but then I walk into the booth and still vote the way I want.
Paying or threatening for votes can still be done with absentee ballots. That this does not seem to be occuring, strongly suggests that it's not a significant threat to verification.
The only reason we use federal money is because they stick us in a cage if we don't..
States can't issue money, but barter remains legal, as do some forms of local currency.
"what is cesar's" isn't just cesar's stuff, it's things of real value that cesar has no right to.
Such as? What property exists under our system, that does not have its root in government action?
All claims of land and natural resources rest on government action. All claims of "intellectual property" also rest on government action. Nothing becomes "property" unless the goverment waves its magic wand over it. If you want to make a profit off of these government actions, it's not unreasonable for it to demand its cut. The investing classes have no right to whine about paying a cut to the house that enables their gambling.
We could talk about other concepts of property, alternatives to captialism based on the concepts that what makes raw materials into property is labor, not government papers; and that land should be controled by those who occupy and use it in good stewardship, not absentee landlords with deeds.
Their goal is to convert the world to Islam using force if necessary and turn every country into an Islamic state following Sharia law.
A few nutjobs may want this. Most people recruited by the terrorist/insurgent/resistance groups just want the U.S. out of the Middle East. Bin Laden's original beef was the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, we're pretty much out of there now, but we're in so deep in Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn't much matter.) Plus the whole Israel/Palestine debacle, of course.
I would like to see campaigning for the introduction of Sharia law or any other system that overthrows western ideas of democracy and freedom made treason.
Um., you don't see the irony here? Let me help.
Freedom of speech is at the root of "western ideas of democracy and freedom". Therefore, anyone working against freedom of speech is campaigning for the introduction of a system that overthrows western ideas of democracy and freedom.
Ergo, you are arguing that you should be considered guilty of treason.
Never once have I thought that having to prove who I say I am as an invasion of my privacy or my rights.
The problem is that I shouldn't have to tell the government - much less prove to it - who I am to go to the park. Or to get on a plane, for that matter.
If you want to use government-issued money to invest in government-created corporations (many of which rely on government-created patents or copyrights for their business model) in a government-stabilized securities market, or buy real estate deeded and defended by the governement, you're in no position to call it "stealing" when the government demands some of its counters back as payment.
(Yes, yes, corporatate charters and most land deeds are issued at the state level, while money is a federal creation. We can argue seperately over which level of government can and should do what; for current purposes we can regard the whole thing as one large glob of government.)
Notice you didn't see a thread here encouraging people to ask Democrats [about taxes and Al Qaeda]
Well, this being a site whose demographic is more united in a concern with science than on an agreement about tax policy or foreign policy, no, you didn't.
I'm not a Democrat or running for President. (Yet...I've hit the age requirement, and looking at the current field of candidates, might just write myself in 2008.) But I'd love to hear such questions put to candidates.
But as it happens, a tremendous amount of money is being wasted on American "defense" spending, especially in the Iraq occupation. (Not to mention American and Iraqi lives.) U.S. military spending makes up close to half of the world total, with the next tier of nations (the UK, France, Japan and China) with around 5% each. We could almost halve our military budget and still be outspending any other nation five to one! But talk about such spending cuts - which would enable significant tax cuts - and neoconservatives go apeshit. It's as if they view the military as America's penis and fear it shrinking. (I fear they've confused their rifles and their "guns".)
Meanwhile, they love to make a big fuss about cutting spending on welfare and social programs, which make up a very small amount of federal spending and wouldn't save the average American more than a few dollars a year.
Politicians love to lump "entitlements" all together, ignoring that the bulk of that is Social Security (third rail!) and that a large chunk is military retirement spending and VA benefits, which rightly should be counted under military spending. Actual welfare and social development spending is fairly small.
As for Al Qaeda, "retreating" is not a concept that applies to fighting criminals. The whole notion that a "war" can be fought against a criminal gang like Al Qaeda (which was not in Iraq before we fucked it up, and would fall apart there if we weren't recruiting for them with screwups like Abu Ghraib) is the root of the problem here.
What will happen if we pull out immediately? The same thing that will happen if we pull out next year, or in five years, or in twenty years - chaos. The question is whether we are smart enough to cut our losses.
In the game of go, there is a common strategic error (at least for beginners like me) where a player will try to save a group of stones with a "ladder", laying down more sones and trying to escape. But a knowledgable player will see the pattern develop, knows his pieces are doomed, and lets them fall rather than wasting even more resources to have them and even more fall.
