Whoosh. It's not about being smug. It's about not sucking up my CPU and RAM and valuable time running inane, pointless, anti-me code and making my whole computer slower, and even crashing the browser (because we have to suffer regressions, and Ff22 crashes where Ff21 didn't).
This is how reading your comment works out in the real world:
1) "not" doesn't display properly -> make exception to allow reading of this comment 2) "not" still doesn't display properly, because the first item was pasted into the second -> make exception to allow reading of comments with the same error for the second time 3) "not" still doesn't display properly, because the second item was pasted into the third item -> make exception to allow reading of comments with the same error for the third time time 49)... finally the line displays properly... now it doesn't need the word "not"
Eh, I don't know, it's worked well for Apple so far.
I agree with you, of course. Mozilla's "gone corporate", and now it looks like they're starting to circle the drain, just like Google. Time for Iceweasel to shine.
The People of the United States includes many more than anarchists, libertarians, and IT professionals. Now major papers, domestic and abroad, are writing about this. He did a good thing. He's more of a courageous patriot than most members of Congress.
Blanket seizing is explicitly prohibited by the 4th Amendment.
The only possible argument is that electronic copying isn't seizing. If that is true, then copying movies and music isn't theft--but the government says it is. Can't have it both ways (oh, wait, they can, because they're the government; c.f. DoJ arguments about Obamacare to the SCOTUS "It's not a tax," "It's a tax").
There's been plenty of information about the NSA's program for more than TEN years. U.S. Citizens, however, trusted that their government was doing the right thing when the NSA was constructing its electronic dragnet because it was right after 9/11.
Speak for yourself.
So honest question: What makes you believe that the government is doing "the wrong thing" now? I'm being serious here, because as far as I can tell, nothing that Snowden has said has proving that the NSA is abusing what it's been doing. If he had some documented evidence, for example, that the NSA had used its surveillance capabilities to spy on someone for non-terrorism political purposes, things might be different.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Collecting the data is unconstitutional. They are seizing the electronic records. It is unreasonable because no warrant has been issued. There can be no blanket authorization or warrant, because it must "particularly describe" the "place" and "persons or things."
If you argue with that, you are arguing with the English language.
The only other argument would be to argue that copying the electronic records is not "seizing" them. In that case, copying a movie or MP3 is not theft--but the government says it is. Can't have it both ways (oh wait, they can, because they are the government. c.f. Obamacare arguments in SCOTUS, "It's not a tax," "It is a tax").
Moving on from the arguments against collection, saying, "Oh we're collecting it, but we're not looking at it!" is preposterous. You're arguing from a default of trusting the government. Our nation was founded on the opposite. Our Constitution was written based on the opposite assumption. And quite explicitly, the NSA and other agencies have committed perjury when testifying to Congress, which directly represents the People in the government. The burden of proof is on you to show why the government should be trusted to any degree about anything.
From what I can tell, the programs at the NSA are designed only to collect the data. It's specifically to avoid this situation:
Situations are irrelevant. The law is what's relevant. Either change the Constitution or abide by it. You can make up a hypothetical situation (even one that has played out in reality) to justify anything--and that's exactly what the government is doing. Are you falling for it or are you a shill?
In other words, I don't think this is an inherently evil program, as long as it has proper oversight, assurances that it can't be abused, and that the oversight and legal framework under which it operates is transparent.
What is proper oversight? Congress? The NSA has committed perjury to Congress.
How can any such assurances ever be made? The government is run by people, who are by definition fallible, and some of whom are corrupt.
What is transparent? Open to the public? Then we'd all have access to everyone's data. Oversight by Congress? See above.
That is, none of these secret laws that we have currently. There are some Congresscritters that are currently working to make those laws public
1. There are other Congresscritters who are doing the opposite. 2. The programs already violate the law, and the NSA has already committed perjury when testifying about them. So, yeah, let's make some more laws to make it even more illegal--more illegal than unconstitutional!...
Assurances that it can't be abused would come in the form of auditing. This isn't unheard of, it's the same kind of auditi
He's not a criminal unless he gets convicted. Being indicted does not make one a criminal.
More important than whether he is ever legally a criminal is whether he actually did anything wrong. If a law prohibits revealing actions that violated the Constitution, that law must be unconstitutional; if he is charged with breaking such a law (such as for releasing classified documents which document unconstitutional programs), there may be courts which will convict him, but that doesn't make his actions wrong. Breaking an unlawful law is not wrong, even if the system is corrupt enough to convict for it.
Was Rosa Parks in the wrong? MLK, Jr.? They violated laws, but did they do anything wrong?
"But it's against the law to break the law!" Thankfully people like Snowden exist, who use their brains and act on moral principles.
