1. Why does it need a screen when it has a web interface? Totally pointless.
2. Why do you need to be able to upload things to it directly without a network interface? Also totally pointless.
3. Why does it need a wifi adapter? This thing is going to live on someone's desk. This notion of bringing it around your purse... why? The unit will work most effectively plugged into a router sitting on a shelf somewhere.
So subtracting those three features which are utterly superfluous... 200 dollars? Nope.
I have three raspberry pis. They're great. One of them is a personal web/file server for my home. One of them is a home media center. The last one is a pure toy that I use in projects.
The Pi is cool. I can do anything with it. If I change my mind about something I can repurpose it for something else. I can't do that with this egg thing. It is what it is what it is.
And that is fine if people know what they want and don't mind the 100 percent mark up and features that even they won't give a crap about. Go with it.
But for me... for the sorts of people that read slashdot?... uh no.
I can buy a raspberry pi with all the addons for less then 100 USD, load a webserver on it, and have more functionality then what this thing offers.
Yeah it has a screen and yeah its probably easier to set up. But that is what I'm buying then. A screen and an easier set up... for twice the price.
As to sticking it in your pocket... The whole web domain thing is great but subdomains are nothing new. I can get a free subdomain from any of several services. I do it all the time. Any system I work with on a regular basis that is on a dynamic IP gets a subdomain synced to it so that I can always login to that system. All they're doing is setting up a subdomain on a server they own and selling this unit... which is nice but isn't really competitive with a raspberry pi.
Am I missing anything? The thing is neat... its just redundant.
Does it? Do any of those factories self generate? Or are you just saying that all solar factories are automatically using solar if there is solar power on their grid?
If that is all it takes, then the standard is so low that any nation can meet this at any point.
No. Our military bases are being threatened by this apparently. Which means our civilians are in far more danger. We should evacuate these cities immediately...
Or this another dumb exaggeration.
It is a dumb exaggeration. You know it. I know it. Few people at this point can't spot it at this point.
You tell me solar is cheaper and then solar panel factories never use it.
I point out that... that none of them use their own panels to power their facilities which is something every other power generator factory does... the obvious is right in front of you. Wake up.
If being perfect means not having critical core features then you're confused about what is and is not perfect. Compatibility is important. In many applications it is vital. Period - end of story. Does maintaining compatibility make the project more complicated? Yep. Coding is hard.
Brother, IF solar is cheaper then coal, it is a given that the manufacturer of any good is going to have cheaper access to said good then anyone else, solar panel manufacturers make solar panels, THEN it is a money saving opportunity for solar panel producers to power their facilities with solar power.
To do so with any other power source would be to waste money on a more expensive and less efficient energy source.
They don't do it though. Ever. There is to my knowledge not a single solar panel factory on the planet that powers itself with its own panels. Not one.
How many dairy farms drink their own milk? All of them.
How many accounting firms do their own accounting? All of them.
How many hospitals treat their own doctors and nurses? All of them.
How many oil refineries are powered largely by their own oil? All of them.
Etc.
You have no explained why solar panel manufacturers do not power their own factories with their own solar panels.
The only thing that makes any sense is that grid coal and nuclear power are cheaper. And of course coal and nuclear power are cheaper.
Everyone that isn't a complete fucking retard knows that coal and nuclear are cheaper. It is completely obvious to anyone with even a tiny grasp of the technologies involved.
Why use solar then? Because it is greener, because it is a compact long term power source so long as you don't find the bulk and expense to be problematic, because it can give isolated people's access to power which is more affordable when separated from the global energy supply lines... and because the subsidies for green energy are fucking massive on a watt for watt basis.
Those are the reasons to use it.
Being more economical doesn't even begin to make sense in almost any but the most extreme situations.
And IF you were even A LITTLE bit right... the FIRST industries to power themselves with solar panels would be solar panel factories. Because again, no one has cheaper access to solar panels then them. Which means not only is solar not competitive with coal for you and I... no, it is also not competitive if you get a huge discount because you make the damn things and you don't have to pay the manufacturer's profit margin... being that you are the manufacturer.