Iraq is a quagmire; Cheney knew it thirteen years ago. The invasion was a stupid and criminal thing to do. Bush and company should be impeached for their crimes, and the U.S. (and U.K., which really bears the root responsbibility for screwing up the Middle East back to the British Mandate) should compensate the Iraqi people as best it can and get the hell out.
I'm not sure it really has anything to do with politics...The only question even somewhat related to evolution that seems applicable is "Will you let your religious beliefs interfere with the way you govern?"
Someone who believes that their ancient "holy book" is a better guide to questions of objective fact than the best scientific knowledge, has a bad relationship with reality, and should not be trusted with authority.
If someone's religious beliefs interfere with their perception of reality, it will definitely interfere with the way they govern.
Indeed, maybe the best thing is to broaden the question: "Mr. Candidate, while we all have our own internal spiritual lives, which are very important, we also all share the same objective world. What do you believe is the best way to learn about that objective world: observation and experimentation, or ancient religious texts? And why? (And if ancient religious texts, how do you know which ones?)"
anyone know if they've ever tried splitting the smarter/average/dumb kids up into their own classes permanently from 5th or so through 12th
When I was in middle school and high school (early to mid 1980s, Baltimore County, Maryland), certainly things were done this way. There were gifted & talented, honors, standard, and remedial level classes in most core subjects. (Not all schools had G&T classes.) And you could be in different levels in different subjects. Classes like art, music, gym, and "industrial arts" (shop), were mixed.
Even in elementary school, I recall there being different reading groups in the same classroom. I was fortunate that in fourth through sixth grades we also had special G&T programs in math and creative writing.
I would be curious if the social structures in each group would clash, or if the system would work.
I'd say that splitting classes worked fairly well. It certainly was easier for me in high school than in elementary school - I was skipped up a grade, some of the bullies were held back a grade, and that made for a combination that had me getting beat up a lot.
In high school, most of the G&T kids weren't as socially retarded as I was, and got along fine. Many played on the sports teams and made friends at all academic levels through that. Even I was fairly well adjusted by my junior year - getting involved in one of the school plays helped.
And then televisions's business model would have to change. Good. As demonstrated by the large percentage of programming that is absolute crap, televisions's business model deserves to die. Think of it as evolution in action.
It's pretty obvious that ad-blocking web sites IS akin to resource theft
Bullshit. It's no more theft than skipping over the ads in a magazine.
I can think of three women Kirk certainly slept with of the top of my head: the slave girl in Bread and Circuses, Miramanee, Carol Marcus
Wow, three women in a lifetime, what a slutboy.
(Yes, I know, some of you frustrated young geeks fellows may find that a lot. Guys, there are girls who like geeks, and if you start applying that hackish attitude toward spiffing yourself up a little and learning about sex, you'll find 'em. There's a reason both ESR and RMS are polyamorous. Life gets better for geeks as we get a little older. Hang in there!)
Can someone really "lie" when they say "there's a theory I'm inclined to believe"?
Gee, I don't know. If I were to say, "There's a theory I'm inclined to believe that Moridineas sodomizes puppies by the light of burning American flags", would I really be "lying"? Would I be lying if I said "a lot of people" beleived it?
If I wrote that as a serious allegation, you'd probably sue me for libel, and IMHO have a strong case. (Let me be clear: I have no knowledge that Moridineas engages in any cruelty to animals, or burns anything.)
This was on August 3rd, according to media matters. At this point the NASA report had not been released yet--it wouldn't be fully released for months!
Note the date on the page. This is August 3, 2005; Media Matters is calling him on it only a few days later. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board released its report in 2003.
environmentalist groups got their way and now we have a riskier space program.
This point about how the foam insulation process was changed has come up many times in discussions about the damage to Endeavor. And it's wrong.
It has its origin in one of Rush Limbaugh's lies.
As it turns out, the foam that dealt Columbia the death blow was the
old-style CFC foam. The problem was in the hand-spraying application method
used on that area, which left gaps and voids in the foam.
Yes, when they first started using the CFC-free foam in 1997 there were
some problems seen. Changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.
There were also plenty of problems with the CFC foam - "popcorning" from
trapped air bubbled was noted in 1995, while in 1992 Columbia was
struck by a large piece of foam, ripping a 12cm gouge in the tiles. Both of
these were before the switch to CFC-free foam.
