IANAL, but how can a court issue a blanket surveillance order for everyone on an "ongoing basis"? Where's the "probable cause"?
If there was a bomb detonated using a cell phone, and they needed to investigate large number of calls made in a certain time window, then MAYBE. Otherwise, they're acting like the bureau of pre-crime.
These F***ers just will not quit. Time to shrink the federal government by about 70% so that they can focus on some genuine priorities.
Oh, I guess that's why we need to be spied upon 24/7/365. We're a "threat" because we might get sick of this $#!T and cut their funding.
"Yoshihiro Furukawa... used a high-velocity propellant gun to simulate the impacts of ordinary carbon-containing chondrite meteorites.... recovered a variety of organic molecules, including fatty acids, amines, and an amino acid."
There was a multi-part Nova episode called "Origins" where they also demonstrated this. I can't remember the scientist or laboratory, but they put some simple organic compounds inside a metal plug and then fired a high speed projectile into it (or maybe they fired the plug into a target?). When they opened the container, they found that they had created more complex compounds like amino acids. It looked like a translucent liquid at first, and came out looking like dark slime.
I disagree. If they have a warrant, they can search the data on the hard drive by taking possession of it. The owner should be under no obligation to facilitate their search.
If they execute a search warrant on your home, you don't have to tell them where any of your possessions are located. If you have an effective hiding place that frustrates their search, so be it.
From the article, a government employee named "Lisa Jackson" set up a separate ID with the alias "Richard Windsor" who people assumed was a unique individual. I think that dismantles your argument about having one public facing e-mail address for crap and a private one for work. You're not going to get much work done if everyone in the organization is using different names for different things.
It's shady if the separate e-mail addresses are not linked to a specific person. In one instance, a government employee made up an alias which people thought was a unique individual at the agency.
I think the idea was to get people familiar with Windows 8 on their desktops and laptops in hopes that the familiarity would lead people to choose smart phones and tablets that had the "familiar" OS.
No, healthcare today hella-sucks, but it's because of massive intrusion by government, not profit-driven free marketeers.
Medicare and Medicaid create vast distortions in the market and set up a system of cost shifting which should not exist. In fact, this practice (charging similar customers different prices for the same goods) is illegal in most other industries. If government wants to play a role in healthcare, banning price discrimination would be a good start. Then, there are government mandates like EMTALA which cause more cost shifting, especially onto those who don't have health insurance. That makes retail prices so unimaginably high that people who could otherwise self-insure must go to insurance companies. Next, we have government forcing insurance companies to offer cookie-cutter policies which must cover particular services, even if the customer doesn't want a policy covering those services. Policies which are custom-designed for an individual would reduce costs. With regard to drugs and medical devices, government creates a monopoly by banning re-importation of those items. In a free market, there's no way a drug would cost 90% less a few miles across the border. Yes, the population is being extorted, but government is a primary cause of the problem. They've been messing with healthcare for 40+ years and the current system is the result of their interference.
Sorry, I thought the principles of non-aggression and voluntary association were inherent in all brands of libertarianism.
If "social libertarians" believe it's OK to take people's wealth under threat of violence, that a single monopolistic entity (government) should control the provision and exchange of ALL medical goods and services and that private parties can be forcefully prevented from having a voluntary relationship that involves exchange of medical goods and services, why don't they just call themselves "socialists"?
If I'm "allowed" to buy my own insurance, that's not a "single payer" healthcare system, is it? If service providers are "allowed" to operate outside the system (e.g. taking only direct payment) that's not "single payer" healthcare either. You're talking about a welfare program.
You also endorse a tax on wage earnings to fund the state and welfare programs? I can see how explaining to people that you're really a "libertarian" could be a long winded endeavor.
I prefaced my comment with the idea about ideological purges because I don't believe in alienating potential allies. There are some liberty activists who will not accept the idea of ANY government whatsoever. In my experience, they tend to be the greatest ideologues and create a split with people who accept limited Constitutional government to the detriment of both. I'm actually a Henry George type libertarian because I see resource monopoly as the existence of a de-facto "state" run by the land owners.
No, I wasn't aware that I fit a/.profile of "libertarian".
I'm also familiar with left-libertarianism.
I stand by my statement. A healthcare system where participation is forced and where competing systems are forcefully excluded has nothing to do with any brand of libertarianism.
