Why do you think it is sudden? Congress, with the courts approval, have been infringing on Constitutional rights since the Constitution was written. They make exceptions all the time: when you can speak (no "fire" in a crowded theater); when you can assemble (Sorry "Occupy", move along... move along...); which guns you're allowed to buy (all without infringing on your right to keep & bear!); and when a warrant is required to execute you (Drone, zooooom, boom!).
The ends justify the means in each of those cases, so it does now too, and will again in the future.
All that shows is that we're not the 'land of the free and the home of the brave,' and never have been. Of course, things like slavery made that obvious anyway. Our government is and always was full of freedom-hating scumbags.
Nothing is ever perfect. The US Constitution sets the standard, or the bar against which the government must constantly be measured against and corrected when government strays/errs.
Through the history of the US, it has been both closer to that ideal and farther away, and in different areas and in different ways to different people at different times. Since government size has expanded so greatly since the 1920s, likewise so has its' power and control over ever more aspects of our lives and control of ever more US business, health, resource, & economic infrastructure. That expands the severity and scope of such bad government behavior.
We are in yet another moment in US history where we must decide how far we allow government power to reach, how many of our choices it can eliminate/control, and how much monitoring & control over our speech and communications it can be allowed to achieve.
Remember; If the capability exists, it will be misused regardless of any laws or oversight put in place. It's human nature, and especially human political nature.
Note that the amendment does not presume to be granting the right to keep and bear arms. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing it.
NO, it doesn't, and had NEVER been interpreted that way until the 1970s/80s.
Learn some damn history before talking about it.
It is YOU who needs to learn some history.
The Rights outlined in the US Constitution are the Rights every person is born with as they are the rights of "Nature and Nature's God" (as described by the founders).
Every person has a natural right to protect themselves. Every person has a right to voice their opinion. The US Constitution merely highlights and emphasizes what the Founders considered some of the most important of these rights in order to emphasize that the government may not infringe upon them.
The Constitution incorporates a negative list of Rights, that is, it is a non-exclusive list of some of the natural individual Rights that every person is born with that the government may not infringe upon.
It is always disturbing when the ignorant speak out with such vehemence and confidence upon matters in which they have no clue. Such public ignorance is what allows tyranny to take root.
Please, for all our sakes and for your own, educate yourself rather than parroting partisan political talking points.
I would *presume* that any large-scale collection and analysis of medical information will eventually be abused by someone. That still leaves the question of whether its a reasonable tradeoff.
Data is power. The more data that is collected about people, the easier they are to control. Just look at every single authoritarian police state and how they always gather as much data on people as possible. It's a means of control.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like I have any surplus freedom. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
A free and open society is not without risks and responsibilities for the individuals in it. Data collection and mining to the extent that people like Larry Page desire is incompatible with a free and open society. He's just trying to convince people that the freedom you have is not that important, heck you barely use it and "look! ooooh, shiny!".
Every nation that became an authoritarian state that arose from within, started with convincing the people the freedoms they were losing were for the "greater good".
I'll take my chances with a free and open society where so much data about me is not collected & mined, and in the control of others with power over me who do not necessarily have my personal best interests in mind, thanks anyway Mr. Page.
As far as we know at this time, subject to further revelations/leaks which may challenge this, FBI, NSA, etc. are searching communications, not data stored on cellphones.
Hmm, I just now replaced a TV that was15 years old, only replaced because it was breaking down. (I still have it though, it's too heavy to drag down to the recyclers)
Remember several decades back when there were still television repair shops, so you'd go to have it fixed, replace the picture tubes, tune the chokes, etc?
There's a perfectly functional Sanyo TV, matching DVD player, and VHS tape deck from 2002 sitting in my entertainment center.
Right next to a 1970s Lafayette Electronics (remember their electronics kits and Ham/CB radios?) analog stereo receiver, the kind with slide-rule AM/FM dial for the tuner portion, and an analog signal-strength/FM-stereo-signal-centering meter. That powers two pairs of 12"-woofer Rat-Shack "Optimus" speakers from the early 1980s. Still sounds great, and easily powerful/loud enough to rattle the windows and bring the local constabulary.
I also feed video/audio to the system from my 2001 and 2006 PCs, as well as my SGI Octane system from ~1998.
My cellphone is a 'soapbar' style basic LG from 2005.
*I* and people like me who do not throw money at them every other year for the latest "Oooh, shiny!" are their enemy and their target. Africa just has a higher proportion who don't (and/or can't afford to) buy their products according to an "optimum upgrade schedule" designed to maximize their profits.
The e-waste angle is just another tool being (mis-)used to "nudge" people to keep paying them over and over, and not repair, reuse, and/or re-sell their products.
A *government* tool that would not exist, or at least not in a form that would allow the corrupt politicians to use in this way, if we did not allow governments to grow large enough to have so much power and control over everything and everybody's life that holding those in government accountable becomes impossible as a practical, peaceful matter. We've seen this recently with the DoJ, IRS, NSA, GCHQ, etc etc.
There are US bases in Japan as well as South Korea. Any attack by China on either would be the launching point for another World War. Ukraine doesn't rank in the same region of US interests as Japan does. Not in the same Galaxy.