The point is, artificially altering the price of something through taxes or tariffs ALWAYS has negative side effects
So does externalizing costs. These gas taxes simply bring the cost of environmental damage and foreign policy brutality to the pump, rather than spreading them out in health care costs and war spending.
The market can only reach efficient solutions when all costs are included in the transaction; sometimes it takes taxes or tariffs to make that happen.
what the fuck does rock-climbing have to do with "ethics"?
The same thing leaving a campsite better than you found it has to do with ethics, or not littering has to do with ethics. Altering the environment and depriving others of potential experiences is an ethical issue.
A quick Googling will reveal that "climbing ethics" is not an invention of the Wikipedia author, but is an active area of discussion among climbers.
the ability for the legislature to call and pass a vote of no confidence, which has occurred and produced changes of government.
See, now this shows the truth of the cliche that the UK and the US are two peoples seperated by a common language. Over here, Congress (the legislature) is "the government", one of three co-equal branches of it.
Merely allowing Congress (or the electorate directly) to vote no confidence in the President might be a fine idea; it would, for example, get rid of Bush real quick. But it wouldn't fix the problem of Big Business buying politicians, because most of our politicians are in Congress. (Indeed, a potential drawback is that such a "no confidence" power for Congress would be further incentive to buy Congress-critters.)
So, the new "environmentally friendly" freon-free adhesive's problems have been fixed?
Yes, actually, a long time ago. When they first switched to the CFC-free foam there were some problems; changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.
The "environmentalists make the Shuttle blow up!" meme is a Limbaugh lie; the piece that dealt Columbia the death blow was made with CFCs.
Uh, chemistry? Really, there's a reason you don't find blood in the laundry isle.
Justice is only served when the one who kills is killed.
You've confused "justice" with "revenge".
If every killer must be killed for justice to be served, then it follows that those who do the "justice" killing must be killed, and then those who kill them must be killed...very quickly there's no one left. So if your goal is the elimination of humanity, we can accept your premise, otherwise it doesn't withstand the simplest investigation.
I dare also say that you and your ilk are the ones lusting for the death and destruction in that, concerning these men you so revile, you go about spouting off about how you hope they have a massive stroke or heart attack and die.
No, you're the one saying killers should be killed; I think even mass murderering lunatics like George W. Bush should be treated humanely. Hell, I even have hope that with intensive therapy and the right medication, he might come to contact with reality and repent of his crimes.
And don't get me started about the babies in the womb: the most innocent of them all.
Well, I can see you've already started yourself on this topic - idealogues often are "self-starters".
It's not relevant to the matter at hand, but I fear you are again confused; "babies" are not found in the womb. Those are fetuses or embryos. A newborn baby is a biologically independent being, interacting with the world and on the way to personhood; a fetus is a not. An embryo isn't even distinguishable as human.
Unless you have an awesome supply of non-stellar hydrogen nearby or physics works differently than we know, suns burn out.
The answer isn't to add hydrogen, but take it away. Convert your star to
a long-lived red dwarf, and move your habitats around that. (Indeed, maybe
the observed prevalence of red dwarfs is the result of such engineering -
see point 3 of my original post.)
Yes, I have no idea how this would be accomplished as a matter of engineering (not that we have any idea how interstellar colonization could be engineered either). As a matter of economics, though, it's much more practical than interstellar colonization, as it benefits the whole civilization equally, not just the small group of colonists.
...says only that Congress can leave stuff out of the public record of its proceedings. It does not grant anyone the authority to declare certain facts "classified" and forbid people to talk about them. And even if it had said that, Amendment I would trump it - indeed, the language here shows that the Framers were aware of the potential issue of secrecy, and chose not to work an exception into Amendment I. Thanks for strengthening my argument.
Took all of 15 seconds on Google.
May I suggest that next time, you take another 15 seconds to read the search results and see if they support the point you want to make?
The U.S. statutes regarding blabbing about sources and means of intelligence gathering are very specific, and communications intelligence has the strongest sanction of all. Not only is it a felony to talk about it, but even if someone else tells you and you report it, you also are a felon, even if you are a reporter.
The U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech and limitation of
government powers is very specific. There no state power to declare certain
information "secret" and use force to prevent citizens from speaking about
it.