I am constantly trying to cure my fellow liberty activists of their annoying tendency to attempt to purge our ranks of anyone that doesn't meet some test of ideological purity. I see this happen quite a bit and it's discouraging. That being said, I don't see how a libertarian of any stripe could embrace a single payer healthcare system. I'm basing this on the assumption that such a system would require forced participation. i.e. if participation was voluntary, there would be more than a single payer.
You mean "Very few liberals will openly admit it". The whole philosophy of achieving Utopia through the mechanism of big government and central planning must also include extensive use of force and control. That's the dark side of liberalism that liberals will rarely acknowledge. Central planning is a model that must be forcefully imposed on a society. Individual behavior must be controlled so that it conforms to this model. Free individuals are too dynamic to be centrally managed, so they must be transformed into good little robots so that the model doesn't break.
What decisions make you think Scalia is a "conservative hack"?
I was disappointed in him on Raich v. Gonzales (medical marijuana), but otherwise, he's been pretty good on issues of civil liberties. e.g. Kelo v. New London, Citizens United v. FEC, MacDonald v. Chicago, Florida v. Jardines, etc.
"the man who made his treason possible is totally innocent"
Participating in the creation of, and serving as the spokesman for Wikileaks does not make treason "possible". By that reasoning, the existence of ANY mass media is an enabler of treason.
It's clear that Manning released information that the U.S. government considered secret and thus violated the law. Whether or not the release of documents that are "secret" constitutes "treason" is a subjective conclusion.
The government/military has few legitimate "secrets" I think the government considers anything that exposes their lies and crimes as "secret". Informing the American people of government malfeasance should be considered "patriotism", even if releasing the info was technically a crime.
I think the preponderance of evidence would point to the OP's conclusion. IMO, the majority of sequels suck anyway and trying to do a sequel/derivative of an awesome film like "Blade Runner" seems like a sure letdown.
I won't be prejudiced by the fact that it's not the original author. I'll just be very surprised (and very pleased) if they manage to produce something good.
Is it possible to sell only the rights to a specific book or story, or does Hollywood demand that authors surrender the rights so that sequels and derivative works are legal without a new agreement?
Perhaps it could be done well, but the idea of "Blade Runner 2" makes me cringe.
I just learned recently that Thomas Harris (author of the Hannibal Lecter books) sold the rights to the characters as well as the books. Hollywood was threatening to use the rights to produce a film NOT based on a book, so they coerced Harris into writing "Hannibal Rising" which is why it sucked.
Does Hollywood always demand such exclusive rights?
I definitely think 9/11 was an inflection point where the erosion of our civil liberties and government power grabs accelerated sharply and in unprecedented ways.
Prior to that, the 1994 gun ban was the biggest assault on The Constitution in recent history. That's sort of when I started paying attention. I realize that The Constitution had been pretty well trampled on before then, but I can't think of anything, say from the '70's and '80's that even comes close to what's happened since 2001. Did you have something in mind, or were you considering 1787 to the present?
I concur. Let's get rid of The Constitution. The federal government will then have no delegated powers and must be immediately dissolved. Good riddance.
NSL's are supposed to be reserved for matters regarding terrorism or homeland security. IIRC, the original PATRIOT Act stated that an NSL must come directly from the AG or FBI director. That's obviously false if there were 190K of them done in a 3 year period. Can any random FBI employee write one of these? That's ridiculous, because one of the fundamental ideas of The Constitution is that cops do NOT get to write their own search warrants.
The gag order provision is also a clear violation of the Right of free speech. The feds search your customer's data and you can't tell ANYONE, including your colleagues, let alone the affected customers? Under penalty of prosecution? Likewise ridiculous.
If my reason for not wanting to consume GM foods is that I've been visited by people who traveled back in time to warn me about them, that's my business. It's not up to you to judge the "rationality" of decisions that affect only me.
Certain religions impose dietary restrictions on their practitioners. That might be deemed irrational or superstitious, but it's up to the individual to decide.
If GM crops live up to all of these promises about being cheaper to produce, more sustainable, etc. and with no negative side effects, then I'll be wasting my money on more expensive products produced with non-GMO crops. That should be my choice however.
Actually, that gave me an idea. A lot of the Pagan religions have a deep affinity with nature. I refuse to consume GMOs because they are an affront to my sect of Paganism.
Natural systems have evolved over tens of thousands of years and have achieved very delicate balances. The symbioses that have arisen between various species are complicated and slow moving.
