In the sense of "fool" as a term that means "jester", I'll agree. But to claim that a joke in a sound check qualifies him as any other form of fool is just silly.
Just over a year later, on August 11, 1984, President Reagan's sound-check could have given her a chance to use the speech if the Russians had itchier trigger fingers: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
I quite agree. The best solution at this point, I suppose, is to prohibit the government from even asking for such data without a very specific, narrowly defined warrant. But while I'm at it, I may as well ask for a rocket pack and a magic pint that never runs out of cold beer. They'll never pass such a law and/or constitutional amendment. We'd be hard-pressed to elect enough ethical people at the same time to make that happen.
There are a lot of myths out there with no relation to reality. I think half of them are people who saw a poster or commercial for a Cheech & Chong movie (without actually seeing the film) and now think they're experts on the topic.
Your logic falls apart at step 5, if not 4. 2, by some standards, for those who do not see that the Supreme Court has no such authority under the constitution but took that role by either necessity and/or usurpation. Both you and I know that, as my post said, the government has the power to do a great many things it doesn't have the authority to do. We've seen this in governments around the world, and ours is not immune.
However, if we accept your chain of logic, you're telling us that a revolution is necessary, since by your logic the government has procedurally shielded itself against all our other means of demanding redress.
I'd rather see thousands of Snowdens flee the country for Russia releasing "classified" documents that might inspire us to elect people who will actually clear house than to see our nation have to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants as Jefferson warned us. Personally, I hope never to see those days in my lifetime, and intend to keep electing people who will do their best to keep it from being necessary.
The problem is they've managed to get the service providers to "voluntarily" (yes, in quotes) hand over data that isn't actually yours in the first place. Which while in gross violation of the intent of the fourth amendment may not actually violate it since the data and servers belong to someone else. I find this highly unethical and definitely in volation of the intent of the amendment.
The only surefire solution I can think of is to stop using and interacting with the servers of providers who engage in this kind of activity. Which is to say, most of the internet.
Personally, I'd rather have an amendment to fix the problem than just let it ride, but I don't see that happening.
It is illegal...unless Google is giving them the information voluntarily. At which point it is no longer a fourth amendment issue in the strictest of technical senses.
The real issue with how things are being run right now is that while we are protected (in theory) from our own papers and effects being searched and examined without warrants, the records being used are not our own. A gross violation of the intent of the fourth amendment, but disturbingly not a violation of the fourth amendment until they force the records to be turned over involuntarily without a valid warrant. And at that point it isn't even our rights being violated, it is the service provider's. Most of whom only care about how much reaches the press.
The real moral of the story is, if you don't want to get ratted out for things that aren't even wrong, don't hang out with rats.
No, I'm not aware of Office being a GNU-inclusive distribution. Unless of course someone convinces Google Play to run on GNU-using Linux systems and serve Android apps to regular Linux. In which case, yes, Linus and Richard both win.
Wait till you find out how much every other site you're on tracks you, probably forwarding their information to Google and/or Facebook, and possibly Amazon.
The way they are trumpeting the "Congress said it was ok by passing various laws" is also pure nonsense, in that congress does not have the authority to create laws which violate the constitution. Ability, sure. Authority? No.
See, the funny thing about a constitutional republic is that the legislature, executive branch, and judiciary do not have the authority to exceed nor violate that constitution. They have the ability to do so, but authority? Not even remotely.
The problem with the idea of "due process" on this is that I find it very difficult to believe that the government would even acknowledge that the NSA has been breaking the law. The lens through which Snowden's actions need to be interpreted is that of whether the government was or was not breaking the law and hiding behind classification.
A subject upon which the government and a growing segment of the populace seem to disgree rather vehemently.
It's important to note that there is a certain encouraging trend in the fact that for once, libertarianism is enough of a threat to the establishment that they are actually addressing it.
The truly stunning thing is that despite our nation's alleged enshrining of liberty and the principles thereof, our government and elected officials seem to feel like they can get away with demonizing a philosophy that supports those very principles. And unfortunately, with a complicit media, they very well could get away with it.
You don't honestly think I liked all that hand-editing and drudging through man files and so on that I had to do to run Linux when I switched twelve years ago, do you? I switched because I knew that the major vendors couldn't be trusted, and that I needed to learn systems that weren't shielded from users auditing them and securing them outside the scope of what was marketable.
Today, I no longer need to rely on major software and service venders for most things. That puts me ahead of the game. Of course, it's only as good as the services I provide for myself, and the security of the ones I use outside my own.