Furthermore, silence in the face of unconstitutional warrantless
surveillance would make one an accomplice to a heinous crime - indeed,
under the common law, people were required to raise a "hue and cry" when
they witnessed a crime. As Justice Marshall stated, it is the "duty of a
citizen to accuse every offender, and to proclaim every offense which comes
to his knowledge".
people can get killed, lives are on the line.
Yes, indeed, lives are on the line. That's why it is vital that
we, as citizens, have full knowledge of all actions being taken by our
government, so that we can oversee the actions of the state, and prevent
that government from slaughtering or oppressing innocents or wasting the
lives of those naive enough to dedicate themselves to military service. Of
course this necessity is even greater when the government is involved in
criminal activity.
Government secrecy is anathema to democracy. You can't have both. Of
course the "security state" wants secrecy; the "security state" also
believes that citizens are sheep and should shut up and let the Brave
Heroes of the Government protect them against criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
Paying or threatening for votes can still be done with absentee ballots. That this does not seem to be occuring, strongly suggests that it's not a significant threat to verification.
...which can still always be done by making you use an absentee ballot.
States can't issue money, but barter remains legal, as do some forms of local currency.
Such as? What property exists under our system, that does not have its root in government action?
All claims of land and natural resources rest on government action. All claims of "intellectual property" also rest on government action. Nothing becomes "property" unless the goverment waves its magic wand over it. If you want to make a profit off of these government actions, it's not unreasonable for it to demand its cut. The investing classes have no right to whine about paying a cut to the house that enables their gambling.
We could talk about other concepts of property, alternatives to captialism based on the concepts that what makes raw materials into property is labor, not government papers; and that land should be controled by those who occupy and use it in good stewardship, not absentee landlords with deeds.
A few nutjobs may want this. Most people recruited by the terrorist/insurgent/resistance groups just want the U.S. out of the Middle East. Bin Laden's original beef was the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, we're pretty much out of there now, but we're in so deep in Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn't much matter.) Plus the whole Israel/Palestine debacle, of course.
Um., you don't see the irony here? Let me help.
Freedom of speech is at the root of "western ideas of democracy and freedom". Therefore, anyone working against freedom of speech is campaigning for the introduction of a system that overthrows western ideas of democracy and freedom.
Ergo, you are arguing that you should be considered guilty of treason.
The problem is that I shouldn't have to tell the government - much less prove to it - who I am to go to the park. Or to get on a plane, for that matter.
Render on to Caesar, what is Caesar's.
If you want to use government-issued money to invest in government-created corporations (many of which rely on government-created patents or copyrights for their business model) in a government-stabilized securities market, or buy real estate deeded and defended by the governement, you're in no position to call it "stealing" when the government demands some of its counters back as payment.
(Yes, yes, corporatate charters and most land deeds are issued at the state level, while money is a federal creation. We can argue seperately over which level of government can and should do what; for current purposes we can regard the whole thing as one large glob of government.)
Well, this being a site whose demographic is more united in a concern with science than on an agreement about tax policy or foreign policy, no, you didn't.
I'm not a Democrat or running for President. (Yet...I've hit the age requirement, and looking at the current field of candidates, might just write myself in 2008.) But I'd love to hear such questions put to candidates.
Here's how I'd answer: well, sir, if you want to lower taxes, you have to lower spending. Now, given that Americans pay lower taxes than most nations of comparable economic development, I don't find the issue tops on my priority list; especially when we're talking about increasing taxes on the unearned income of the wealthy, whose share of the tax burden has fallen.
But as it happens, a tremendous amount of money is being wasted on American "defense" spending, especially in the Iraq occupation. (Not to mention American and Iraqi lives.) U.S. military spending makes up close to half of the world total, with the next tier of nations (the UK, France, Japan and China) with around 5% each. We could almost halve our military budget and still be outspending any other nation five to one! But talk about such spending cuts - which would enable significant tax cuts - and neoconservatives go apeshit. It's as if they view the military as America's penis and fear it shrinking. (I fear they've confused their rifles and their "guns".)
Meanwhile, they love to make a big fuss about cutting spending on welfare and social programs, which make up a very small amount of federal spending and wouldn't save the average American more than a few dollars a year.
Politicians love to lump "entitlements" all together, ignoring that the bulk of that is Social Security (third rail!) and that a large chunk is military retirement spending and VA benefits, which rightly should be counted under military spending. Actual welfare and social development spending is fairly small.