All true.
Except that the current US administration would do nothing except make PR statements and call for sanctions. Maybe.
"I just heard about the Chinese attack on Japan in the news just like you did. I will make a strongly-worded statement...as soon as my teleprompter tells me what it is."
I wonder which YouTube video would be blamed? Or would those emails suddenly disappear like 2 years of IRS emails just conveniently did?
And both the major US political Parties are equally as deceitful, corrupt, and power-hungry. There really is only one US political Party, the Government Party vs We the People.
Cry me a river. I'm sure that we could reduce that possibility ten fold if we placed cameras and microphones inside everyone's house. Does that mean we should do it? Absolutely not.
But, but...we have to destroy freedom in order to protect Freedom(tm)!
Why do you hate Freedom(tm) and America(tm)??
"Those who would give up essential liberties for..."
Ah, screw it! Apparently most people are fine with sacrificing any and all of their individual liberties and rights as long as the talking heads tell them it makes them more safe. Or, that changing this slide into totalitarianism in America is someone else's job.
There will always be the risk of people doing bad things in a free and open society. If there was not the ability for individuals and groups in a society to do bad things, then that society by definition would be neither free nor open.
Ah, Val Kilmer as ""Doc Holiday" in the movie "Tombstone".
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just...walked over your grave!"
IMHO that was Val Kilmer's best performance and best character portrayal to date. His "charming and lovable, but deadly scoundrel" Doc Holiday character just "nailed it" on so many levels. It almost makes up for his "Batman" (sorry, Kilmer-as-Batman fans).
Really, for me at least, Kilmer's "Doc Holiday" character in "Tombstone" is the one truly good role and performance I remember when "Tombstone" and/or Val Kilmer come up in conversation.
if this competes with the existing power-brokers (and yes, it does) then it can't be allowed.
to stop things we don't like, we label them as child pron or terrorism.
nothing new about this; we've seen this old play redone hundreds of times during the last 10+ yrs.
this is just about controlling currency and stopping anonymity. has absolutely nothing to do with 'terror'. only an moran would buy that story.
It's about control and destroying a free and open society..
Terrorism, rebellion against the government, and being able to move wealth without government knowledge is only preventable in an authoritarian police-state type of society.
A free and open society only exists when it is possible to keep one's finances a secret from government and organize without the governments' knowledge to commit acts of terrorism and rebellion.
More government "Safety" = Less Freedom, Less Actual Safety, and Less Money for You.
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party, or the family member or friend of someone with authority in the Nazi Party. If that Party member happened to fall into political disfavor, or the citizen's personal enemy(s) reported him for some betrayal or politically-forbidden speech etc, those individuals were suddenly instantaneously prohibited from possessing a firearm.
This status-change was often announced by way of a Luger or MP40 discharged into the unlucky formerly-legal-gun-owner for the offense of illegally possessing a firearm.
Every single person ever born or who will ever be born has the natural right to self defense. How much any particular government recognizes this natural individual right varies greatly, however. Until basic human nature deeply and fundamentally changes, people will always need an effective means of self defense against other humans attempting to do them great harm, and therefor have the natural right to that defense.
Every tyranny and authoritarian state down through history where individual freedom was severely restricted also severely restricted and onerously-regulated, or prohibited outright, common people from possessing effective personal weapons for self defense.
Failing to learn such important lessons from history leads people into de-facto slavery if not actual, outright slavery. That is, if they are lucky enough that the powers-that-be haven't included good old genocide of "*those* people" (whoever is politically-inconvenient or convenient, as the case may be) as part of their goals.
Any scientists care to produce data on how much cooling that hunting the large numbers of truly enormous herds of buffalo that covered many square miles to near-extinction produced? The temperature records I've seen do not show any such corresponding result.
There are about twice as many bovines in the US now. Estimates of the population of bison in the 1500s are 30-60million. There are 90million cattle in the country now. The biomass of a bison was commonly 300-1000kg. The biomass of a beef cow at slaughter is about 600kg average: So I what you're seeing is a replacement of one bovine with another, with a increase in population and biomass.
So you're saying in effect that if the buffalo herds had grown to ~30% larger that it would have had a significant effect on global warming? That's quite a leap.
If global climate is so delicate we're all doomed no matter what we do.
I'm all for solidly-based, practical, cost-effective, common sense, and pragmatic efforts to protect the environment. This whole CO2 and climate-change alarmism is not any of that.
The Earth is in a warming cycle that will continue until it peaks and reverses back towards another ice age, no matter what we puny humans do. We can only make tiny-to-the-point-of-irrelevance changes in the rates of those changes.
Rather than attempt to put chains on the growth of civilization and the freedom of men, why not trust that humans will do what they've always done? Adapt, survive, overcome, and prosper. With the growth of civilization also comes a growth in our ability to adapt, overcome, and mitigate.
Also, with the growth of civilization will be a growth in our ability and desire to move problem-making industries like energy production and many other types of industrial operations. Once humans start moving such activities off-planet, there will be a chance for Earth's natural processes to abate and recover from the damage we may have done on our way to maturity. Humans can't advance as a civilization and live like they're afraid to walk on the grass.