The above is absurdly obvious and only a deliberate unwillingness to see the obviousness of it can explain any half way intelligent person from not realizing this immediately.
Since you're obviously not getting it... the cognitive dissonance has to be hilariously thick. I wish you well and I am sure you an intelligent good person that is on other issues not completely wedged up your own ass.
Either evacuate new york city and san francisco or I have to assume this whole issue is a troll issue that no one actually takes seriously... especially the people that will not ever shut up about it.
The horse battery staple idea is not unreasonable it just isn't complete.
What you want to do is get a memorable text string and then turn it into gibberish using some sort of system.
Take this:
4MhalLwFwwaS4
Looks like gibberish but it is extremely easy to remember with mnemonics.
First:
Mary had a little lamb who's fleece was white as snow.
That is the text string you have to remember.
Then you have rules that turn it from that into gibberish.
So as a test, I had these rules:
1. Take the first letter of every word. 2. Capitalize nouns. 3. cite the number of letters in the first word at the start of string and the number of letters in the last word at the end.
Easy to remember. All you have to do is remember "mary had a little lamb".
Then most coastal US military bases are probably fine too. There might be some on a couple pacific islands that are having a hard time... but I believe the last time I checked every single one of them was due to erosion and not the rising of global sea levels.
Furthermore, what are we talking about as of now?... 7 centimeters or something? Any harbor that could be made viable or non-viable by 7 fucking centimeters was an accident waiting to happen in the first place. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of harbors have far more robust tolerances.
... the Key dodge here is "when health impacts are considered"... but the thing is you can't know what the health impacts are of the coal industry. You can ASSUME those impacts. But you can't say that because there are 5 coal plants there are 522 incidents of lung infection. You can't know that. You could shut down all those coal plants and have the same number of lung infections or quadruple them and have no significant change.
The issue is complicated and people are going to get "emotional" or "political" about this... I really don't care.
Here is where I am on this issue...
1. I am all in favor of renewables IF they are themselves produced renewably. That is, build your solar and wind power generators using solar and wind power. Ever note that a great many of these technologies are built using nuclear or coal power? I'm not asking that they locate their factories next to the production. If your industrial sector is by some coal power plants and you really have to use coal power... Fine. Buy energy credits from the renewable energy plants or something. I just find the hypocrisy of building solar on coal power to be a little odd when people keep telling me how great solar is and how terrible coal is... If solar is so great, no one has cheaper solar power then a solar panel factory. NO ONE has cheaper panels then them. Which means no one is in a better position to self generate using solar power then a solar panel factory. No one. And if they're not doing that... then I wonder if people are lying to me when they say solar is cheap. Because I'll tell you this... factories that produce coal generators are very happy to power themselves with coal power. Oil refineries are very happy to power themselves with oil. Nuclear reactor factories are very happy to power themselves with nuclear reactors. So why are not solar panel factories powering themselves with solar panels?
2. Any estimation of cost and subsidy has to take all the subsidies and costs into consideration. It is very common for people to cherry pick numbers that make their desired conclusion look more likely.
3. Solar and wind power are by their natures more defuse energy sources that are not as inclined to be centralized. To be truly useful both of these power generation methods needs to be decentralized... ideally to the consumer level. You might consider for example giving every resident a few solar panels to put on their roof along with the associated electrical hardware. Have them be owned by the power utility and let residents put the panels where they want so long as they get sun. Giant centralized plants are sensible with high density energy generation systems. Solar and wind are neither.
4. In respects to wind especially, you need to make these things more aesthetic. Unlike nuclear or coal you need thousands and thousands of these things over many miles. That means rather then one ugly building we're treated to thousands. And because of that you need to have some design flexibility. Now the way they're designed now mostly is to maximize efficiency and cost. Which is fine but it looks like what it is. If you instead put out some generalized design requirements and instead let home owners, towns, local communities decide how they want it to look then you might get wider adoption. Consider for example the windmills of Holland. Not only are they not an eye sore... they're a tourist attraction. Consider further the Hoover dam... tourist attraction... because its art decto stylings make for an attractive photo op.