The problem is, I think you're right, and I'm concerned that my lifetime may see either a total federal collapse or a revolution. I take politics seriously and pay attention specifically because I really don't want to see either of those happen. I know that neither is likely to give us a result that we actually want.
I'm hoping for some peaceful alternative, but I'm not sure enough of our elected officials at present are up to the task. That's why I put effort in at local/state level to improve the field of candidates in each election. It's not the general election where you put in guys that fix things. It's in the primaries, and it's truly disturbing how many people don't even know they're happening until they're over.
If you don't do your duty during the primaries, you're stuck with two bad options on election day. And, at that point, we're screwed.
you seem to misunderstand my statement. I am in fact pointing out how corrupt our government is, and how much the need for the corruption to be stopped has increased over recent years. Along with increasing the need for people to do everything they can to help put an end to this nonsense.
That would conflict with my mapped network drives. I mapped those at A: and B: because I felt they'd conflict the least with anything else I might encounter, since first, my only personal Windows machines are virtual, and second, because I own only one floppy drive and zero computers that I actually use which could conceivably ask for one for even a BIOS update. And if I find one and somehow need to, I'll just use the floppy drive on that.
I think my logic is not that far off from yours in selecting A:
Agreed. If we could trust that we would have genuinely anonymous vehicle size/weight/type counting for such purposes, that would be fine, but I'm pleased that we both know the government would never stop at that.
They're at least as reliable as anything coming out of the NSA's publicity arm, the past four administrations, and various other elements of the government. Sure, there are good agencies here and there, but the norm is corruption.
If a thief breaks into my house or steals my car, I'll take the same position I take towards the NSA. That the only course of action is to take the necessary measures to ensure it stops. In the thief's case, locking him up generally works for the term of incarceration. In the NSA's case, ending the program is a nice step, but ending the NSA would be better. You can't fix an organization that is so deeply corrupted. If the agency's functions are necessary, start a new one from the ground up, with none of the same people and with no remnants of the old one remaining.
Slashdot Mirror
In the sense of "fool" as a term that means "jester", I'll agree. But to claim that a joke in a sound check qualifies him as any other form of fool is just silly.
Just over a year later, on August 11, 1984, President Reagan's sound-check could have given her a chance to use the speech if the Russians had itchier trigger fingers: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
I quite agree. The best solution at this point, I suppose, is to prohibit the government from even asking for such data without a very specific, narrowly defined warrant. But while I'm at it, I may as well ask for a rocket pack and a magic pint that never runs out of cold beer. They'll never pass such a law and/or constitutional amendment. We'd be hard-pressed to elect enough ethical people at the same time to make that happen.
There are a lot of myths out there with no relation to reality. I think half of them are people who saw a poster or commercial for a Cheech & Chong movie (without actually seeing the film) and now think they're experts on the topic.
You might think that, but then you read an article like Google Pressure Cookers and Backpacks: Get a Visit From the Feds. That logic falls apart pretty quick at that point.
Your logic falls apart at step 5, if not 4. 2, by some standards, for those who do not see that the Supreme Court has no such authority under the constitution but took that role by either necessity and/or usurpation. Both you and I know that, as my post said, the government has the power to do a great many things it doesn't have the authority to do. We've seen this in governments around the world, and ours is not immune.
However, if we accept your chain of logic, you're telling us that a revolution is necessary, since by your logic the government has procedurally shielded itself against all our other means of demanding redress.
I'd rather see thousands of Snowdens flee the country for Russia releasing "classified" documents that might inspire us to elect people who will actually clear house than to see our nation have to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants as Jefferson warned us. Personally, I hope never to see those days in my lifetime, and intend to keep electing people who will do their best to keep it from being necessary.
The problem is they've managed to get the service providers to "voluntarily" (yes, in quotes) hand over data that isn't actually yours in the first place. Which while in gross violation of the intent of the fourth amendment may not actually violate it since the data and servers belong to someone else. I find this highly unethical and definitely in volation of the intent of the amendment.
The only surefire solution I can think of is to stop using and interacting with the servers of providers who engage in this kind of activity. Which is to say, most of the internet.
Personally, I'd rather have an amendment to fix the problem than just let it ride, but I don't see that happening.
It is illegal...unless Google is giving them the information voluntarily. At which point it is no longer a fourth amendment issue in the strictest of technical senses.
