Lost productivity? Those are non essential people, there was no productivity lost in reality. Are you going to make up something about how they were spinning gold or some such to claim that "no really they are very productive people"? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every one of those people do the best they can at their jobs, so I don't mean that as a personal insult to them. My claim is that those people are non essential people. They are not required for defending our borders from a massive invasion, they are not required to judge legal matters, they are not required to mitigate our laughable trade imbalance, and they are not required for other members of society to perform their daily activities.
There is of course a red herring where you could claim that a service industry that relies on that many Government workers suffered. It's a false argument of course, because if we took away those non-essential jobs and returned the tax money to those of us that pay, that service industry would make the same amount of money.
Now to the other point you made in "Considering that we have to pay 800,000 people for time they didn't (couldn't) work", this is another line of crap from politicians. We don't "have" to pay them! This was a politician's decision to GIVE them money. Many of them are going to get Unemployment in addition to getting PTO. We didn't have to give them anything, but a politician chose to give them YOUR TAX MONEY! Makes you feel good don't it?
I haven't heard anyone arguing that figure. You think a government shutdown is free? Workers sitting at home are still giong to be paid for work they didn't do. Add to that this stupid stunt adds fuel the Chinese argument to move to an international (i.e. non-U.S.) financial base for the world economy that doesn't rely on our currency or bonds.
How can anyone logically argue with someone's imagination? First, the Government has NO money! The people have money, the government does not. The government can only spend money other people earn.
Milton Friedman says it much better than I can, go have a listen.
As to the rest of your FUD.. well, it's FUD! Fiat is a value of NOTHING! If we were on a Gold standard and they had somehow reduced the value gold you would have a point. Almost every country today uses fiat money, not actual value to determine what they are worth. In fact the last few countries that tried to implement a real standard (based on Gold) were invaded and destroyed. Do you think that Libya trying to move to a Gold standard, in addition to helping other African nations establish a currency based on real material value, had nothing to do with the civil war backed by Western countries? Sorry, you have some homework to do.
It cost 24 billion dollars? Based on.. any number of imaginary things they want to show it cost them right? We must keep spending money we don't have, and we must keep increasing the amount of debt we have or we are all going to die right?
I mean to say, we have to spend this for the Children, and the children just lost 24Billion dollars! If you deny their right to spend, you are a "conspiracy theorist" to boot, so shaddup!
I second this selection for the same reasons. Many people dislike having to code for simple Unix commands, so favor a "scripting" language like Python or Perl because it's easy. Performance is never easy, and massive number crunching requires real compiled code not pseudo code. R, C, C++ are all exceptional for number crunching. Hell, I would put Pascal up against Python any day of the week for pure number crunching, and Pascal's syntax for math is very easy to learn.
You keep repeating the same things as if that makes them true. Go study, go listen to an expert on constitutional law, go do something other than repeating the same broken logic over and over again.
It should be relatively simple to know that complaining to an organization full of corruption about said corruption is a pointless exercise in futility. It is a well known fact that if you want to remove corruption from an organization, you must go to another organization (or the public in the case of Government corruption) in order to effect change.
If your asinine logic worked, anyone that complained to the mob about "protection rackets" would have been safe from the mobs protection racket. Notice that I point out that your logic is asinine, and proven by the fact that people that complained about protection rackets would lose life limb and property by complaining.
You will find that the notion of "Life", "Liberty", and "Pursuit" of happiness require privacy. This is well documented in the founding of our form of Government. The US Constitution is not exclusive from the Bill of Rights, nor visa versa. The documents are bound so that each depends on the other.
Although I'm sure that what you believe is probably making you happy... and I guess that's what's really important.
Right back at you, and interestingly I have studied the subject at length and know what the Federalist Papers, Constitution, and Bill of Rights all say. I have also studied the blueprint for our Government "The Republic" for nearly 3 decades. My "belief" does not deny history or words, yours does.
Still can't get in touch with a high school English teacher can you? No, don't answer my rhetorical question.
The language written is done to be specific in as few words as possible. This is why our best laws are not novel length, they are simple and to the point.