5. Keep in mind that regardless of everything we need power. So if the renewables aren't up to the job right now... do not screw with power that is at this moment able to meet demand. Doing so will just drive up energy costs which mostly hurts poor people.
I find some satisfaction in turning silly rhetorical tactics against their users.
I am by intention if nothing else a hyper rationalist. I hold reason and the mental framework that supports and allows for reason to be of primary importance in any discussion. For without them we will not have a reasonable discussion and will not know if what we have discussed was or was not reasonable.
This means defining what you're talking about, keeping a clear image of what our goals are in the discussion, and then working through several different mental and rhetorical stages to determine the proper method of getting from point A to point Z.
What so often happens with these discussions is that rather then talking about B, C, D, etc someone will move the origin point or the destination point without explicitly noting that they've done that. Or just as bad they'll attempt to define the opposition's argument and then argue against that point.
Both of these only work if the opposition in question doesn't have a clear idea of all these things in their mind whenever they read/listen to the arguments as presented.
If you do... it is a bit like watching someone cheat at chess while you watch them. I mean... you know which side of the board you're on. You know which color of pieces are yours. You know he can't just randomly take pieces off or move them. And by the same token one knows what the rules of the game are and what they are not. If someone starts moving pawns like a knight or something then it isn't going to work.
And that is about 80 percent of arguments on the internet. Really really silly attempts to win arguments that probably work against really stupid or really unaware people.
I'd like to THINK I am neither. But who knows... I can't... if I've learned anything it is that you're always the last one to know. But that is what your argument looked like to me. And I'm naturally not going to stand for it.
If we want someone because we say they broke our law and you disagree. You won't give him to us.
Likewise, if you file some bullshit legal claim against a US intelligence agent then neither of us will be surprised if the US refuses to cooperate.
And if we did the same thing to you, you wouldn't cooperate either.
So at best you're simply confused because you didn't think this through. At worst, you do understand this and are simply pushing a dishonest narrative.
The fact is that nations spy. They spy on each other. That has always been and shall probably always be. So lets get past that point.
What we need is an understanding of what is considered reasonable and unreasonable spying. Think of it like the Geneva convention but for spying. We can talk about that. We can decide as a council of nations what is and is not acceptable. Then nations will sign or refuse to sign the treaty. If many people don't sign then you need to go back and try again... possibly moderating your position.
Once you get most nations on board especially powerful nations that are most likely the core focus of the treaty... we can change things.
But just saying country X broke country Y's laws is meaningless. Country X isn't beholden to country Y's laws. Now you'll say but they are within the borders of country Y. Okay... but the internet is a global network. If I hack into your system from one country then I'm not in your country. Now what if I do something while my body is physically inside your borders? Then catch me, accuse me in a court of law, and convict me. Until you've done that... you have nothing.
Ironic choice given that Liechtenstein is accusing Germany of spying on it and Germany is accusing the US of spying on Germany.
Couldn't find anything on spying from that country. However, given their place as an international tax shelter, I would be surprised if they weren't keeping a close watch on other nations that might try to remove their ability to access that market.
Further, I suspect you're just citing the smallest most inconsequential country you can think of to make your point. I let you do that because I wasn't careful. I should have said to name a major country that hasn't spied recently. There isn't one. The tiny players probably do spy as well it is just that no one cares. Annoying at best but not threatening.
For one thing we have a lot of information you want and we can make you pay for it. If you have something we want, we'll trade for most things or get you to give us exemptions to the treaty in exchange for access to our data.
Any such treaty would of course have loopholes to account for special circumstances. And we'd quietly set things up so we could drive freight trains of intelligence through the loopholes. We are quite good at his as anyone familiar with US legal code should be aware by now.