The batter's box is not used to call strikes. That's what the plate is for.
The catcher giving a sign to the pitcher is not cheating. The catcher moving behind the plate is not cheating. The catcher moving his glove is not cheating.
The pitcher rubbing his head is not cheating unless he's applying a foreign substance to the ball. Sweat is not a foreign substance.
Pitchers used to pitch 9+ innings on 3 days rest. Then they invented closers and setup men and pitch counts. And then they had to invent Tommy John surgery.
There exists a game with a larger ball. It's called softball. And it sucks. People who have never played baseball competitively aren't really qualified to have an opinion. Kids used to grow up playing baseball in the sandlot with their buddies before dinner. Nowadays they grow up playing Xbox and then say that baseball looks boring and they should use a bigger ball.
In the early days of baseball, in the 19th century, the pitcher was required to pitch the ball where the batter told him to. And they threw underhanded. And then they realized that slow-pitch softball is boring.
These "suggestions" are really, "I don't get it so let me change it into something I like." It's akin to saying, "I don't get Chopin's music, so you should play it on a recorder, slowly."
Pitching is an art, and the contest between the battery and the batter is a game in and of itself. There are subtleties. But many people nowadays can't appreciate something unless it's in-your-face, slam-dunk, spike-the-ball, constant-movement... Some people play Call of Duty, some people play DayZ.
I didn't need more space. I wanted the UI that let me use labels instead of folders. I'm still waiting on a FOSS MUA and backend that can do this. mbox and Maildir don't cut it.
The USPS is suffering financially because of an idiotic law requiring them to fund pensions ten years ahead of time, unlike any other organization in the country.
You could already do that by popping out the compose window. Now we have to compose in a small box instead of a whole window. And they obscured many of the basic things, like Cc/Bcc.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh. It's not about being smug. It's about not sucking up my CPU and RAM and valuable time running inane, pointless, anti-me code and making my whole computer slower, and even crashing the browser (because we have to suffer regressions, and Ff22 crashes where Ff21 didn't).
This is how reading your comment works out in the real world:
1) "not" doesn't display properly ... finally the line displays properly ... now it doesn't need the word "not"
-> make exception to allow reading of this comment
2) "not" still doesn't display properly, because the first item was pasted into the second
-> make exception to allow reading of comments with the same error for the second time
3) "not" still doesn't display properly, because the second item was pasted into the third item
-> make exception to allow reading of comments with the same error for the third time time
49)
Hey, his UID is lower than...oh, nevermind.
But mine is! And he's completely right. And you haven't refuted his argument at all.
And unnecessary boldness.
"This is not the browser you are looking for."
Cash, eh?
Eh, I don't know, it's worked well for Apple so far.
I agree with you, of course. Mozilla's "gone corporate", and now it looks like they're starting to circle the drain, just like Google. Time for Iceweasel to shine.
By the way, what are the other stages?
The People of the United States includes many more than anarchists, libertarians, and IT professionals. Now major papers, domestic and abroad, are writing about this. He did a good thing. He's more of a courageous patriot than most members of Congress.
Blanket seizing is explicitly prohibited by the 4th Amendment.
The only possible argument is that electronic copying isn't seizing. If that is true, then copying movies and music isn't theft--but the government says it is. Can't have it both ways (oh, wait, they can, because they're the government; c.f. DoJ arguments about Obamacare to the SCOTUS "It's not a tax," "It's a tax").
Your sig...sad but true. :(
There's been plenty of information about the NSA's program for more than TEN years. U.S. Citizens, however, trusted that their government was doing the right thing when the NSA was constructing its electronic dragnet because it was right after 9/11.
Speak for yourself.
So honest question: What makes you believe that the government is doing "the wrong thing" now? I'm being serious here, because as far as I can tell, nothing that Snowden has said has proving that the NSA is abusing what it's been doing. If he had some documented evidence, for example, that the NSA had used its surveillance capabilities to spy on someone for non-terrorism political purposes, things might be different.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Collecting the data is unconstitutional. They are seizing the electronic records. It is unreasonable because no warrant has been issued. There can be no blanket authorization or warrant, because it must "particularly describe" the "place" and "persons or things."
If you argue with that, you are arguing with the English language.
The only other argument would be to argue that copying the electronic records is not "seizing" them. In that case, copying a movie or MP3 is not theft--but the government says it is. Can't have it both ways (oh wait, they can, because they are the government. c.f. Obamacare arguments in SCOTUS, "It's not a tax," "It is a tax").