The right to be secure in your person. This means that you can't be searched without a warrant. No police officer can legally ask you to empty your pockets, unless you are already found in violation of the law or the officer has a warrant. The "found in current violation" was a legal clarification made _after_ the Bill of Rights.
The right to be secure in your property. This means that you can't have your house, car, barn, or land searched without a warrant.
The right to be secure in your papers. Papers are exactly that, your identity, your communications and correspondance, your personal bank account information and ledgers, etc... (As mentioned 3 times, if you have doubts history will show you the truth in "papers" fitting that definition. You won't actually read the Federalist Papers because it's going to hurt your delusion, but you denying history does not change history. Instead, it makes you look like an intellectually deficient person.)
If you have a right to be secure in all of those things, then the Government can NOT access any of that data legally unless they follow the Constitution and have a warrant. Do you see how they wrote all three of those things with commas instead of using 3 separate sentences? This is a basic writing technique which you should have learned pretty dang early in your English lessons.
To claim that they don't mention the word "privacy" so none of the constitution matters and the Government can do what it want's is pure idiocy. They spell out 3 areas of "private" materials which are _yours_ by the Bill of Rights and that the Government can not touch without a warrant.
To claim that "secure" means something other than what the dictionary tells you is further idiocy.
Now please go back and watch the puppet show! Some people actually want to leave the cave.
No they can't, the Constitution was already written and the Bill of Rights has already been passed. We are not talking about legal obfuscation that is currently happening, we are talking about the two items mentioned a sentence ago.
The whole test of constitutionality has been happening since our country was founded. Yes, people are ignoring the law of the land, no that does not make it legal. Yes, people are not currently being prosecuted but again that does not make it legal. Those two "yes"es indicate that there is an extremely high level of corruption, not that the constitution and bill of rights have somehow changed meaning or were ever vague to begin with.
And of course the people in power currently tell you it's all bad, or that none of it matters. Believing what you are told instead of reading what is written in both law and history is exactly the definition of delusion.
In fairness I did make a generalization that I could have clarified. I'm not sure I needed to do so, as must understand the generalization but let me be more clear since I'm as guilty as you of a specific violation. Claiming "The dossiers the USA has available on it's citizens is way more than what Germany had." is a specific example and a true statement. That specific item does not imply that the the USA is also mass murdering Jews in concentration camps, illegally invading other countries, and manipulating public opinion so that the public does not see the illegal acts as illegal.
However, if you see that one thing is true it is logical to question whether or not other things are true. Such as illegally invading other countries, manipulating the public so that people don't see the illegal acts as illegal, etc... Even doing this though, making similarity statements regarding the pieces of what is happening today with a piece of what others did is not claiming that the USA is worse than them. Part != Whole and all that.
Consider who owns the media and what most Americans get for "News" on a regular basis. The real issue with the lack of outrage is that people are distracted and intentionally uninformed. Those that work are working longer hours for less pay, and lack the energy to investigate or protest. Those on state welfare are constantly told that they are being threatened by anyone speaking against state welfare. These themes are not new, and nothing we are seeing is novel. All civilizations have had to restructure in time to remove the people abusing society from power.
I think what "may" be unique in the USA is that people live thinking constantly that "it can't happen here", but with abuse of power and the need for revolution. That will come in time as more people wake up. My favorite tool to wake people is to show The Allegory of the Cave and how it relates to them today. People get it pretty quickly believe it or not.
I am seeing a trend where more and more people are waking up. Politicians are not as free to play the games that they were 10 years ago without being noticed. People are questioning things like Syria, where just a dozen years ago nobody questioned Iraq. It's the start of the ride, and there is much more in store. In a way, I'm glad I get to see this evolution. While a bit frightening, how many people can claim to have lived through a revolution? My hope is that it's softly done, but there is no guarantee. Typically people in power fight pretty damn hard to maintain their monopoly on power.
Here are a few tidbits from history.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
All of those belong to Hitler.
Now on to Marx, who states repeatedly that in order for Communism to succeed all media must be controlled, including Religion where the State allows it. But in lieu of the Communist Manifesto, Marx has a very interesting quote.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary,... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
Slashdot is packed with mentally unstable conspiracy theorists who insist that the US is worse than Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and North Korea all rolled into one. Compared to that level of white hot hatred, most Americans will seem pretty passive over the NSA thing.