And if that proved to be ineffective, we'd probably set up honey pots and entrapments to trick you into violating the terms... then embarrass or blackmail you into being more cooperative.
Sound nasty? Its geopolitics. Toughen up or bow out.
We are your friends but we are also playing a very serious game. This is a not a fucking children's dress up tea party. It is international power politics.
If disclosing more would stop it, it would have stopped already.
The one point I'll give you is that a lot of people, especially older people, don't understand the issue. And that's not to say that lots of younger people are just completely oblivious to everything. In any case, it unlikely to change with more disclosures.
What we have are two options.
1. everyone just adapts to the new normal.
2. the NSA gets cut down by some law.
In either case, the NSA is going to continue to spy on other countries. It is their function and all major powers have something like the NSA. The US isn't going to get rid of any more then China is going to get rid of its airforce.
You can try to moderate the NSA but saying it shouldn't do anything is a non-starter.
If you think the US government has broken laws then please prosecute them in a formal court of law. If you like you can try to take the US to the Hague for war crimes.
Absent that you have no conviction and therefore no guilt and therefore no sentence.
If you actually think an american broke your law... arrest him.
Isn't that what you do with criminals? You get can get your lawyers and we'll get our lawyers... and we'll just see where that goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Same difference.
Actually I didn't.
This is what I said when you started with this foolishness:
""I'm not getting in a word game with you.
When I say meaningful, I refer to whether that data automatically tells you something of significance.
If you want to use the word "useful"... we can see if your use of it is the same as mine. But I've a very low tolerance for semantics games.
""
I am not going to debate you on the definition of basic english words that you seem determined to turn into an argument about nothing.
I will simply skip that and move on.
We're done. This bores me.
Well, sure... but why do we need all that crap?
1. Why does it need a screen when it has a web interface? Totally pointless.
2. Why do you need to be able to upload things to it directly without a network interface? Also totally pointless.
3. Why does it need a wifi adapter? This thing is going to live on someone's desk. This notion of bringing it around your purse... why? The unit will work most effectively plugged into a router sitting on a shelf somewhere.
So subtracting those three features which are utterly superfluous... 200 dollars? Nope.
I have three raspberry pis. They're great. One of them is a personal web/file server for my home. One of them is a home media center. The last one is a pure toy that I use in projects.
The Pi is cool. I can do anything with it. If I change my mind about something I can repurpose it for something else. I can't do that with this egg thing. It is what it is what it is.
And that is fine if people know what they want and don't mind the 100 percent mark up and features that even they won't give a crap about. Go with it.
But for me... for the sorts of people that read slashdot?... uh no.
I can buy a raspberry pi with all the addons for less then 100 USD, load a webserver on it, and have more functionality then what this thing offers.
Yeah it has a screen and yeah its probably easier to set up. But that is what I'm buying then. A screen and an easier set up... for twice the price.
As to sticking it in your pocket... The whole web domain thing is great but subdomains are nothing new. I can get a free subdomain from any of several services. I do it all the time. Any system I work with on a regular basis that is on a dynamic IP gets a subdomain synced to it so that I can always login to that system. All they're doing is setting up a subdomain on a server they own and selling this unit... which is nice but isn't really competitive with a raspberry pi.
Am I missing anything? The thing is neat... its just redundant.
I told you I wasn't going to have a semantics argument with you. You want to define the world "is" mean "pineapple" that is your business.
good day, sir.
data absent analysis isn't meaningful. And just because you analyzed data doesn't mean the analysis is meaningful.
Data only obtains meaning by establishing cause and effect via the data. Absent that you have white noise.
Does it? Do any of those factories self generate? Or are you just saying that all solar factories are automatically using solar if there is solar power on their grid?
If that is all it takes, then the standard is so low that any nation can meet this at any point.
No. Our military bases are being threatened by this apparently. Which means our civilians are in far more danger. We should evacuate these cities immediately...
Or this another dumb exaggeration.
It is a dumb exaggeration. You know it. I know it. Few people at this point can't spot it at this point.