As for Al Qaeda, "retreating" is not a concept that applies to fighting criminals. The whole notion that a "war" can be fought against a criminal gang like Al Qaeda (which was not in Iraq before we fucked it up, and would fall apart there if we weren't recruiting for them with screwups like Abu Ghraib) is the root of the problem here.
What will happen if we pull out immediately? The same thing that will happen if we pull out next year, or in five years, or in twenty years - chaos. The question is whether we are smart enough to cut our losses.
In the game of go, there is a common strategic error (at least for beginners like me) where a player will try to save a group of stones with a "ladder", laying down more sones and trying to escape. But a knowledgable player will see the pattern develop, knows his pieces are doomed, and lets them fall rather than wasting even more resources to have them and even more fall.
Iraq is a quagmire; Cheney knew it thirteen years ago. The invasion was a stupid and criminal thing to do. Bush and company should be impeached for their crimes, and the U.S. (and U.K., which really bears the root responsbibility for screwing up the Middle East back to the British Mandate) should compensate the Iraqi people as best it can and get the hell out.
Someone who believes that their ancient "holy book" is a better guide to questions of objective fact than the best scientific knowledge, has a bad relationship with reality, and should not be trusted with authority.
If someone's religious beliefs interfere with their perception of reality, it will definitely interfere with the way they govern.
Indeed, maybe the best thing is to broaden the question: "Mr. Candidate, while we all have our own internal spiritual lives, which are very important, we also all share the same objective world. What do you believe is the best way to learn about that objective world: observation and experimentation, or ancient religious texts? And why? (And if ancient religious texts, how do you know which ones?)"
When I was in middle school and high school (early to mid 1980s, Baltimore County, Maryland), certainly things were done this way. There were gifted & talented, honors, standard, and remedial level classes in most core subjects. (Not all schools had G&T classes.) And you could be in different levels in different subjects. Classes like art, music, gym, and "industrial arts" (shop), were mixed.
Even in elementary school, I recall there being different reading groups in the same classroom. I was fortunate that in fourth through sixth grades we also had special G&T programs in math and creative writing.
I'd say that splitting classes worked fairly well. It certainly was easier for me in high school than in elementary school - I was skipped up a grade, some of the bullies were held back a grade, and that made for a combination that had me getting beat up a lot.
In high school, most of the G&T kids weren't as socially retarded as I was, and got along fine. Many played on the sports teams and made friends at all academic levels through that. Even I was fairly well adjusted by my junior year - getting involved in one of the school plays helped.
And then televisions's business model would have to change. Good. As demonstrated by the large percentage of programming that is absolute crap, televisions's business model deserves to die. Think of it as evolution in action.
Bullshit. It's no more theft than skipping over the ads in a magazine.
Wow, three women in a lifetime, what a slutboy.
(Yes, I know, some of you frustrated young geeks fellows may find that a lot. Guys, there are girls who like geeks, and if you start applying that hackish attitude toward spiffing yourself up a little and learning about sex, you'll find 'em. There's a reason both ESR and RMS are polyamorous. Life gets better for geeks as we get a little older. Hang in there!)
Gee, I don't know. If I were to say, "There's a theory I'm inclined to believe that Moridineas sodomizes puppies by the light of burning American flags", would I really be "lying"? Would I be lying if I said "a lot of people" beleived it?
If I wrote that as a serious allegation, you'd probably sue me for libel, and IMHO have a strong case. (Let me be clear: I have no knowledge that Moridineas engages in any cruelty to animals, or burns anything.)
Note the date on the page. This is August 3, 2005; Media Matters is calling him on it only a few days later. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board released its report in 2003.
This point about how the foam insulation process was changed has come up many times in discussions about the damage to Endeavor. And it's wrong.
It has its origin in one of Rush Limbaugh's lies. As it turns out, the foam that dealt Columbia the death blow was the old-style CFC foam. The problem was in the hand-spraying application method used on that area, which left gaps and voids in the foam.
Yes, when they first started using the CFC-free foam in 1997 there were some problems seen. Changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.
There were also plenty of problems with the CFC foam - "popcorning" from trapped air bubbled was noted in 1995, while in 1992 Columbia was struck by a large piece of foam, ripping a 12cm gouge in the tiles. Both of these were before the switch to CFC-free foam.
So does externalizing costs. These gas taxes simply bring the cost of environmental damage and foreign policy brutality to the pump, rather than spreading them out in health care costs and war spending.