We have numerous examples showing the disastrous consequences resulting from importing a species of plant or animal to a non-native environment. Now, we have these GM species which have no natural habitat and properties that did not result from evolution of the species in concert with other species. I don't know how you can be so cavalier about the *possibility* of something going drastically wrong.
I'm not a genetic engineer, but I know that plants produce various toxins as a natural defense mechanism. Who's to say that cross-pollination of GM species with natural species couldn't produce a prolific strain of food crop that was unpalatable, or even inedible for humans?
A failed dictatorship in a state which has been subjected to multiple invasions from foreign military forces is hardly a laboratory for libertarianism. You criticize libertarianism, but it is governments that have a habit of using their "big guns" to the greatest detriment. Conflict would occur in a libertarian system, but the resulting violence would be absolutely trivial compared to the epic amounts of death and destruction that governments have inflicted on the world.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be, but it would be hard to argue that this justifies sucking up 100% of the data on an "ongoing basis".
I already commented on the story, but +1 Insightful
If I'm a Verizon customer and they took 100% of customer data, then I must be affected. Good thinking.
IANAL, but how can a court issue a blanket surveillance order for everyone on an "ongoing basis"? Where's the "probable cause"?
If there was a bomb detonated using a cell phone, and they needed to investigate large number of calls made in a certain time window, then MAYBE. Otherwise, they're acting like the bureau of pre-crime.
These F***ers just will not quit. Time to shrink the federal government by about 70% so that they can focus on some genuine priorities.
Oh, I guess that's why we need to be spied upon 24/7/365. We're a "threat" because we might get sick of this $#!T and cut their funding.
Actually, I don't know what's new about this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16215-meteor-impacts-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html
"Yoshihiro Furukawa... used a high-velocity propellant gun to simulate the impacts of ordinary carbon-containing chondrite meteorites .... recovered a variety of organic molecules, including fatty acids, amines, and an amino acid."
There was a multi-part Nova episode called "Origins" where they also demonstrated this. I can't remember the scientist or laboratory, but they put some simple organic compounds inside a metal plug and then fired a high speed projectile into it (or maybe they fired the plug into a target?). When they opened the container, they found that they had created more complex compounds like amino acids. It looked like a translucent liquid at first, and came out looking like dark slime.
I disagree. If they have a warrant, they can search the data on the hard drive by taking possession of it. The owner should be under no obligation to facilitate their search.
If they execute a search warrant on your home, you don't have to tell them where any of your possessions are located. If you have an effective hiding place that frustrates their search, so be it.
From the article, a government employee named "Lisa Jackson" set up a separate ID with the alias "Richard Windsor" who people assumed was a unique individual.
I think that dismantles your argument about having one public facing e-mail address for crap and a private one for work. You're not going to get much work done if everyone in the organization is using different names for different things.
It's shady if the separate e-mail addresses are not linked to a specific person. In one instance, a government employee made up an alias which people thought was a unique individual at the agency.
I think the idea was to get people familiar with Windows 8 on their desktops and laptops in hopes that the familiarity would lead people to choose smart phones and tablets that had the "familiar" OS.
It looks like all it did was piss off the users.
Does $detiy own .com ? ;-)
No, healthcare today hella-sucks, but it's because of massive intrusion by government, not profit-driven free marketeers.
Medicare and Medicaid create vast distortions in the market and set up a system of cost shifting which should not exist. In fact, this practice (charging similar customers different prices for the same goods) is illegal in most other industries. If government wants to play a role in healthcare, banning price discrimination would be a good start.
Then, there are government mandates like EMTALA which cause more cost shifting, especially onto those who don't have health insurance. That makes retail prices so unimaginably high that people who could otherwise self-insure must go to insurance companies.
Next, we have government forcing insurance companies to offer cookie-cutter policies which must cover particular services, even if the customer doesn't want a policy covering those services. Policies which are custom-designed for an individual would reduce costs.
With regard to drugs and medical devices, government creates a monopoly by banning re-importation of those items. In a free market, there's no way a drug would cost 90% less a few miles across the border.
Yes, the population is being extorted, but government is a primary cause of the problem. They've been messing with healthcare for 40+ years and the current system is the result of their interference.
Sorry, I thought the principles of non-aggression and voluntary association were inherent in all brands of libertarianism.
If "social libertarians" believe it's OK to take people's wealth under threat of violence, that a single monopolistic entity (government) should control the provision and exchange of ALL medical goods and services and that private parties can be forcefully prevented from having a voluntary relationship that involves exchange of medical goods and services, why don't they just call themselves "socialists"?