Move on.
You tell me solar is cheaper and then solar panel factories never use it.
I point out that... that none of them use their own panels to power their facilities which is something every other power generator factory does... the obvious is right in front of you. Wake up.
If being perfect means not having critical core features then you're confused about what is and is not perfect. Compatibility is important. In many applications it is vital. Period - end of story. Does maintaining compatibility make the project more complicated? Yep. Coding is hard.
Next issue.
Brother, IF solar is cheaper then coal, it is a given that the manufacturer of any good is going to have cheaper access to said good then anyone else, solar panel manufacturers make solar panels, THEN it is a money saving opportunity for solar panel producers to power their facilities with solar power.
To do so with any other power source would be to waste money on a more expensive and less efficient energy source.
They don't do it though. Ever. There is to my knowledge not a single solar panel factory on the planet that powers itself with its own panels. Not one.
How many dairy farms drink their own milk? All of them.
How many accounting firms do their own accounting? All of them.
How many hospitals treat their own doctors and nurses? All of them.
How many oil refineries are powered largely by their own oil? All of them.
Etc.
You have no explained why solar panel manufacturers do not power their own factories with their own solar panels.
The only thing that makes any sense is that grid coal and nuclear power are cheaper. And of course coal and nuclear power are cheaper.
Everyone that isn't a complete fucking retard knows that coal and nuclear are cheaper. It is completely obvious to anyone with even a tiny grasp of the technologies involved.
Why use solar then? Because it is greener, because it is a compact long term power source so long as you don't find the bulk and expense to be problematic, because it can give isolated people's access to power which is more affordable when separated from the global energy supply lines... and because the subsidies for green energy are fucking massive on a watt for watt basis.
Those are the reasons to use it.
Being more economical doesn't even begin to make sense in almost any but the most extreme situations.
And IF you were even A LITTLE bit right... the FIRST industries to power themselves with solar panels would be solar panel factories. Because again, no one has cheaper access to solar panels then them. Which means not only is solar not competitive with coal for you and I... no, it is also not competitive if you get a huge discount because you make the damn things and you don't have to pay the manufacturer's profit margin... being that you are the manufacturer.
The above is absurdly obvious and only a deliberate unwillingness to see the obviousness of it can explain any half way intelligent person from not realizing this immediately.
Since you're obviously not getting it... the cognitive dissonance has to be hilariously thick. I wish you well and I am sure you an intelligent good person that is on other issues not completely wedged up your own ass.
All the best and good day.
Either evacuate new york city and san francisco or I have to assume this whole issue is a troll issue that no one actually takes seriously... especially the people that will not ever shut up about it.
The horse battery staple idea is not unreasonable it just isn't complete.
What you want to do is get a memorable text string and then turn it into gibberish using some sort of system.
Take this:
4MhalLwFwwaS4
Looks like gibberish but it is extremely easy to remember with mnemonics.
First:
Mary had a little lamb who's fleece was white as snow.
That is the text string you have to remember.
Then you have rules that turn it from that into gibberish.
So as a test, I had these rules:
1. Take the first letter of every word.
2. Capitalize nouns.
3. cite the number of letters in the first word at the start of string and the number of letters in the last word at the end.
Easy to remember. All you have to do is remember "mary had a little lamb".
What about San Francisco?
Neither?
Then most coastal US military bases are probably fine too. There might be some on a couple pacific islands that are having a hard time... but I believe the last time I checked every single one of them was due to erosion and not the rising of global sea levels.
Furthermore, what are we talking about as of now?... 7 centimeters or something? Any harbor that could be made viable or non-viable by 7 fucking centimeters was an accident waiting to happen in the first place. I'm quite sure that the vast majority of harbors have far more robust tolerances.
... the Key dodge here is "when health impacts are considered"... but the thing is you can't know what the health impacts are of the coal industry. You can ASSUME those impacts. But you can't say that because there are 5 coal plants there are 522 incidents of lung infection. You can't know that. You could shut down all those coal plants and have the same number of lung infections or quadruple them and have no significant change.