You can't have humans totally proscribed from causing any potential damage to the environment or climate. It's going to happen no matter what, and no matter how many laws are passed or treaties that are signed. Not saying I favor a free-for-all. As I stated above, pragmatic and cost-effective rules that can reasonably be enforced, and that don't do more damage than they're intended to mitigate.
"The secret is to bang the two rocks together, kiddies!" - MC at The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.
Point of precision: Cow flatulence isn't a significant source of greenhouse gasses. Cow digestion makes methane, but it is released at the front end of said bovine.
We must work to eliminate the large numbers of carbon-producing buffalo immediately!
Oh, wait...
Any scientists care to produce data on how much cooling that hunting the large numbers of truly enormous herds of buffalo that covered many square miles to near-extinction produced? The temperature records I've seen do not show any such corresponding result.
If curbing the bovine population were to have any meaningful effect on warming, we should be able to identify and quantify the data that would tend to confirm or disprove this from the time periods before and after the time of the disappearance of the buffalo herds.
As a matter of fact, I find the lack of this comparison being used to bolster the case for bovine carbon regulations/laws conspicuous by it's very absence.
Where government creates regulations and laws to favor "connected" businesses and interests. That's how the established ISPs have come to have so much power.
."..one has to wonder how long before the U.S. recognizes the internet as a utility and passes laws and regulations accordingly."
Now the author of TFS thinks *more* laws & regulations from the *same* crooks that have intentionally worked long and hard to *create* this situation are suddenly going to help!?
If there's enough crap stirred up to occupy the news cycle for more than a day or two, they'll do what they always do. Put together some Bill with a great-sounding name and at a quick glance looks good, but there will be sub-clauses and sub-paragraphs buried deep in the weeds of the Bill that actually make things *worse*.
Hmm, on second thought, where did I put that property title to that bridge? I may have found a prospect!
It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.
Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.
LK
I would think that simply requiring a signed & notarized release form to release video/photographs of individuals nude and/or engaged in sexual acts would reduce the amount and viciousness in many cases of these revenge videos and those who upload them, and the damage they often inflict on women whose biggest crime was choosing to trust a sleazy and heartless SOB.
I see no need to pass legislation which impacts basic civil rights. There are already numerous legal precedents and laws/regulations on the books that could be slightly tweaked, possibly as I outlined above, to solve this type of attack and violation of privacy.
What has been proposed in this Bill is nothing but a power grab by government.
/There is the small issue of nuclear fallout being scattered throughout the atmosphere.
LOLwut? You think anyone would seriously consider touching off an ascending string of air-burst nukes at Kennedy Space Center? Or even at White Sands?
Something that massive would have to be built in orbit, possibly even lunar orbit or one of the La Grange points, far away from Earth, with materials obtained from captured asteroids and/or lunar mining and use of solar-powered electromagnetic rail systems to launch materials off the lunar surface to orbit.
A space-going ship of that scale makes it not practical to be climbing out of deep atmospheres and gravity wells with, never mind trying to soft-land such a large mass on same using nuclear explosions. Ships at such scales would necessarily travel from a "parking" orbit at the origin to a "parking" orbit at the destination, and use auxiliary craft for planetary landings.
Capture an asteroid of sufficient size and a suitable composition consisting of a mixture of rock and water & methane/etc ice, hollow out the interior, and with some work you have a ship with it's own integral micrometeorite and radiation shielding, plus a built-in propellant and oxygen supply.
We have the technology right now to begin, and the growth of our knowledge and abilities will accelerate with demand and use so that we will achieve the ability to complete the most difficult parts as the time for doing those things comes up.
The spin-off technologies and knowledge gained from such a project would make life back here on Earth much safer, cleaner, and healthier for everyone.
What about giving me basic information on the labels about where my food is coming from so that I can decide for myself what I want to eat?
Then we agree that the act of banning, and therefor removing the ability to make that *choice* as opposed to allowing people to choose for themselves, is a bad thing.
There is not in any way "consensus" that "GMOs are safe"
The EU bans most GMO foods and requires labels on the others....they have plenty of peer reviewed published research to base that decision upon
Again the facts say otherwise.
The consensus is that they are safe. American Medical Association [ama-assn.org] National Academy of Sciences [nap.edu] World Health Organization [who.int] Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission [euractiv.com] Department of Agriculture [usda.gov] Food and Drug Administration [fda.gov] Environmental Protection Agency [epa.gov]
Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.
Yes, the reactionary, anti-science Progressives in *both* major Parties who sees a chance to grab more power and control by corrupting the entire field of science in order to use it for political purposes (the ends justify the means), wants to see most people (except themselves, of course. THEY are far too important!) freezing and starving in the dark, willing to do anything they say to receive basic necessities rationed out by them as they see fit.
It's all about control.
We're living in a giant KFC farm for people, with ever-smaller cages built of the ever-growing amount of laws, regulations, taxation, licensing, bureaucracy, and destruction of civil rights along with increasingly-militarized local police forces financed and therefor controlled by the central government.