First, take the ad hominem and appeal to emotion and shove it right on up your a$@&*le. It works for the kids, but anyone with a basic education in rhetoric sees you for what you are.
What you are, is a liar.
Show me a single post where someone claims that the US is worse than any of those places mentioned, and I'll apologize. You won't find any, but hell why let facts get in the way of your delusional rant right?
Now what you will find, is that many people warn that the acts of pre-Nazi Germany are very similar to what we are seeing in the USA.
I am guessing that you will say "yeah, but it's all nonsense" to which I'll point out that the same people yelling about those similarities also warned you that you were going to be spied on, the courts and politicians were corrupt, and most of what you hear on "News" about the wars in the middle east was false. Since most of those warnings were correct, you are an imbecile if you somehow magically believe that US is immune to tyranny and authoritarian system. Go ahead and protest in a non-free speech zone if you think we are all "mentally unstable conspiracy theorists".
I was going to quote and comment about the remainder of your statements, but I have a preconceived notion that it's a lost cause to comment more than I already have. Insightful my ass!
You really should check a dictionary before posting. Secure does not mean the same thing as you imply it does. If you have doubts about what the founders were thinking when they used that statement, you can check the federalist papers where most of the concepts for wording were fleshed out.
As previously stated, your inability to comprehend is your own. The founders were clear, and you are simply wrong. It does not take too much thinking to know their exact meaning, and you can verify with history what their intent was.
Can you not comprehend English? I gave it to you twice and you keep reverting back to the same nonsense. "The right to be secure in their person". Keep saying it over and over and maybe somehow you will get it. You keep removing words and pretending that the statement does not say what it says! Learn to read and comprehend! Go ask a English teacher for help! Do something, except repeat the same nonsense over and over hoping it becomes true.
Your "opinion" is rather meaningless when there are facts to back that assumption. The wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not vague. There is no need to re-write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, not a single part of it.
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.
That statement is very clear. You are to be secure against search or seizure of your person, property, papers, and effects unless the Government has a warrant. The warrant requires a court order with someone giving testimony on why the warrant is required, and the warrant must be specific as to what can be searches or siezed.
Stop believing bullshit and learn to read! If you are not believing and repeating bullshit, you are surely making up stories to back your belief. Either way, you are wrong.
The US constitution does not limit the Bill of Rights to US Citizens with the exception of Voting. You do understand that the majority of the Bill of Rights is not what the Government can't do, but what it can do correct? The founders knew better than to try and define every idiotic thing previous corrupt Governments did, and write rules against that giant list. They wrote down what your rights are, and spelled those rights out meticulously.
One of the few things clearly spelled out that the Government can't do, is that they can not deny you any of your rights!
You are implying that "Reasonable Search and Seizure" is not defined? If that is the case, you are missing out on a whole lot of history lessons and believing propaganda.
Privacy, you see, is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
Secure in their Persons is exactly "privacy"!
Maybe you forgot about people being spied on by neighbors, then being tattled on for being at work on Sunday which resulted in physical dismemberment and dis-figuration as their punishment? This is not some secret stuff here, this is documented in history.
The only people that believe "privacy" is not in the Constitution are the people that want you not to have any, and the idiots too stupid to read a few hours of history. Federalist Papers are a good start, since that has the dialogue for much of our original Bill of Rights.
First, the term "terrorist" and "terrorism" have become labels for anything a Government does not like. If you believe in the 2nd amendment, display Libertarian bumper stickers or T-Shirts, are not registered Democrat or Republican, stock more than a week worth of food, or display anti-government literature (Think 15 year old's posting on Facebook as much as the rare member of a Jihad), you are a potential terrorist..
These are US definitions, but the UK is not very different. Look at the recent detention under anti-terrorism of a journalist's partner for example.
Next, in the UK did they uncover a stash of weapons and explosives? At least in the US they could claim "he was gonna buy a gun", but in the UK they can't.
The article points you link don't mention anything but how bad ass the cops were in bushing these wanna-be terrorists. Seems more like MI5/MI6 and GCHQ are trying to justify all their illegal activities just like the NSA is busy trying to justify theirs.