The issue is complicated and people are going to get "emotional" or "political" about this ... I really don't care.
Here is where I am on this issue...
1. I am all in favor of renewables IF they are themselves produced renewably. That is, build your solar and wind power generators using solar and wind power. Ever note that a great many of these technologies are built using nuclear or coal power? I'm not asking that they locate their factories next to the production. If your industrial sector is by some coal power plants and you really have to use coal power... Fine. Buy energy credits from the renewable energy plants or something. I just find the hypocrisy of building solar on coal power to be a little odd when people keep telling me how great solar is and how terrible coal is... If solar is so great, no one has cheaper solar power then a solar panel factory. NO ONE has cheaper panels then them. Which means no one is in a better position to self generate using solar power then a solar panel factory. No one. And if they're not doing that... then I wonder if people are lying to me when they say solar is cheap. Because I'll tell you this... factories that produce coal generators are very happy to power themselves with coal power. Oil refineries are very happy to power themselves with oil. Nuclear reactor factories are very happy to power themselves with nuclear reactors. So why are not solar panel factories powering themselves with solar panels?
2. Any estimation of cost and subsidy has to take all the subsidies and costs into consideration. It is very common for people to cherry pick numbers that make their desired conclusion look more likely.
3. Solar and wind power are by their natures more defuse energy sources that are not as inclined to be centralized. To be truly useful both of these power generation methods needs to be decentralized... ideally to the consumer level. You might consider for example giving every resident a few solar panels to put on their roof along with the associated electrical hardware. Have them be owned by the power utility and let residents put the panels where they want so long as they get sun. Giant centralized plants are sensible with high density energy generation systems. Solar and wind are neither.
4. In respects to wind especially, you need to make these things more aesthetic. Unlike nuclear or coal you need thousands and thousands of these things over many miles. That means rather then one ugly building we're treated to thousands. And because of that you need to have some design flexibility. Now the way they're designed now mostly is to maximize efficiency and cost. Which is fine but it looks like what it is. If you instead put out some generalized design requirements and instead let home owners, towns, local communities decide how they want it to look then you might get wider adoption. Consider for example the windmills of Holland. Not only are they not an eye sore... they're a tourist attraction. Consider further the Hoover dam... tourist attraction... because its art decto stylings make for an attractive photo op.
5. Keep in mind that regardless of everything we need power. So if the renewables aren't up to the job right now... do not screw with power that is at this moment able to meet demand. Doing so will just drive up energy costs which mostly hurts poor people.
I find some satisfaction in turning silly rhetorical tactics against their users.
I am by intention if nothing else a hyper rationalist. I hold reason and the mental framework that supports and allows for reason to be of primary importance in any discussion. For without them we will not have a reasonable discussion and will not know if what we have discussed was or was not reasonable.
This means defining what you're talking about, keeping a clear image of what our goals are in the discussion, and then working through several different mental and rhetorical stages to determine the proper method of getting from point A to point Z.
What so often happens with these discussions is that rather then talking about B, C, D, etc someone will move the origin point or the destination point without explicitly noting that they've done that. Or just as bad they'll attempt to define the opposition's argument and then argue against that point.
Both of these only work if the opposition in question doesn't have a clear idea of all these things in their mind whenever they read/listen to the arguments as presented.
If you do... it is a bit like watching someone cheat at chess while you watch them. I mean... you know which side of the board you're on. You know which color of pieces are yours. You know he can't just randomly take pieces off or move them. And by the same token one knows what the rules of the game are and what they are not. If someone starts moving pawns like a knight or something then it isn't going to work.
And that is about 80 percent of arguments on the internet. Really really silly attempts to win arguments that probably work against really stupid or really unaware people.
I'd like to THINK I am neither. But who knows... I can't... if I've learned anything it is that you're always the last one to know. But that is what your argument looked like to me. And I'm naturally not going to stand for it.