With national fiscal crisis occurring across the globe, the impending collapse of the US Dollar, and the world economy teetering on the brink of collapse, we are at the precipice of a global sea-change which will herald-in the beginning of a new age of war, tyranny, genocide, and poverty worldwide.
It neglects to consider that the government gives as well as takes.
Pull that bus over right now.
Government gives *nothing*.
All government is, is force. It has no wealth of it's own. Anything it "gives" in entitlements/benefits/bread & circuses/etc comes from taking wealth, under threat of lethal force and imprisonment, from those who worked to produce it and transfer it to someone else or to some other group.
TANSTAAFL
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Even more so with layer upon layer of government red-tape, incompetence, ideological social-engineering foolishness, and bureaucracy.
All that government has and all the powers it exercises are voluntarily granted to government temporarily, with the sworn & solemn agreement that the government will not exceed the bounds of that which is loaned to them, in exchange for the privilege of exercising those agreed-upon powers using the agreed-upon wealth exclusively for the agreed-upon purposes.
Furthermore, the citizens have a right and a duty to alter or abolish a government that violates that trust.
Government is a necessary evil. The less the better.
A powerful central government, necessary to support and administer/enforce a centrally run government entitlement infrastructure, even if run benevolently *now*, only requires a change of politicians/party for that same power to be used for corruption, oppression, and tyranny.
Have you noticed that not too many years ago, Americans would hear about some neat new technical military thing and think, "Wow, I'm glad that's on OUR side!" And now, they just expect it to be used for domestic purposes.
And yet, many of these same people will attack you and call you all sorts of names if you dare suggest reducing the Federal government's size, power, & scope. They just seem incapable of connecting the growth of government size, power, and scope to the government abuses of their civil rights that they're becoming increasingly aware of.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
All governments get their power from the citizens. The more power the government has, the less power and protections from government abuse the individual citizen will have. All governments get their wealth from their citizens. The more wealth the government has/spends, the less wealth citizens will have or be able to borrow for homes, businesses, schooling, raising kids, giving to charities, etc.
How is this any different from someone just unlocking your front door because the lock mechanism is stupid and helping himself to all your belongings?
The law on trespassing is that if your property is not plainly posted according to certain detailed legal requirements and you leave your door open or unlocked and someone enters your premises and/or if they cross onto your property, you may order the individual(s) to leave, and if they comply without delay, they have not committed a crime, regardless of what they may have seen while on the property and/or in the premises, and are under no legal obligation to keep it secret barring a court's order.
An internet address typed into a browser's address bar is in no way a closed or locked door, there are no signs warning against trespassing, not even any sign that there may be any private property there at all until 'enter' is pressed, nothing that's required to be present at the property owner's responsibility and cost in order to convict someone of a crime.
The whole concept being used to criminalize typing the "wrong" URL into your internet browser violates basic tenets of common law and civil rights.
This is big money working with a corrupt government and politicians of both of the major parties to both offload the security burden onto the populace, but also using the power of law and threat of lethal force to do it, which gives the government even more ability to intimidate, threaten, control, and to jail people selectively.
Gotta keep the trial lawyers, the politicians, and the private prison industry fat cats in plenty of hookers & blow while expanding their power over the population more and more.
What possible safety function does coloring a multimeter yellow serve?
Being easy to find.
A meter "being easy to find" is not a safety function.
Says a guy that's apparently never been 10 feet down a very dark and cramped concrete-lined hole, troubleshooting and changing out a failed 480V 3-phase lift-pump motor and contactor assembly.
You really should avoid offering opinions on things whens it's glaringly-obvious that you know very little about them. It's like watching the guy who decides to do a belly-flop from 45 feet. It's just painful for everyone, even the observers.
I'm not being mean here. I'm hoping it sticks and contributes in some small way to you living a happier and more productive life.
"A man's got to know his limitations." - Clint Eastwood as "Dirty" Harry Callahan in "Magnum Force"
the result of money: businesses having to much (in)direct influence.
If it doesn't lead to corrupted politicians, it's at least corrupting democracy.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Corporations and others with money would not bother bribing/corrupting politicians in the US Federal government if those politicians had very little actual power or control, which is the way the US Constitution originally was designed.
Starting in the early 1900s with President Wilson and the Progressive movement, however, the Federal government has been constantly expanding in power and scope, making it increasingly useful and attractive for the dishonest to attempt to corrupt.
As long as there is a large centralized nexus of power rather than a distributed system, there will be corruption.
The US Constitution is a network design. Instead of data, it deals in power. Like data networks, compromising a distributed system is far more difficult than compromising a system with a single C&C point.
If you look at government as a network, it's obvious the problem lies in far too much centralization of power.
I'm ashamed to be Australian today. These idiots don't represent most Australians. I'll have to contact my local member of parliament.
Not as ashamed as I am as an American, whose nation is supposed to be at the forefront of individual liberty and as much freedom from government regulation of, involvement in, or monitoring of the average person's life as possible while still maintaining domestic order and performing the duties necessary to conduct foreign affairs.
The further the government of the US strays from and exceeds the powers and scope granted by it's Constitution, the worse things have and will get. Not only for the US and those in it, but for the entire world...economically, diplomatically, militarily,.and from the perspective of individual liberty and freedom as well.