The market can only reach efficient solutions when all costs are included in the transaction; sometimes it takes taxes or tariffs to make that happen.
Actually, just enforcing existing laws would get many of them off the road. The larger SUVs and pickups exceed the weight limit on many streets.
De nada. Praise Bob!
The same thing leaving a campsite better than you found it has to do with ethics, or not littering has to do with ethics. Altering the environment and depriving others of potential experiences is an ethical issue.
A quick Googling will reveal that "climbing ethics" is not an invention of the Wikipedia author, but is an active area of discussion among climbers.
See, now this shows the truth of the cliche that the UK and the US are two peoples seperated by a common language. Over here, Congress (the legislature) is "the government", one of three co-equal branches of it.
Merely allowing Congress (or the electorate directly) to vote no confidence in the President might be a fine idea; it would, for example, get rid of Bush real quick. But it wouldn't fix the problem of Big Business buying politicians, because most of our politicians are in Congress. (Indeed, a potential drawback is that such a "no confidence" power for Congress would be further incentive to buy Congress-critters.)
Yes, actually, a long time ago. When they first switched to the CFC-free foam there were some problems; changes were quickly made to improve the adhesion.
The "environmentalists make the Shuttle blow up!" meme is a Limbaugh lie; the piece that dealt Columbia the death blow was made with CFCs.
Please stop spreading Limbaugh's lie.
Because the GPL only requires that you give source to those to whom you give or sell binaries.
Now, they can't prevent those to whom you give or sell binaries from redistributing it...
Uh, chemistry? Really, there's a reason you don't find blood in the laundry isle.
You've confused "justice" with "revenge".
If every killer must be killed for justice to be served, then it follows that those who do the "justice" killing must be killed, and then those who kill them must be killed...very quickly there's no one left. So if your goal is the elimination of humanity, we can accept your premise, otherwise it doesn't withstand the simplest investigation.
No, you're the one saying killers should be killed; I think even mass murderering lunatics like George W. Bush should be treated humanely. Hell, I even have hope that with intensive therapy and the right medication, he might come to contact with reality and repent of his crimes.
Well, I can see you've already started yourself on this topic - idealogues often are "self-starters".
It's not relevant to the matter at hand, but I fear you are again confused; "babies" are not found in the womb. Those are fetuses or embryos. A newborn baby is a biologically independent being, interacting with the world and on the way to personhood; a fetus is a not. An embryo isn't even distinguishable as human.
The answer isn't to add hydrogen, but take it away. Convert your star to a long-lived red dwarf, and move your habitats around that. (Indeed, maybe the observed prevalence of red dwarfs is the result of such engineering - see point 3 of my original post.)
Yes, I have no idea how this would be accomplished as a matter of engineering (not that we have any idea how interstellar colonization could be engineered either). As a matter of economics, though, it's much more practical than interstellar colonization, as it benefits the whole civilization equally, not just the small group of colonists.
It's also a scene in Clarke's novel Earthlight .
...says only that Congress can leave stuff out of the public record of its proceedings. It does not grant anyone the authority to declare certain facts "classified" and forbid people to talk about them. And even if it had said that, Amendment I would trump it - indeed, the language here shows that the Framers were aware of the potential issue of secrecy, and chose not to work an exception into Amendment I. Thanks for strengthening my argument.
May I suggest that next time, you take another 15 seconds to read the search results and see if they support the point you want to make?
The U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of speech and limitation of government powers is very specific. There no state power to declare certain information "secret" and use force to prevent citizens from speaking about it.
Furthermore, silence in the face of unconstitutional warrantless surveillance would make one an accomplice to a heinous crime - indeed, under the common law, people were required to raise a "hue and cry" when they witnessed a crime. As Justice Marshall stated, it is the "duty of a citizen to accuse every offender, and to proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge".
Yes, indeed, lives are on the line. That's why it is vital that we, as citizens, have full knowledge of all actions being taken by our government, so that we can oversee the actions of the state, and prevent that government from slaughtering or oppressing innocents or wasting the lives of those naive enough to dedicate themselves to military service. Of course this necessity is even greater when the government is involved in criminal activity.
Government secrecy is anathema to democracy. You can't have both. Of course the "security state" wants secrecy; the "security state" also believes that citizens are sheep and should shut up and let the Brave Heroes of the Government protect them against criminals.