The real issue with how things are being run right now is that while we are protected (in theory) from our own papers and effects being searched and examined without warrants, the records being used are not our own. A gross violation of the intent of the fourth amendment, but disturbingly not a violation of the fourth amendment until they force the records to be turned over involuntarily without a valid warrant. And at that point it isn't even our rights being violated, it is the service provider's. Most of whom only care about how much reaches the press.
The real moral of the story is, if you don't want to get ratted out for things that aren't even wrong, don't hang out with rats.
Your statement is correct.
How about a nice game of chess?
No, I'm not aware of Office being a GNU-inclusive distribution. Unless of course someone convinces Google Play to run on GNU-using Linux systems and serve Android apps to regular Linux. In which case, yes, Linus and Richard both win.
I've blocked that as well, but who's to say what Dice does and does not do with our traffic data?
I thought it was generally accepted that if anyone you haven't met face to face has your data, the NSA has it as well.
Wait till you find out how much every other site you're on tracks you, probably forwarding their information to Google and/or Facebook, and possibly Amazon.
The only way to win is not to play the game.
The way they are trumpeting the "Congress said it was ok by passing various laws" is also pure nonsense, in that congress does not have the authority to create laws which violate the constitution. Ability, sure. Authority? No.
See, the funny thing about a constitutional republic is that the legislature, executive branch, and judiciary do not have the authority to exceed nor violate that constitution. They have the ability to do so, but authority? Not even remotely.
The problem with the idea of "due process" on this is that I find it very difficult to believe that the government would even acknowledge that the NSA has been breaking the law. The lens through which Snowden's actions need to be interpreted is that of whether the government was or was not breaking the law and hiding behind classification.
A subject upon which the government and a growing segment of the populace seem to disgree rather vehemently.
It's important to note that there is a certain encouraging trend in the fact that for once, libertarianism is enough of a threat to the establishment that they are actually addressing it.
The truly stunning thing is that despite our nation's alleged enshrining of liberty and the principles thereof, our government and elected officials seem to feel like they can get away with demonizing a philosophy that supports those very principles. And unfortunately, with a complicit media, they very well could get away with it.
You don't honestly think I liked all that hand-editing and drudging through man files and so on that I had to do to run Linux when I switched twelve years ago, do you? I switched because I knew that the major vendors couldn't be trusted, and that I needed to learn systems that weren't shielded from users auditing them and securing them outside the scope of what was marketable.
Today, I no longer need to rely on major software and service venders for most things. That puts me ahead of the game. Of course, it's only as good as the services I provide for myself, and the security of the ones I use outside my own.
The problem is, I think you're right, and I'm concerned that my lifetime may see either a total federal collapse or a revolution. I take politics seriously and pay attention specifically because I really don't want to see either of those happen. I know that neither is likely to give us a result that we actually want.
I'm hoping for some peaceful alternative, but I'm not sure enough of our elected officials at present are up to the task. That's why I put effort in at local/state level to improve the field of candidates in each election. It's not the general election where you put in guys that fix things. It's in the primaries, and it's truly disturbing how many people don't even know they're happening until they're over.
If you don't do your duty during the primaries, you're stuck with two bad options on election day. And, at that point, we're screwed.
you seem to misunderstand my statement. I am in fact pointing out how corrupt our government is, and how much the need for the corruption to be stopped has increased over recent years. Along with increasing the need for people to do everything they can to help put an end to this nonsense.
That would conflict with my mapped network drives. I mapped those at A: and B: because I felt they'd conflict the least with anything else I might encounter, since first, my only personal Windows machines are virtual, and second, because I own only one floppy drive and zero computers that I actually use which could conceivably ask for one for even a BIOS update. And if I find one and somehow need to, I'll just use the floppy drive on that.
I think my logic is not that far off from yours in selecting A:
Agreed. If we could trust that we would have genuinely anonymous vehicle size/weight/type counting for such purposes, that would be fine, but I'm pleased that we both know the government would never stop at that.
They're at least as reliable as anything coming out of the NSA's publicity arm, the past four administrations, and various other elements of the government. Sure, there are good agencies here and there, but the norm is corruption.
If a thief breaks into my house or steals my car, I'll take the same position I take towards the NSA. That the only course of action is to take the necessary measures to ensure it stops. In the thief's case, locking him up generally works for the term of incarceration. In the NSA's case, ending the program is a nice step, but ending the NSA would be better. You can't fix an organization that is so deeply corrupted. If the agency's functions are necessary, start a new one from the ground up, with none of the same people and with no remnants of the old one remaining.
I think we could probably just say this across the board in our government...