It's a really interesting question, because the Constitution doesn't do a thing to inhibit the rights of individuals at all. Every single thing in it is a restriction on the government it describes. So this should mean that those restrictions are in place for the protection of all people, everywhere.
SCOTUS would disagree, but logically it doesn't quite add up.
Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press - compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations.
Let's not presume that this has anything to do with parties, lest we fall into the same 'Look!' trap you described above.
Tell me, if this be a Republican problem, what was the Democrats response to it? Tell me about how they cleaned it up once they took control of the white house and the Senate.
Truth be told, your best bet for seeing this fought is through the Tea Party - simply because they'd rather not pay the taxes to fund it.
"White guys are preferred," [was] the default setting for society [more than twenty years ago].
FTFY.
Please do understand - women of all races are willing to do the same work for far, far less pay than white males. Sure the concept was an issue before the working mother was a major player in the workforce, but 'white guys' are no longer the target employee.
For example if you're innocent, and the judge wants to ask you, "Did you do it?" Under the Fifth, you can refuse to answer. Without the Fifth, if you had to answer you would (presumably) just say "No". At that point, you're in the same boat either way -- if the court wants to convict you, they still have enough evidence. If the court is corrupt enough to fabricate evidence, the Fifth doesn't help you anyway.
Why doesn't your argument cut both ways? It seems that a logical person would then determine...
"Without the Fifth, if you had to answer you would (presumably) just say "No". At that point, you're in the same boat either way -- if the court wants to convict you, they still have enough evidence."
With or without it, there's no difference, by your logic.
So why THREE articles on the matter?
I fail to see the merits of one, let alone the effort (even just opportunity cost) gone into it.
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
So not only has this officer already determined your innocence before taking you into a room, he readily admits that his bias has led to thousands of suspects not being let go and only two or so changing his mind.
Both Obama and Feinstein are making themselves look STUPID, and that's not something politicians ever willingly elect to do. Now it is certainly possible that the press is capable of outmaneuvering politicians, but odds alone would dictate a different result eventually. But at every step along this garden path the figureheads have done and said the exact opposite thing as they should be doing or saying.
If what he leaked is damaging, it is because people in power did things that were damaging, not because someone exposed it.
This is only partially true. Had the administration remained silent on the matter it would have held, but it went something like this instead:
1) First leak - 'they are keeping your data' 2) The administrations says 'we have policies that protect you, nothing to see here'. 3) Next leak - 'they have polices that describe how to break the policies safely'....and so on.
Since the government claims to know everything he took, I'd wager that there is more yet to be discussed here. This isn't a case where he dumped everything on the web for all to see. This appears to be a planned, staged release, and it appears as though the US government is playing right into the plan.
Saying 'science is a method' is like saying 'Christ was a Jew'. True, but it doesn't change what happened.
Science was an idea designed to seek empirical truth. To find things in such a way that those who followed after could find them again. Then people got a hold of it and started using it as a means to control one another.
Christ (even from the atheist point of view, so bear with me) had a simple message of love being service to your fellow man. Then people got a hold of it and we get monstrosities like the Crusades.
That's where the 'HAS become' part of the above phrase kicks in...
The alternative, our status quo, is to surrender all power to the corporate and political aristocracies. If there's sufficient money to keep the powerful in place, then those wielding those funds form the laws out of whole cloth.
A) There is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT protecting firearms. No such protection exists for electronics devices. One would expect stricter controls on those devices, should the desire to pass such laws exist.
B) All power is granted to the government through the consent of the governed. They could mandate we all wear purple beards made of play-dough, and theoretically we'd either do it or be imprisoned/killed.
In short, the logic backing your position doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Wtf are you, a lawyer? White is white. Black is black. Words have meaning and only a lawyer can manipulate them to mean what they don't actually mean while everyone else has similar interpretations of the language we speak.
The concept you're missing is called 'nuance'. Look it up.
And if 'black is black' then what is Tiger Woods? Think about it.
Matter of fact, I know many people, lets call them 'enthusiasts', who would notice the ease of modification and deliberately buy the governed car knowing that it would be a badass car with the simple removal of the plastic block.
Take firearms, for example. There's quite a market for illegal modifications, such as firing pin mods, that grant considerably more value to modern weapons. They also make them suddenly illegal. Further, flaunting your defiance of the law in this way encourages new, tougher laws. So many, if not most, gun enthusiasts use legal versions of the firearms they want. In public, anyway.
And don't forget that there's an Amendment that says you get to keep your guns. Not so much for the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a really interesting question, because the Constitution doesn't do a thing to inhibit the rights of individuals at all. Every single thing in it is a restriction on the government it describes. So this should mean that those restrictions are in place for the protection of all people, everywhere.
SCOTUS would disagree, but logically it doesn't quite add up.
Oh, it's worse than just them:
http://www.cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php
Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press - compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations.
Someone has never heard of the Crusades.
You're being serious, but the 'magic key' should be obvious. It goes like this:
"Do you want anyone in government to talk to you ever again?"
If so, you play ball.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, champ.
This topic isn't just my day job, so I may know a thing or two about it.
But whether or not you think I do, coping with my son's condition and the way ignorant people treat him has gifted me with a very, very thick skin.
Thank you for the clarification. That's a much better response to his statement, and I do see your point.
But again, I think his effort was more meant to discourage than to offend. But that could just be how I read it.
I actually HAVE an autistic child, and I can tell you, we are the weird ones.
Most people with the condition have no idea why the rest of the world is wrong.
But whatever, keep on with your superiority.
If you're proud of your little comment here, you should probably get tested for ASD.
