Ah, you're referring to the legal term "fair use", as opposed to the genuinely fair concept of "I bought this book/CD/DVD/statuette, therefore I own it and can do as I please with it as long as I do not produce copies for people."
Additionally, Lavabit was not the company under investigation. The undue damage to Lavabit was unacceptable collateral damage to a party innocent to the allegations against one of their clients.
I'm sure the NSA would argue they were "aiding and abetting" or some such nonsense, but that's a whole separate can of worms when dealing with privacy technology. Merely letting someone on the Internet without attaching their name to your account would qualify by some extreme interpretations.
That is a highly contested issue. Considering the idea of professional civilian law enforcement agencies would be foreign when the Constitution was written, it's left as a huge grey area. Personally, I believe that it falls under either conscription authorities or slavery. Which is applicable I will leave up to somebody else, but either way, there's not much difference between the two. I reject both concepts, personally.
I believe you forgot to include the fifth amendment. Anything gained by an unannounced wiretap being used against you not just to prosecute but even to gain a warrant (which means courts) is a violation of fifth amendment rights.
I often think about that last part. I found my ponderings validated when I ran across that article last week about Woz which mentions he doesn't have broadband at home. I found myself wondering, perhaps I should consider that option as well.
I don't care whether you pay taxes or not. If you are a member of the public, research done on the public dime should be accessible to you without additional costs other than what it actually costs to provide the data itself. In the age of the Internet, it is inexcusable for that to mean anything but freely available publicly-funded servers.
I don't know anyone under the age of 63 who is still "shitting [themselves] about terrorists" at this point. But the government keeps playing that nonsense over and over. Nobody believes them anymore.
The problem with a study that doesn't explicitly seek to blame mankind is that anything indicating less possibility of human responsibility might jeopardize future grants intended to research how man can "undo the damage" they have done (if the results go that direction; indeed, that is why you have a study).
'We have not had any willful or knowing violations in those programs,'
"I am not willfully a crook." "I did not have willful sexual relations with that woman." "This heathcare bill will not willfully raise your rates, and will not willfully prevent you from keeping your current plan if you like what you have."
Let's see how many administration quotes we can bastardize from over the years.
You're confusing the difference between my suggestions and my level of care. I'm perfectly happy having abandoned email for any meaningful or important communication.
I don't believe in people staying in politics or government long enough to reach that point. If a person wants to be in government, I consider that a disqualifier. I seek men with the reluctance of George Washington, and the same man's humility in admitting that he felt that the tasks given him exceeded his abilities. The arrogance of modern politicians disgusts me.
If you're recognizable and discussing something that occurred in your time as a public official in a crowded train, your expectation of anonymity is gone. I don't care whether you're a huge douchebag or not at that point.
Agreed, but we have to stipulate that a constant, slow drip of toilet water has been dripping on the sandwich for nearly a century, and that the sandwich is bad at this point no matter which side you try to eat from it.
I insist upon unrealistic expectations for my govenrment. Giving them a pass when they slip up doesn't do anything but make it easier for them to do it again.
In that case, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the matter. To call that an excellent record (and this is only getting into the Mormons) is incorrect. There are of course other examples out there unrelated to the Mormons, and far more current. Those were just among the more egrigious ones I could think of off the top of my head.
In the original series, certainly. In some of the later series episodes and films, less so. TOS pretty much used the setting as a backdrop to create unusual situations, whereas some later series seem to exist to let LeVar Burton make up pseudo-sciency explanations ot things without reading the script.
I have no problem with butchering an animal. What I do have is a lack of appropriate facilities in which to do so, and a lack of expertise in removing the cuts without unnecessary loss, waste, or damage to what is harvested from the beast.
I do, however, have a few of the right knives. My grandfather was a meat cutter by trade, and I inherited some excellent knives as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you're referring to the legal term "fair use", as opposed to the genuinely fair concept of "I bought this book/CD/DVD/statuette, therefore I own it and can do as I please with it as long as I do not produce copies for people."