Where does one seek asylum from persecution when the are no more nations of free people? If there are no more nations of free people, who will stand against the next insane megalomaniac tyrant bent on world domination? And, there *will* be another. Without fail. There always will be (at least until the human race achieves Ascension:) ). The rise and fall of such describes a large chunk of the entirety of human history from the beginnings of civilization until now.
My greatest fear is that the US collapses into a full-on totalitarian police state that sees foreign aggression as the only practical means at it's disposal to feed the beast, seeing as it's economy is shot, and becomes the next threat to the entire world like WW2 Germany, squared.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is ever perfect. The US Constitution sets the standard, or the bar against which the government must constantly be measured against and corrected when government strays/errs.
Through the history of the US, it has been both closer to that ideal and farther away, and in different areas and in different ways to different people at different times. Since government size has expanded so greatly since the 1920s, likewise so has its' power and control over ever more aspects of our lives and control of ever more US business, health, resource, & economic infrastructure. That expands the severity and scope of such bad government behavior.
We are in yet another moment in US history where we must decide how far we allow government power to reach, how many of our choices it can eliminate/control, and how much monitoring & control over our speech and communications it can be allowed to achieve.
Remember; If the capability exists, it will be misused regardless of any laws or oversight put in place. It's human nature, and especially human political nature.
Strat
It is YOU who needs to learn some history.
The Rights outlined in the US Constitution are the Rights every person is born with as they are the rights of "Nature and Nature's God" (as described by the founders).
Every person has a natural right to protect themselves. Every person has a right to voice their opinion. The US Constitution merely highlights and emphasizes what the Founders considered some of the most important of these rights in order to emphasize that the government may not infringe upon them.
The Constitution incorporates a negative list of Rights, that is, it is a non-exclusive list of some of the natural individual Rights that every person is born with that the government may not infringe upon.
It is always disturbing when the ignorant speak out with such vehemence and confidence upon matters in which they have no clue. Such public ignorance is what allows tyranny to take root.
Please, for all our sakes and for your own, educate yourself rather than parroting partisan political talking points.
Strat
I would *presume* that any large-scale collection and analysis of medical information will eventually be abused by someone. That still leaves the question of whether its a reasonable tradeoff.
Data is power. The more data that is collected about people, the easier they are to control. Just look at every single authoritarian police state and how they always gather as much data on people as possible. It's a means of control.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like I have any surplus freedom. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
A free and open society is not without risks and responsibilities for the individuals in it. Data collection and mining to the extent that people like Larry Page desire is incompatible with a free and open society. He's just trying to convince people that the freedom you have is not that important, heck you barely use it and "look! ooooh, shiny!".
Every nation that became an authoritarian state that arose from within, started with convincing the people the freedoms they were losing were for the "greater good".
I'll take my chances with a free and open society where so much data about me is not collected & mined, and in the control of others with power over me who do not necessarily have my personal best interests in mind, thanks anyway Mr. Page.
No sale.
Strat
As far as we know at this time, subject to further revelations/leaks which may challenge this, FBI, NSA, etc. are searching communications, not data stored on cellphones.
FTFY
Strat
Hmm, I just now replaced a TV that was15 years old, only replaced because it was breaking down. (I still have it though, it's too heavy to drag down to the recyclers)
Remember several decades back when there were still television repair shops, so you'd go to have it fixed, replace the picture tubes, tune the chokes, etc?
There's a perfectly functional Sanyo TV, matching DVD player, and VHS tape deck from 2002 sitting in my entertainment center.
Right next to a 1970s Lafayette Electronics (remember their electronics kits and Ham/CB radios?) analog stereo receiver, the kind with slide-rule AM/FM dial for the tuner portion, and an analog signal-strength/FM-stereo-signal-centering meter. That powers two pairs of 12"-woofer Rat-Shack "Optimus" speakers from the early 1980s. Still sounds great, and easily powerful/loud enough to rattle the windows and bring the local constabulary.
I also feed video/audio to the system from my 2001 and 2006 PCs, as well as my SGI Octane system from ~1998.
My cellphone is a 'soapbar' style basic LG from 2005.
*I* and people like me who do not throw money at them every other year for the latest "Oooh, shiny!" are their enemy and their target. Africa just has a higher proportion who don't (and/or can't afford to) buy their products according to an "optimum upgrade schedule" designed to maximize their profits.
The e-waste angle is just another tool being (mis-)used to "nudge" people to keep paying them over and over, and not repair, reuse, and/or re-sell their products.
A *government* tool that would not exist, or at least not in a form that would allow the corrupt politicians to use in this way, if we did not allow governments to grow large enough to have so much power and control over everything and everybody's life that holding those in government accountable becomes impossible as a practical, peaceful matter. We've seen this recently with the DoJ, IRS, NSA, GCHQ, etc etc.
Strat
Kill. Freeze-dry. Compress. Ship. See?
You and all the politicians first. We'll be right behind you.
Honest. :)
Strat
There are US bases in Japan as well as South Korea. Any attack by China on either would be the launching point for another World War. Ukraine doesn't rank in the same region of US interests as Japan does. Not in the same Galaxy.