If they are gathering spam or not, there is still a violation of the Constitution involved. Yeah, I'm a stodgy old prick with a memory like an Elephant! If they were not acting illegally this would not be a story now would it?
Time will tell on how well it takes off, but I disagree with your analysis of what systems people will run.
You don't have to agree with the analysis, but history is against you. Based on what people run today, Windows has 70-80% market share (depending on who's stats you believe) and Apple takes up most of the remainder. Linux is estimated at 2-3%. Now look at the Linux (or MAC for that matter) and tell me what percentage of those are "Gamers". Compared to Windows, the numbers are simply not there.
Even if Linux has a single good game, a MAC or Windows user will lose their whole library moving to a new platform. As mentioned, dual boot is not an option for most "Gamers" (That option is for Geeks that also Game). This means that they will have to purchase an additional system. Numerous people hate Xbox, but are stuck because they have a library full of games preventing them from switching platforms.
To be fair, Apple would have the same problem as Linux trying to snag up the Gaming crowd. The DirectX monopoly hurts them just as badly. I think eventually it will happen, but not soon.
You are not quite right since you are missing a huge chunk of information. It's not just that the evidence can't be thrown out, it's that the defense can't even see the evidence being used against them. The defense can't see what provoked the investigation either, so basically it becomes impossible to defend against.
This isn't unique to this guy, and he's probably the worst possible example. If the defense sees "On June 12th the suspect and . Officer working " won't do you shit for good. Meanwhile, the prosecution can just tell the judge "Based on the information prior to redaction we know he did it.
This is what many journalists and whistle blowers are defending against currently, in addition to this guy. This is why nearly every lawsuit filed against the government for vacuuming data has been thrown out. The Government says "What in this redacted document is illegal?".
The mutated muscular soldiers of Mordor turned out to be hilariously ineffective fighters, a dozen of them held off by a single dying human. Apparently they made the beasts by crossing Orcs, Goblins and the French.
Slashdot Mirror
Lost productivity? Those are non essential people, there was no productivity lost in reality. Are you going to make up something about how they were spinning gold or some such to claim that "no really they are very productive people"? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every one of those people do the best they can at their jobs, so I don't mean that as a personal insult to them. My claim is that those people are non essential people. They are not required for defending our borders from a massive invasion, they are not required to judge legal matters, they are not required to mitigate our laughable trade imbalance, and they are not required for other members of society to perform their daily activities.
There is of course a red herring where you could claim that a service industry that relies on that many Government workers suffered. It's a false argument of course, because if we took away those non-essential jobs and returned the tax money to those of us that pay, that service industry would make the same amount of money.
Now to the other point you made in "Considering that we have to pay 800,000 people for time they didn't (couldn't) work", this is another line of crap from politicians. We don't "have" to pay them! This was a politician's decision to GIVE them money. Many of them are going to get Unemployment in addition to getting PTO. We didn't have to give them anything, but a politician chose to give them YOUR TAX MONEY! Makes you feel good don't it?
I haven't heard anyone arguing that figure. You think a government shutdown is free? Workers sitting at home are still giong to be paid for work they didn't do. Add to that this stupid stunt adds fuel the Chinese argument to move to an international (i.e. non-U.S.) financial base for the world economy that doesn't rely on our currency or bonds.
How can anyone logically argue with someone's imagination? First, the Government has NO money! The people have money, the government does not. The government can only spend money other people earn.
Milton Friedman says it much better than I can, go have a listen.
As to the rest of your FUD.. well, it's FUD! Fiat is a value of NOTHING! If we were on a Gold standard and they had somehow reduced the value gold you would have a point. Almost every country today uses fiat money, not actual value to determine what they are worth. In fact the last few countries that tried to implement a real standard (based on Gold) were invaded and destroyed. Do you think that Libya trying to move to a Gold standard, in addition to helping other African nations establish a currency based on real material value, had nothing to do with the civil war backed by Western countries? Sorry, you have some homework to do.
It cost 24 billion dollars? Based on.. any number of imaginary things they want to show it cost them right? We must keep spending money we don't have, and we must keep increasing the amount of debt we have or we are all going to die right?