Moving on from the arguments against collection, saying, "Oh we're collecting it, but we're not looking at it!" is preposterous. You're arguing from a default of trusting the government. Our nation was founded on the opposite. Our Constitution was written based on the opposite assumption. And quite explicitly, the NSA and other agencies have committed perjury when testifying to Congress, which directly represents the People in the government. The burden of proof is on you to show why the government should be trusted to any degree about anything.
From what I can tell, the programs at the NSA are designed only to collect the data. It's specifically to avoid this situation:
Situations are irrelevant. The law is what's relevant. Either change the Constitution or abide by it. You can make up a hypothetical situation (even one that has played out in reality) to justify anything--and that's exactly what the government is doing. Are you falling for it or are you a shill?
In other words, I don't think this is an inherently evil program, as long as it has proper oversight, assurances that it can't be abused, and that the oversight and legal framework under which it operates is transparent.
What is proper oversight? Congress? The NSA has committed perjury to Congress.
How can any such assurances ever be made? The government is run by people, who are by definition fallible, and some of whom are corrupt.
What is transparent? Open to the public? Then we'd all have access to everyone's data. Oversight by Congress? See above.
That is, none of these secret laws that we have currently. There are some Congresscritters that are currently working to make those laws public
1. There are other Congresscritters who are doing the opposite. ...
2. The programs already violate the law, and the NSA has already committed perjury when testifying about them. So, yeah, let's make some more laws to make it even more illegal--more illegal than unconstitutional!
Assurances that it can't be abused would come in the form of auditing. This isn't unheard of, it's the same kind of auditi
He's not a criminal unless he gets convicted. Being indicted does not make one a criminal.
More important than whether he is ever legally a criminal is whether he actually did anything wrong. If a law prohibits revealing actions that violated the Constitution, that law must be unconstitutional; if he is charged with breaking such a law (such as for releasing classified documents which document unconstitutional programs), there may be courts which will convict him, but that doesn't make his actions wrong. Breaking an unlawful law is not wrong, even if the system is corrupt enough to convict for it.
Was Rosa Parks in the wrong? MLK, Jr.? They violated laws, but did they do anything wrong?
"But it's against the law to break the law!" Thankfully people like Snowden exist, who use their brains and act on moral principles.
Being struck by lightning is highly unlikely, except to those who are struck by lightning.
Probability proves nothing.
Europe seems large compared to any one of its nations.
Europe seems small compared to North America.
What if "they" prefer living on real planets, and what if they have a market for exotic new vacation destinations?
It used to take months or years to circle the earth. Now it takes hours. And a few days' wages.
Does it make more sense that way?
A cutter is not erratic. It's very controllable, that's why he can use it effectively. What makes it hard to hit is that its movement is very late.
A knuckleball is erratic.
The batter's box is not used to call strikes. That's what the plate is for.
The catcher giving a sign to the pitcher is not cheating. The catcher moving behind the plate is not cheating. The catcher moving his glove is not cheating.
The pitcher rubbing his head is not cheating unless he's applying a foreign substance to the ball. Sweat is not a foreign substance.
Pitchers used to pitch 9+ innings on 3 days rest. Then they invented closers and setup men and pitch counts. And then they had to invent Tommy John surgery.
I am disenchanted by cheating and corruption in professional baseball.
But the game of baseball lives on in many places. Baseball is more than MLB. Those who love the game don't need MLB or any other certain venue.
There exists a game with a larger ball. It's called softball. And it sucks. People who have never played baseball competitively aren't really qualified to have an opinion. Kids used to grow up playing baseball in the sandlot with their buddies before dinner. Nowadays they grow up playing Xbox and then say that baseball looks boring and they should use a bigger ball.
In the early days of baseball, in the 19th century, the pitcher was required to pitch the ball where the batter told him to. And they threw underhanded. And then they realized that slow-pitch softball is boring.
These "suggestions" are really, "I don't get it so let me change it into something I like." It's akin to saying, "I don't get Chopin's music, so you should play it on a recorder, slowly."
Pitching is an art, and the contest between the battery and the batter is a game in and of itself. There are subtleties. But many people nowadays can't appreciate something unless it's in-your-face, slam-dunk, spike-the-ball, constant-movement... Some people play Call of Duty, some people play DayZ.
I didn't need more space. I wanted the UI that let me use labels instead of folders. I'm still waiting on a FOSS MUA and backend that can do this. mbox and Maildir don't cut it.
Except that Gmail lets you assign multiple labels to messages. This is huge, and there is no FOSS MUA that does this, AFAIK.
The USPS is suffering financially because of an idiotic law requiring them to fund pensions ten years ahead of time, unlike any other organization in the country.
You could already do that by popping out the compose window. Now we have to compose in a small box instead of a whole window. And they obscured many of the basic things, like Cc/Bcc.