All true.
Except that the current US administration would do nothing except make PR statements and call for sanctions. Maybe.
"I just heard about the Chinese attack on Japan in the news just like you did. I will make a strongly-worded statement...as soon as my teleprompter tells me what it is."
I wonder which YouTube video would be blamed? Or would those emails suddenly disappear like 2 years of IRS emails just conveniently did?
And both the major US political Parties are equally as deceitful, corrupt, and power-hungry. There really is only one US political Party, the Government Party vs We the People.
Strat
Cry me a river. I'm sure that we could reduce that possibility ten fold if we placed cameras and microphones inside everyone's house. Does that mean we should do it? Absolutely not.
But, but...we have to destroy freedom in order to protect Freedom(tm)!
Why do you hate Freedom(tm) and America(tm)??
"Those who would give up essential liberties for..."
Ah, screw it! Apparently most people are fine with sacrificing any and all of their individual liberties and rights as long as the talking heads tell them it makes them more safe. Or, that changing this slide into totalitarianism in America is someone else's job.
There will always be the risk of people doing bad things in a free and open society. If there was not the ability for individuals and groups in a society to do bad things, then that society by definition would be neither free nor open.
Strat
Or howsabout an entire carbecue raging away on the surface?
Thank you.
That great new word was just added to my casual vocabulary and simultaneously made today's time-wasting on /. worthwhile!
Strat
Ed, what an ugly thing to say.
I abhor ugliness.
Does this mean we're not friends any more?
Ah, Val Kilmer as ""Doc Holiday" in the movie "Tombstone".
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just...walked over your grave!"
IMHO that was Val Kilmer's best performance and best character portrayal to date. His "charming and lovable, but deadly scoundrel" Doc Holiday character just "nailed it" on so many levels. It almost makes up for his "Batman" (sorry, Kilmer-as-Batman fans).
Really, for me at least, Kilmer's "Doc Holiday" character in "Tombstone" is the one truly good role and performance I remember when "Tombstone" and/or Val Kilmer come up in conversation.
Strat
quite unreasonable.
don't you know the drill, by now?
if this competes with the existing power-brokers (and yes, it does) then it can't be allowed.
to stop things we don't like, we label them as child pron or terrorism.
nothing new about this; we've seen this old play redone hundreds of times during the last 10+ yrs.
this is just about controlling currency and stopping anonymity. has absolutely nothing to do with 'terror'. only an moran would buy that story.
It's about control and destroying a free and open society..
Terrorism, rebellion against the government, and being able to move wealth without government knowledge is only preventable in an authoritarian police-state type of society.
A free and open society only exists when it is possible to keep one's finances a secret from government and organize without the governments' knowledge to commit acts of terrorism and rebellion.
More government "Safety" = Less Freedom, Less Actual Safety, and Less Money for You.
Strat
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party, or the family member or friend of someone with authority in the Nazi Party. If that Party member happened to fall into political disfavor, or the citizen's personal enemy(s) reported him for some betrayal or politically-forbidden speech etc, those individuals were suddenly instantaneously prohibited from possessing a firearm.
This status-change was often announced by way of a Luger or MP40 discharged into the unlucky formerly-legal-gun-owner for the offense of illegally possessing a firearm.
Every single person ever born or who will ever be born has the natural right to self defense. How much any particular government recognizes this natural individual right varies greatly, however. Until basic human nature deeply and fundamentally changes, people will always need an effective means of self defense against other humans attempting to do them great harm, and therefor have the natural right to that defense.
Every tyranny and authoritarian state down through history where individual freedom was severely restricted also severely restricted and onerously-regulated, or prohibited outright, common people from possessing effective personal weapons for self defense.
Failing to learn such important lessons from history leads people into de-facto slavery if not actual, outright slavery. That is, if they are lucky enough that the powers-that-be haven't included good old genocide of "*those* people" (whoever is politically-inconvenient or convenient, as the case may be) as part of their goals.
Strat
So you're saying in effect that if the buffalo herds had grown to ~30% larger that it would have had a significant effect on global warming? That's quite a leap.
If global climate is so delicate we're all doomed no matter what we do.
I'm all for solidly-based, practical, cost-effective, common sense, and pragmatic efforts to protect the environment. This whole CO2 and climate-change alarmism is not any of that.
The Earth is in a warming cycle that will continue until it peaks and reverses back towards another ice age, no matter what we puny humans do. We can only make tiny-to-the-point-of-irrelevance changes in the rates of those changes.
Rather than attempt to put chains on the growth of civilization and the freedom of men, why not trust that humans will do what they've always done? Adapt, survive, overcome, and prosper. With the growth of civilization also comes a growth in our ability to adapt, overcome, and mitigate.
Also, with the growth of civilization will be a growth in our ability and desire to move problem-making industries like energy production and many other types of industrial operations. Once humans start moving such activities off-planet, there will be a chance for Earth's natural processes to abate and recover from the damage we may have done on our way to maturity. Humans can't advance as a civilization and live like they're afraid to walk on the grass.