I mean to say, we have to spend this for the Children, and the children just lost 24Billion dollars! If you deny their right to spend, you are a "conspiracy theorist" to boot, so shaddup!
I second this selection for the same reasons. Many people dislike having to code for simple Unix commands, so favor a "scripting" language like Python or Perl because it's easy. Performance is never easy, and massive number crunching requires real compiled code not pseudo code. R, C, C++ are all exceptional for number crunching. Hell, I would put Pascal up against Python any day of the week for pure number crunching, and Pascal's syntax for math is very easy to learn.
You keep repeating the same things as if that makes them true. Go study, go listen to an expert on constitutional law, go do something other than repeating the same broken logic over and over again.
It should be relatively simple to know that complaining to an organization full of corruption about said corruption is a pointless exercise in futility. It is a well known fact that if you want to remove corruption from an organization, you must go to another organization (or the public in the case of Government corruption) in order to effect change.
If your asinine logic worked, anyone that complained to the mob about "protection rackets" would have been safe from the mobs protection racket. Notice that I point out that your logic is asinine, and proven by the fact that people that complained about protection rackets would lose life limb and property by complaining.
You will find that the notion of "Life", "Liberty", and "Pursuit" of happiness require privacy. This is well documented in the founding of our form of Government. The US Constitution is not exclusive from the Bill of Rights, nor visa versa. The documents are bound so that each depends on the other.
Although I'm sure that what you believe is probably making you happy... and I guess that's what's really important.
Right back at you, and interestingly I have studied the subject at length and know what the Federalist Papers, Constitution, and Bill of Rights all say. I have also studied the blueprint for our Government "The Republic" for nearly 3 decades. My "belief" does not deny history or words, yours does.
Still can't get in touch with a high school English teacher can you? No, don't answer my rhetorical question.
The language written is done to be specific in as few words as possible. This is why our best laws are not novel length, they are simple and to the point.
The right to be secure in your person. This means that you can't be searched without a warrant. No police officer can legally ask you to empty your pockets, unless you are already found in violation of the law or the officer has a warrant. The "found in current violation" was a legal clarification made _after_ the Bill of Rights.
The right to be secure in your property. This means that you can't have your house, car, barn, or land searched without a warrant.
The right to be secure in your papers. Papers are exactly that, your identity, your communications and correspondance, your personal bank account information and ledgers, etc... (As mentioned 3 times, if you have doubts history will show you the truth in "papers" fitting that definition. You won't actually read the Federalist Papers because it's going to hurt your delusion, but you denying history does not change history. Instead, it makes you look like an intellectually deficient person.)
If you have a right to be secure in all of those things, then the Government can NOT access any of that data legally unless they follow the Constitution and have a warrant. Do you see how they wrote all three of those things with commas instead of using 3 separate sentences? This is a basic writing technique which you should have learned pretty dang early in your English lessons.
To claim that they don't mention the word "privacy" so none of the constitution matters and the Government can do what it want's is pure idiocy. They spell out 3 areas of "private" materials which are _yours_ by the Bill of Rights and that the Government can not touch without a warrant.
To claim that "secure" means something other than what the dictionary tells you is further idiocy.
Now please go back and watch the puppet show! Some people actually want to leave the cave.
No they can't, the Constitution was already written and the Bill of Rights has already been passed. We are not talking about legal obfuscation that is currently happening, we are talking about the two items mentioned a sentence ago.
The whole test of constitutionality has been happening since our country was founded. Yes, people are ignoring the law of the land, no that does not make it legal. Yes, people are not currently being prosecuted but again that does not make it legal. Those two "yes"es indicate that there is an extremely high level of corruption, not that the constitution and bill of rights have somehow changed meaning or were ever vague to begin with.
And of course the people in power currently tell you it's all bad, or that none of it matters. Believing what you are told instead of reading what is written in both law and history is exactly the definition of delusion.
In fairness I did make a generalization that I could have clarified. I'm not sure I needed to do so, as must understand the generalization but let me be more clear since I'm as guilty as you of a specific violation. Claiming "The dossiers the USA has available on it's citizens is way more than what Germany had." is a specific example and a true statement. That specific item does not imply that the the USA is also mass murdering Jews in concentration camps, illegally invading other countries, and manipulating public opinion so that the public does not see the illegal acts as illegal.
