If political speech is protected, why exactly are they tracking it? Why is it important to identify the ringleaders of popular opinion? Isn't it a waste of effort to track something you're not theoretically allowed to use?
If we do find life, it will have evolved in the harshest possible conditions, on a barren irradiated planet beneath a dim red sun. It will be unkillable and probably hungry.
No of course not. Ignorance is considered irresponsible, foolish, and lazy unless you're a neophyte. And while faith is desirable, faith is best based on knowledge, experience, and reason. Faith which cannot be defended by reason or evidence is considered weak and shaky, but better than no faith at all. Sharing evidences of what you have faith in is a very popular activity and is considered healthy and encouraging for all.
The contract provision is not a threat. It's an excuse.
Devil: I have this technology that will let you monitor everyone. Nobody will be safe!
Cops: Hmm, it's kind of questionable at best, maybe illegal, and if the people get wind of it laws will be passed and I'll lose my job
Devil: Ah, but you'll be so effective you'll get a promotion. And nobody will ever know. Tell you what, we'll make a contract that prohibits you from saying anything. And if you say anything, the contract is instantly voided and you're no longer a customer, there's nothing to admit. Pretty cool huh? If you tell the truth, you are lying, which is perjury in court. Hehehe.
Cops: Sold!
I don't want a phone, I want a small but working computer with 24/7/anywhere connectivity. The only way I can get that at present is with a smartphone. (Well, if I want it pocket-sized anyway.) I hate phones and I hate phone companies, but there are no good alternatives.
And people living in desert regions of the world don't have easy access to sapwood...
People living in desert regions probably get their water from wells, which is relatively clean.
People living in more temperate regions where there is excess water are more likely to drink the dirty surface runoff. It's not that water is scarce, it's that it is dirty. Where I live, trees are weeds... I have to pull tree sprouts up by the dozens every year to keep my yard from turning into a rainforest. But we don't drink out of rivers or lakes here, even if they look clean. We filter it. We don't drink the tapwater unfiltered either because the government loads it up with chlorine and ammonia. Yuck. A large chunk of the developing world population (where this is most useful) lives in tropical areas with plenty of water and plenty of trees.
A solution can still be useful, even if its not useful to everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the authors have transferred the rights to someone else. That new owner could enforce it.
Also anonymity is a choice not a right. The authors could be forced to defend it by court order or blackmail.
Or the US government could choose to defend it in the public interest.
You can be born transgendered?
There is a big, BIG difference between "no such thing as privacy" and "recording your every move 24/7 and then analyzing the hell out of it"
So it seems that Turing's test was not won by man or machine, but a synthesis of the two: man + internet
Pasteur was right all along, and spontaneous generation isn't a thing
Yes, this is exactly what I was wondering. WHY?
If political speech is protected, why exactly are they tracking it? Why is it important to identify the ringleaders of popular opinion? Isn't it a waste of effort to track something you're not theoretically allowed to use?
This raises all sorts of red flags.
If we do find life, it will have evolved in the harshest possible conditions, on a barren irradiated planet beneath a dim red sun. It will be unkillable and probably hungry.
Possibly he got into office and found out who really runs the USA, and what happens to presidents who don't toe the line.
Yeah I just drained it a few minutes ago
It seems democrats are even more afraid of brown people than republicans, they are just less likely to admit it:
Hidden Racial Anxiety in an Age of Waning Racism
No of course not. Ignorance is considered irresponsible, foolish, and lazy unless you're a neophyte. And while faith is desirable, faith is best based on knowledge, experience, and reason. Faith which cannot be defended by reason or evidence is considered weak and shaky, but better than no faith at all. Sharing evidences of what you have faith in is a very popular activity and is considered healthy and encouraging for all.
People seriously believe that?
If I had points I'd mod this up five times.
THIS.
The USA has gone insane.
What, like MIME?
The contract provision is not a threat. It's an excuse. Devil: I have this technology that will let you monitor everyone. Nobody will be safe! Cops: Hmm, it's kind of questionable at best, maybe illegal, and if the people get wind of it laws will be passed and I'll lose my job Devil: Ah, but you'll be so effective you'll get a promotion. And nobody will ever know. Tell you what, we'll make a contract that prohibits you from saying anything. And if you say anything, the contract is instantly voided and you're no longer a customer, there's nothing to admit. Pretty cool huh? If you tell the truth, you are lying, which is perjury in court. Hehehe. Cops: Sold!
God is lazy and believes in aliens too?
And just what is it you think the populace can do about it? They have the guns.
Why not combine time dilation drugs with torture!? Heck let's bring back the Brazen Bull.
Seriously this is a messed up proposal.
Users probably won't have that ability. Also I have no doubt that the lawmakers will put a backdoor in for law enforcement to un-brick it.
I don't want a phone, I want a small but working computer with 24/7/anywhere connectivity. The only way I can get that at present is with a smartphone. (Well, if I want it pocket-sized anyway.) I hate phones and I hate phone companies, but there are no good alternatives.
You keep your puffs of flame away from my hairy nipples!
And people living in desert regions of the world don't have easy access to sapwood...
People living in desert regions probably get their water from wells, which is relatively clean.
People living in more temperate regions where there is excess water are more likely to drink the dirty surface runoff. It's not that water is scarce, it's that it is dirty. Where I live, trees are weeds... I have to pull tree sprouts up by the dozens every year to keep my yard from turning into a rainforest. But we don't drink out of rivers or lakes here, even if they look clean. We filter it. We don't drink the tapwater unfiltered either because the government loads it up with chlorine and ammonia. Yuck. A large chunk of the developing world population (where this is most useful) lives in tropical areas with plenty of water and plenty of trees.
A solution can still be useful, even if its not useful to everybody.
Probably about as many as there are male programming witches.
It's good to be the king(s)!
Does PITA know about this? /ducks and covers
Pain In The Ass?