1. Know the person you're going to marry and have them know you.
2. Have a reasonably stable life.
3. ?
4. Profit.
Only if you agree with why we are doing it.
If we want someone because we say they broke our law and you disagree. You won't give him to us.
Likewise, if you file some bullshit legal claim against a US intelligence agent then neither of us will be surprised if the US refuses to cooperate.
And if we did the same thing to you, you wouldn't cooperate either.
So at best you're simply confused because you didn't think this through. At worst, you do understand this and are simply pushing a dishonest narrative.
The fact is that nations spy. They spy on each other. That has always been and shall probably always be. So lets get past that point.
What we need is an understanding of what is considered reasonable and unreasonable spying. Think of it like the Geneva convention but for spying. We can talk about that. We can decide as a council of nations what is and is not acceptable. Then nations will sign or refuse to sign the treaty. If many people don't sign then you need to go back and try again... possibly moderating your position.
Once you get most nations on board especially powerful nations that are most likely the core focus of the treaty... we can change things.
But just saying country X broke country Y's laws is meaningless. Country X isn't beholden to country Y's laws. Now you'll say but they are within the borders of country Y. Okay... but the internet is a global network. If I hack into your system from one country then I'm not in your country. Now what if I do something while my body is physically inside your borders? Then catch me, accuse me in a court of law, and convict me. Until you've done that... you have nothing.
And if the US pressed charges against something we felt was illegal would your country naturally extradite them to the US?
Obviously not. So what are you talking about.
Ironic choice given that Liechtenstein is accusing Germany of spying on it and Germany is accusing the US of spying on Germany.
Couldn't find anything on spying from that country. However, given their place as an international tax shelter, I would be surprised if they weren't keeping a close watch on other nations that might try to remove their ability to access that market.
Further, I suspect you're just citing the smallest most inconsequential country you can think of to make your point. I let you do that because I wasn't careful. I should have said to name a major country that hasn't spied recently. There isn't one. The tiny players probably do spy as well it is just that no one cares. Annoying at best but not threatening.
I can only take your non-rebuttal as a concession.
Better luck next time and good day.
This is what I am saying and what the fools arguing against me don't grasp. They think the US is the only one.
nah... we're better at manipulation then that.
Give us some credit. ;-)
For one thing we have a lot of information you want and we can make you pay for it. If you have something we want, we'll trade for most things or get you to give us exemptions to the treaty in exchange for access to our data.
Any such treaty would of course have loopholes to account for special circumstances. And we'd quietly set things up so we could drive freight trains of intelligence through the loopholes. We are quite good at his as anyone familiar with US legal code should be aware by now.
And if that proved to be ineffective, we'd probably set up honey pots and entrapments to trick you into violating the terms... then embarrass or blackmail you into being more cooperative.
Sound nasty? Its geopolitics. Toughen up or bow out.
We are your friends but we are also playing a very serious game. This is a not a fucking children's dress up tea party. It is international power politics.
If disclosing more would stop it, it would have stopped already.
The one point I'll give you is that a lot of people, especially older people, don't understand the issue. And that's not to say that lots of younger people are just completely oblivious to everything. In any case, it unlikely to change with more disclosures.
What we have are two options.
1. everyone just adapts to the new normal.
2. the NSA gets cut down by some law.
In either case, the NSA is going to continue to spy on other countries. It is their function and all major powers have something like the NSA. The US isn't going to get rid of any more then China is going to get rid of its airforce.
You can try to moderate the NSA but saying it shouldn't do anything is a non-starter.
If you think the US government has broken laws then please prosecute them in a formal court of law. If you like you can try to take the US to the Hague for war crimes.
Absent that you have no conviction and therefore no guilt and therefore no sentence.
If you actually think an american broke your law... arrest him.
Isn't that what you do with criminals? You get can get your lawyers and we'll get our lawyers... and we'll just see where that goes.
Sound like fun to you? It sounds hilarious to me.
Put up or shut up.