However, if you see that one thing is true it is logical to question whether or not other things are true. Such as illegally invading other countries, manipulating the public so that people don't see the illegal acts as illegal, etc... Even doing this though, making similarity statements regarding the pieces of what is happening today with a piece of what others did is not claiming that the USA is worse than them. Part != Whole and all that.
Which is a post about DRM, not politics. Try keeping on topic.
Consider who owns the media and what most Americans get for "News" on a regular basis. The real issue with the lack of outrage is that people are distracted and intentionally uninformed. Those that work are working longer hours for less pay, and lack the energy to investigate or protest. Those on state welfare are constantly told that they are being threatened by anyone speaking against state welfare. These themes are not new, and nothing we are seeing is novel. All civilizations have had to restructure in time to remove the people abusing society from power.
I think what "may" be unique in the USA is that people live thinking constantly that "it can't happen here", but with abuse of power and the need for revolution. That will come in time as more people wake up. My favorite tool to wake people is to show The Allegory of the Cave and how it relates to them today. People get it pretty quickly believe it or not.
I am seeing a trend where more and more people are waking up. Politicians are not as free to play the games that they were 10 years ago without being noticed. People are questioning things like Syria, where just a dozen years ago nobody questioned Iraq. It's the start of the ride, and there is much more in store. In a way, I'm glad I get to see this evolution. While a bit frightening, how many people can claim to have lived through a revolution? My hope is that it's softly done, but there is no guarantee. Typically people in power fight pretty damn hard to maintain their monopoly on power.
Here are a few tidbits from history.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
All of those belong to Hitler.
Now on to Marx, who states repeatedly that in order for Communism to succeed all media must be controlled, including Religion where the State allows it. But in lieu of the Communist Manifesto, Marx has a very interesting quote.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
I think that one says a whole lot.
Slashdot is packed with mentally unstable conspiracy theorists who insist that the US is worse than Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and North Korea all rolled into one. Compared to that level of white hot hatred, most Americans will seem pretty passive over the NSA thing.
First, take the ad hominem and appeal to emotion and shove it right on up your a$@&*le. It works for the kids, but anyone with a basic education in rhetoric sees you for what you are.
What you are, is a liar.
Show me a single post where someone claims that the US is worse than any of those places mentioned, and I'll apologize. You won't find any, but hell why let facts get in the way of your delusional rant right?
Now what you will find, is that many people warn that the acts of pre-Nazi Germany are very similar to what we are seeing in the USA.
I am guessing that you will say "yeah, but it's all nonsense" to which I'll point out that the same people yelling about those similarities also warned you that you were going to be spied on, the courts and politicians were corrupt, and most of what you hear on "News" about the wars in the middle east was false. Since most of those warnings were correct, you are an imbecile if you somehow magically believe that US is immune to tyranny and authoritarian system. Go ahead and protest in a non-free speech zone if you think we are all "mentally unstable conspiracy theorists".
I was going to quote and comment about the remainder of your statements, but I have a preconceived notion that it's a lost cause to comment more than I already have. Insightful my ass!
You really should check a dictionary before posting. Secure does not mean the same thing as you imply it does. If you have doubts about what the founders were thinking when they used that statement, you can check the federalist papers where most of the concepts for wording were fleshed out.
As previously stated, your inability to comprehend is your own. The founders were clear, and you are simply wrong. It does not take too much thinking to know their exact meaning, and you can verify with history what their intent was.
Can you not comprehend English? I gave it to you twice and you keep reverting back to the same nonsense. "The right to be secure in their person". Keep saying it over and over and maybe somehow you will get it. You keep removing words and pretending that the statement does not say what it says! Learn to read and comprehend! Go ask a English teacher for help! Do something, except repeat the same nonsense over and over hoping it becomes true.
Your "opinion" is rather meaningless when there are facts to back that assumption. The wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not vague. There is no need to re-write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, not a single part of it.
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.
That statement is very clear. You are to be secure against search or seizure of your person, property, papers, and effects unless the Government has a warrant. The warrant requires a court order with someone giving testimony on why the warrant is required, and the warrant must be specific as to what can be searches or siezed.