Let me break this down for you...
His comment (while crass and hyperbole) was, essentially 'do not kill yourself'. It had a point.
Your comment was merely meant to offend and had no merit whatsoever.
Will they ship to the US?
Judge them not by their words, but by their actions.
Or not. It's kind of a red pill/blue pill thing. Some people take comfort in the illusion.
I'm not aware how you'd have any idea what suits me and what does not.
And you're still laboring under the delusion that Obama's policies were not identical to Bush's, by way of implying there's a 'tone' to be set.
Unless 'tone' is nothing more than 'spin'.
I'll use plain language -
The parties are a ploy to fool the weak minded.
Rather like the illusion in the Emerald City. Never mind the man behind the curtain.
Let's not presume that this has anything to do with parties, lest we fall into the same 'Look!' trap you described above.
Tell me, if this be a Republican problem, what was the Democrats response to it? Tell me about how they cleaned it up once they took control of the white house and the Senate.
Truth be told, your best bet for seeing this fought is through the Tea Party - simply because they'd rather not pay the taxes to fund it.
"White guys are preferred," [was] the default setting for society [more than twenty years ago].
FTFY.
Please do understand - women of all races are willing to do the same work for far, far less pay than white males. Sure the concept was an issue before the working mother was a major player in the workforce, but 'white guys' are no longer the target employee.
For example if you're innocent, and the judge wants to ask you, "Did you do it?" Under the Fifth, you can refuse to answer. Without the Fifth, if you had to answer you would (presumably) just say "No". At that point, you're in the same boat either way -- if the court wants to convict you, they still have enough evidence. If the court is corrupt enough to fabricate evidence, the Fifth doesn't help you anyway.
Why doesn't your argument cut both ways? It seems that a logical person would then determine...
"Without the Fifth, if you had to answer you would (presumably) just say "No". At that point, you're in the same boat either way -- if the court wants to convict you, they still have enough evidence."
With or without it, there's no difference, by your logic.
So why THREE articles on the matter?
I fail to see the merits of one, let alone the effort (even just opportunity cost) gone into it.
On what planet is a police state in favor of the greater good?
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
So not only has this officer already determined your innocence before taking you into a room, he readily admits that his bias has led to thousands of suspects not being let go and only two or so changing his mind.
How is speaking to this person a good idea?
The only important question at this point is 'who is actually in charge of this situation'?
Note these...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130816/01174524199/simple-question-how-could-president-obama-not-know-that-inspector-generals-report-proving-him-liar-was-leaked-as-well.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130816/02462124204/how-could-dianne-feinstein-not-have-seen-report-laying-out-nsa-abuses.shtml
Both Obama and Feinstein are making themselves look STUPID, and that's not something politicians ever willingly elect to do. Now it is certainly possible that the press is capable of outmaneuvering politicians, but odds alone would dictate a different result eventually. But at every step along this garden path the figureheads have done and said the exact opposite thing as they should be doing or saying.
It's as if this is scripted. That worries me.
If what he leaked is damaging, it is because people in power did things that were damaging, not because someone exposed it.
This is only partially true. Had the administration remained silent on the matter it would have held, but it went something like this instead:
1) First leak - 'they are keeping your data' ...and so on.
2) The administrations says 'we have policies that protect you, nothing to see here'.
3) Next leak - 'they have polices that describe how to break the policies safely'.
Since the government claims to know everything he took, I'd wager that there is more yet to be discussed here. This isn't a case where he dumped everything on the web for all to see. This appears to be a planned, staged release, and it appears as though the US government is playing right into the plan.
I'm speaking toward the change from the original concept to the application today.
As in, it was dreamed up as a pure thing, but that's no longer the case.
Saying 'science is a method' is like saying 'Christ was a Jew'. True, but it doesn't change what happened.
Science was an idea designed to seek empirical truth. To find things in such a way that those who followed after could find them again. Then people got a hold of it and started using it as a means to control one another.
Christ (even from the atheist point of view, so bear with me) had a simple message of love being service to your fellow man. Then people got a hold of it and we get monstrosities like the Crusades.
That's where the 'HAS become' part of the above phrase kicks in...
The alternative, our status quo, is to surrender all power to the corporate and political aristocracies. If there's sufficient money to keep the powerful in place, then those wielding those funds form the laws out of whole cloth.
In what way is this better?
Again, though:
A) There is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT protecting firearms. No such protection exists for electronics devices. One would expect stricter controls on those devices, should the desire to pass such laws exist.
B) All power is granted to the government through the consent of the governed. They could mandate we all wear purple beards made of play-dough, and theoretically we'd either do it or be imprisoned/killed.
In short, the logic backing your position doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Depends on how means locked down:
Wtf are you, a lawyer? White is white. Black is black. Words have meaning and only a lawyer can manipulate them to mean what they don't actually mean while everyone else has similar interpretations of the language we speak.
The concept you're missing is called 'nuance'. Look it up.
And if 'black is black' then what is Tiger Woods? Think about it.
Matter of fact, I know many people, lets call them 'enthusiasts', who would notice the ease of modification and deliberately buy the governed car knowing that it would be a badass car with the simple removal of the plastic block.
Take firearms, for example. There's quite a market for illegal modifications, such as firing pin mods, that grant considerably more value to modern weapons. They also make them suddenly illegal. Further, flaunting your defiance of the law in this way encourages new, tougher laws. So many, if not most, gun enthusiasts use legal versions of the firearms they want. In public, anyway.
And don't forget that there's an Amendment that says you get to keep your guns. Not so much for the iPhone.