Oregon is already testing a system for this.
Additionally, Lavabit was not the company under investigation. The undue damage to Lavabit was unacceptable collateral damage to a party innocent to the allegations against one of their clients.
I'm sure the NSA would argue they were "aiding and abetting" or some such nonsense, but that's a whole separate can of worms when dealing with privacy technology. Merely letting someone on the Internet without attaching their name to your account would qualify by some extreme interpretations.
That is a highly contested issue. Considering the idea of professional civilian law enforcement agencies would be foreign when the Constitution was written, it's left as a huge grey area. Personally, I believe that it falls under either conscription authorities or slavery. Which is applicable I will leave up to somebody else, but either way, there's not much difference between the two. I reject both concepts, personally.
I believe you forgot to include the fifth amendment. Anything gained by an unannounced wiretap being used against you not just to prosecute but even to gain a warrant (which means courts) is a violation of fifth amendment rights.
I often think about that last part. I found my ponderings validated when I ran across that article last week about Woz which mentions he doesn't have broadband at home. I found myself wondering, perhaps I should consider that option as well.
I don't care whether you pay taxes or not. If you are a member of the public, research done on the public dime should be accessible to you without additional costs other than what it actually costs to provide the data itself. In the age of the Internet, it is inexcusable for that to mean anything but freely available publicly-funded servers.
France's idea of protecting an idea is making it harder for the public to access that idea.
I don't know anyone under the age of 63 who is still "shitting [themselves] about terrorists" at this point. But the government keeps playing that nonsense over and over. Nobody believes them anymore.
The problem with a study that doesn't explicitly seek to blame mankind is that anything indicating less possibility of human responsibility might jeopardize future grants intended to research how man can "undo the damage" they have done (if the results go that direction; indeed, that is why you have a study).
"I am not willfully a crook."
"I did not have willful sexual relations with that woman."
"This heathcare bill will not willfully raise your rates, and will not willfully prevent you from keeping your current plan if you like what you have."
Let's see how many administration quotes we can bastardize from over the years.
There's a much better solution. Subcontractors, my friend. Subcontractors.
You're confusing the difference between my suggestions and my level of care. I'm perfectly happy having abandoned email for any meaningful or important communication.
I'm quite confident our philosophies are irreconcilable.
That ship sailed years ago. It's just now becoming common knowledge.
I don't believe in people staying in politics or government long enough to reach that point. If a person wants to be in government, I consider that a disqualifier. I seek men with the reluctance of George Washington, and the same man's humility in admitting that he felt that the tasks given him exceeded his abilities. The arrogance of modern politicians disgusts me.
If you're recognizable and discussing something that occurred in your time as a public official in a crowded train, your expectation of anonymity is gone. I don't care whether you're a huge douchebag or not at that point.
Agreed, but we have to stipulate that a constant, slow drip of toilet water has been dripping on the sandwich for nearly a century, and that the sandwich is bad at this point no matter which side you try to eat from it.
I insist upon unrealistic expectations for my govenrment. Giving them a pass when they slip up doesn't do anything but make it easier for them to do it again.
In that case, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the matter. To call that an excellent record (and this is only getting into the Mormons) is incorrect. There are of course other examples out there unrelated to the Mormons, and far more current. Those were just among the more egrigious ones I could think of off the top of my head.
In the original series, certainly. In some of the later series episodes and films, less so. TOS pretty much used the setting as a backdrop to create unusual situations, whereas some later series seem to exist to let LeVar Burton make up pseudo-sciency explanations ot things without reading the script.
Well played, sir!
Cliches often fail when tested in the real world.
Sorry for the confusion!
I have no problem with butchering an animal. What I do have is a lack of appropriate facilities in which to do so, and a lack of expertise in removing the cuts without unnecessary loss, waste, or damage to what is harvested from the beast.
I do, however, have a few of the right knives. My grandfather was a meat cutter by trade, and I inherited some excellent knives as a result.
For molestors of young children, I think we need to build a gigantic salad shooter.