You can't have humans totally proscribed from causing any potential damage to the environment or climate. It's going to happen no matter what, and no matter how many laws are passed or treaties that are signed. Not saying I favor a free-for-all. As I stated above, pragmatic and cost-effective rules that can reasonably be enforced, and that don't do more damage than they're intended to mitigate.
"The secret is to bang the two rocks together, kiddies!" - MC at The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.
Strat
Point of precision: Cow flatulence isn't a significant source of greenhouse gasses. Cow digestion makes methane, but it is released at the front end of said bovine.
We must work to eliminate the large numbers of carbon-producing buffalo immediately!
Oh, wait...
Any scientists care to produce data on how much cooling that hunting the large numbers of truly enormous herds of buffalo that covered many square miles to near-extinction produced? The temperature records I've seen do not show any such corresponding result.
If curbing the bovine population were to have any meaningful effect on warming, we should be able to identify and quantify the data that would tend to confirm or disprove this from the time periods before and after the time of the disappearance of the buffalo herds.
As a matter of fact, I find the lack of this comparison being used to bolster the case for bovine carbon regulations/laws conspicuous by it's very absence.
Strat
Where government creates regulations and laws to favor "connected" businesses and interests. That's how the established ISPs have come to have so much power.
."..one has to wonder how long before the U.S. recognizes the internet as a utility and passes laws and regulations accordingly."
Now the author of TFS thinks *more* laws & regulations from the *same* crooks that have intentionally worked long and hard to *create* this situation are suddenly going to help!?
If there's enough crap stirred up to occupy the news cycle for more than a day or two, they'll do what they always do. Put together some Bill with a great-sounding name and at a quick glance looks good, but there will be sub-clauses and sub-paragraphs buried deep in the weeds of the Bill that actually make things *worse*.
Hmm, on second thought, where did I put that property title to that bridge? I may have found a prospect!
Strat
It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.
Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.
LK
I would think that simply requiring a signed & notarized release form to release video/photographs of individuals nude and/or engaged in sexual acts would reduce the amount and viciousness in many cases of these revenge videos and those who upload them, and the damage they often inflict on women whose biggest crime was choosing to trust a sleazy and heartless SOB.
I see no need to pass legislation which impacts basic civil rights. There are already numerous legal precedents and laws/regulations on the books that could be slightly tweaked, possibly as I outlined above, to solve this type of attack and violation of privacy.
What has been proposed in this Bill is nothing but a power grab by government.
Strat
/There is the small issue of nuclear fallout being scattered throughout the atmosphere.
LOLwut? You think anyone would seriously consider touching off an ascending string of air-burst nukes at Kennedy Space Center? Or even at White Sands?
Something that massive would have to be built in orbit, possibly even lunar orbit or one of the La Grange points, far away from Earth, with materials obtained from captured asteroids and/or lunar mining and use of solar-powered electromagnetic rail systems to launch materials off the lunar surface to orbit.
A space-going ship of that scale makes it not practical to be climbing out of deep atmospheres and gravity wells with, never mind trying to soft-land such a large mass on same using nuclear explosions. Ships at such scales would necessarily travel from a "parking" orbit at the origin to a "parking" orbit at the destination, and use auxiliary craft for planetary landings.
Capture an asteroid of sufficient size and a suitable composition consisting of a mixture of rock and water & methane/etc ice, hollow out the interior, and with some work you have a ship with it's own integral micrometeorite and radiation shielding, plus a built-in propellant and oxygen supply.
We have the technology right now to begin, and the growth of our knowledge and abilities will accelerate with demand and use so that we will achieve the ability to complete the most difficult parts as the time for doing those things comes up.
The spin-off technologies and knowledge gained from such a project would make life back here on Earth much safer, cleaner, and healthier for everyone.
Strat
What about giving me basic information on the labels about where my food is coming from so that I can decide for myself what I want to eat?
Then we agree that the act of banning, and therefor removing the ability to make that *choice* as opposed to allowing people to choose for themselves, is a bad thing.
Thanks for your support.
Strat
Yes, the reactionary, anti-science Progressives in *both* major Parties who sees a chance to grab more power and control by corrupting the entire field of science in order to use it for political purposes (the ends justify the means), wants to see most people (except themselves, of course. THEY are far too important!) freezing and starving in the dark, willing to do anything they say to receive basic necessities rationed out by them as they see fit.
It's all about control.
We're living in a giant KFC farm for people, with ever-smaller cages built of the ever-growing amount of laws, regulations, taxation, licensing, bureaucracy, and destruction of civil rights along with increasingly-militarized local police forces financed and therefor controlled by the central government.
With national fiscal crisis occurring across the globe, the impending collapse of the US Dollar, and the world economy teetering on the brink of collapse, we are at the precipice of a global sea-change which will herald-in the beginning of a new age of war, tyranny, genocide, and poverty worldwide.
Hang on to your ass kids, it's gonna get bumpy!
Strat
It neglects to consider that the government gives as well as takes.
Pull that bus over right now.
Government gives *nothing*.
All government is, is force. It has no wealth of it's own. Anything it "gives" in entitlements/benefits/bread & circuses/etc comes from taking wealth, under threat of lethal force and imprisonment, from those who worked to produce it and transfer it to someone else or to some other group.