Stop believing bullshit and learn to read! If you are not believing and repeating bullshit, you are surely making up stories to back your belief. Either way, you are wrong.
That is the most insulting demonstration of hubris from Oracle I have seen in a very long time.
You must not ready very much that Oracle puts out...
The US constitution does not limit the Bill of Rights to US Citizens with the exception of Voting. You do understand that the majority of the Bill of Rights is not what the Government can't do, but what it can do correct? The founders knew better than to try and define every idiotic thing previous corrupt Governments did, and write rules against that giant list. They wrote down what your rights are, and spelled those rights out meticulously.
One of the few things clearly spelled out that the Government can't do, is that they can not deny you any of your rights!
You are implying that "Reasonable Search and Seizure" is not defined? If that is the case, you are missing out on a whole lot of history lessons and believing propaganda.
Privacy, you see, is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
Secure in their Persons is exactly "privacy"!
Maybe you forgot about people being spied on by neighbors, then being tattled on for being at work on Sunday which resulted in physical dismemberment and dis-figuration as their punishment? This is not some secret stuff here, this is documented in history.
The only people that believe "privacy" is not in the Constitution are the people that want you not to have any, and the idiots too stupid to read a few hours of history. Federalist Papers are a good start, since that has the dialogue for much of our original Bill of Rights.
First, the term "terrorist" and "terrorism" have become labels for anything a Government does not like. If you believe in the 2nd amendment, display Libertarian bumper stickers or T-Shirts, are not registered Democrat or Republican, stock more than a week worth of food, or display anti-government literature (Think 15 year old's posting on Facebook as much as the rare member of a Jihad), you are a potential terrorist..
These are US definitions, but the UK is not very different. Look at the recent detention under anti-terrorism of a journalist's partner for example.
Next, in the UK did they uncover a stash of weapons and explosives? At least in the US they could claim "he was gonna buy a gun", but in the UK they can't.
The article points you link don't mention anything but how bad ass the cops were in bushing these wanna-be terrorists. Seems more like MI5/MI6 and GCHQ are trying to justify all their illegal activities just like the NSA is busy trying to justify theirs.
If they are gathering spam or not, there is still a violation of the Constitution involved. Yeah, I'm a stodgy old prick with a memory like an Elephant! If they were not acting illegally this would not be a story now would it?
Fair points.
Time will tell on how well it takes off, but I disagree with your analysis of what systems people will run.
You don't have to agree with the analysis, but history is against you. Based on what people run today, Windows has 70-80% market share (depending on who's stats you believe) and Apple takes up most of the remainder. Linux is estimated at 2-3%. Now look at the Linux (or MAC for that matter) and tell me what percentage of those are "Gamers". Compared to Windows, the numbers are simply not there.
Even if Linux has a single good game, a MAC or Windows user will lose their whole library moving to a new platform. As mentioned, dual boot is not an option for most "Gamers" (That option is for Geeks that also Game). This means that they will have to purchase an additional system. Numerous people hate Xbox, but are stuck because they have a library full of games preventing them from switching platforms.
To be fair, Apple would have the same problem as Linux trying to snag up the Gaming crowd. The DirectX monopoly hurts them just as badly. I think eventually it will happen, but not soon.
You are not quite right since you are missing a huge chunk of information. It's not just that the evidence can't be thrown out, it's that the defense can't even see the evidence being used against them. The defense can't see what provoked the investigation either, so basically it becomes impossible to defend against.
This isn't unique to this guy, and he's probably the worst possible example. If the defense sees "On June 12th the suspect and . Officer working " won't do you shit for good. Meanwhile, the prosecution can just tell the judge "Based on the information prior to redaction we know he did it.
This is what many journalists and whistle blowers are defending against currently, in addition to this guy. This is why nearly every lawsuit filed against the government for vacuuming data has been thrown out. The Government says "What in this redacted document is illegal?".
The Battle Droid Syndrome.
The mutated muscular soldiers of Mordor turned out to be hilariously ineffective fighters, a dozen of them held off by a single dying human. Apparently they made the beasts by crossing Orcs, Goblins and the French.
I almost wet myself!