TANSTAAFL
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Even more so with layer upon layer of government red-tape, incompetence, ideological social-engineering foolishness, and bureaucracy.
All that government has and all the powers it exercises are voluntarily granted to government temporarily, with the sworn & solemn agreement that the government will not exceed the bounds of that which is loaned to them, in exchange for the privilege of exercising those agreed-upon powers using the agreed-upon wealth exclusively for the agreed-upon purposes.
Furthermore, the citizens have a right and a duty to alter or abolish a government that violates that trust.
Government is a necessary evil. The less the better.
A powerful central government, necessary to support and administer/enforce a centrally run government entitlement infrastructure, even if run benevolently *now*, only requires a change of politicians/party for that same power to be used for corruption, oppression, and tyranny.
Strat
Have you noticed that not too many years ago, Americans would hear about some neat new technical military thing and think, "Wow, I'm glad that's on OUR side!" And now, they just expect it to be used for domestic purposes.
And yet, many of these same people will attack you and call you all sorts of names if you dare suggest reducing the Federal government's size, power, & scope. They just seem incapable of connecting the growth of government size, power, and scope to the government abuses of their civil rights that they're becoming increasingly aware of.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
All governments get their power from the citizens. The more power the government has, the less power and protections from government abuse the individual citizen will have. All governments get their wealth from their citizens. The more wealth the government has/spends, the less wealth citizens will have or be able to borrow for homes, businesses, schooling, raising kids, giving to charities, etc.
Strat
How is this any different from someone just unlocking your front door because the lock mechanism is stupid and helping himself to all your belongings?
The law on trespassing is that if your property is not plainly posted according to certain detailed legal requirements and you leave your door open or unlocked and someone enters your premises and/or if they cross onto your property, you may order the individual(s) to leave, and if they comply without delay, they have not committed a crime, regardless of what they may have seen while on the property and/or in the premises, and are under no legal obligation to keep it secret barring a court's order.
An internet address typed into a browser's address bar is in no way a closed or locked door, there are no signs warning against trespassing, not even any sign that there may be any private property there at all until 'enter' is pressed, nothing that's required to be present at the property owner's responsibility and cost in order to convict someone of a crime.
The whole concept being used to criminalize typing the "wrong" URL into your internet browser violates basic tenets of common law and civil rights.
This is big money working with a corrupt government and politicians of both of the major parties to both offload the security burden onto the populace, but also using the power of law and threat of lethal force to do it, which gives the government even more ability to intimidate, threaten, control, and to jail people selectively.
Gotta keep the trial lawyers, the politicians, and the private prison industry fat cats in plenty of hookers & blow while expanding their power over the population more and more.
Strat
Says a guy that's apparently never been 10 feet down a very dark and cramped concrete-lined hole, troubleshooting and changing out a failed 480V 3-phase lift-pump motor and contactor assembly.
You really should avoid offering opinions on things whens it's glaringly-obvious that you know very little about them. It's like watching the guy who decides to do a belly-flop from 45 feet. It's just painful for everyone, even the observers.
I'm not being mean here. I'm hoping it sticks and contributes in some small way to you living a happier and more productive life.
"A man's got to know his limitations." - Clint Eastwood as "Dirty" Harry Callahan in "Magnum Force"
Strat
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Corporations and others with money would not bother bribing/corrupting politicians in the US Federal government if those politicians had very little actual power or control, which is the way the US Constitution originally was designed.
Starting in the early 1900s with President Wilson and the Progressive movement, however, the Federal government has been constantly expanding in power and scope, making it increasingly useful and attractive for the dishonest to attempt to corrupt.
As long as there is a large centralized nexus of power rather than a distributed system, there will be corruption.
The US Constitution is a network design. Instead of data, it deals in power. Like data networks, compromising a distributed system is far more difficult than compromising a system with a single C&C point.
If you look at government as a network, it's obvious the problem lies in far too much centralization of power.
Strat
I'm ashamed to be Australian today. These idiots don't represent most Australians. I'll have to contact my local member of parliament.
Not as ashamed as I am as an American, whose nation is supposed to be at the forefront of individual liberty and as much freedom from government regulation of, involvement in, or monitoring of the average person's life as possible while still maintaining domestic order and performing the duties necessary to conduct foreign affairs.
The further the government of the US strays from and exceeds the powers and scope granted by it's Constitution, the worse things have and will get. Not only for the US and those in it, but for the entire world...economically, diplomatically, militarily,.and from the perspective of individual liberty and freedom as well.
Where does one seek asylum from persecution when the are no more nations of free people? If there are no more nations of free people, who will stand against the next insane megalomaniac tyrant bent on world domination? And, there *will* be another. Without fail. There always will be (at least until the human race achieves Ascension :) ). The rise and fall of such describes a large chunk of the entirety of human history from the beginnings of civilization until now.
My greatest fear is that the US collapses into a full-on totalitarian police state that sees foreign aggression as the only practical means at it's disposal to feed the beast, seeing as it's economy is shot, and becomes the next threat to the entire world like WW2 Germany, squared.
Strat