If I'm "allowed" to buy my own insurance, that's not a "single payer" healthcare system, is it? If service providers are "allowed" to operate outside the system (e.g. taking only direct payment) that's not "single payer" healthcare either. You're talking about a welfare program.
You also endorse a tax on wage earnings to fund the state and welfare programs? I can see how explaining to people that you're really a "libertarian" could be a long winded endeavor.
I prefaced my comment with the idea about ideological purges because I don't believe in alienating potential allies. There are some liberty activists who will not accept the idea of ANY government whatsoever. In my experience, they tend to be the greatest ideologues and create a split with people who accept limited Constitutional government to the detriment of both. I'm actually a Henry George type libertarian because I see resource monopoly as the existence of a de-facto "state" run by the land owners.
No, I wasn't aware that I fit a /.profile of "libertarian".
I'm also familiar with left-libertarianism.
I stand by my statement. A healthcare system where participation is forced and where competing systems are forcefully excluded has nothing to do with any brand of libertarianism.
I am constantly trying to cure my fellow liberty activists of their annoying tendency to attempt to purge our ranks of anyone that doesn't meet some test of ideological purity. I see this happen quite a bit and it's discouraging.
That being said, I don't see how a libertarian of any stripe could embrace a single payer healthcare system. I'm basing this on the assumption that such a system would require forced participation. i.e. if participation was voluntary, there would be more than a single payer.
"Very few liberals believe that and you know it."
You mean "Very few liberals will openly admit it". The whole philosophy of achieving Utopia through the mechanism of big government and central planning must also include extensive use of force and control. That's the dark side of liberalism that liberals will rarely acknowledge. Central planning is a model that must be forcefully imposed on a society. Individual behavior must be controlled so that it conforms to this model. Free individuals are too dynamic to be centrally managed, so they must be transformed into good little robots so that the model doesn't break.
What decisions make you think Scalia is a "conservative hack"?
I was disappointed in him on Raich v. Gonzales (medical marijuana), but otherwise, he's been pretty good on issues of civil liberties. e.g. Kelo v. New London, Citizens United v. FEC, MacDonald v. Chicago, Florida v. Jardines, etc.
"the man who made his treason possible is totally innocent"
Participating in the creation of, and serving as the spokesman for Wikileaks does not make treason "possible". By that reasoning, the existence of ANY mass media is an enabler of treason.
It's clear that Manning released information that the U.S. government considered secret and thus violated the law. Whether or not the release of documents that are "secret" constitutes "treason" is a subjective conclusion.
The government/military has few legitimate "secrets"
I think the government considers anything that exposes their lies and crimes as "secret". Informing the American people of government malfeasance should be considered "patriotism", even if releasing the info was technically a crime.
I think the preponderance of evidence would point to the OP's conclusion. IMO, the majority of sequels suck anyway and trying to do a sequel/derivative of an awesome film like "Blade Runner" seems like a sure letdown.
I won't be prejudiced by the fact that it's not the original author. I'll just be very surprised (and very pleased) if they manage to produce something good.
Is it possible to sell only the rights to a specific book or story, or does Hollywood demand that authors surrender the rights so that sequels and derivative works are legal without a new agreement?
Perhaps it could be done well, but the idea of "Blade Runner 2" makes me cringe.
I just learned recently that Thomas Harris (author of the Hannibal Lecter books) sold the rights to the characters as well as the books. Hollywood was threatening to use the rights to produce a film NOT based on a book, so they coerced Harris into writing "Hannibal Rising" which is why it sucked.
Does Hollywood always demand such exclusive rights?
I definitely think 9/11 was an inflection point where the erosion of our civil liberties and government power grabs accelerated sharply and in unprecedented ways.
Prior to that, the 1994 gun ban was the biggest assault on The Constitution in recent history. That's sort of when I started paying attention. I realize that The Constitution had been pretty well trampled on before then, but I can't think of anything, say from the '70's and '80's that even comes close to what's happened since 2001.
Did you have something in mind, or were you considering 1787 to the present?
I concur. Let's get rid of The Constitution. The federal government will then have no delegated powers and must be immediately dissolved. Good riddance.
NSL's are supposed to be reserved for matters regarding terrorism or homeland security. IIRC, the original PATRIOT Act stated that an NSL must come directly from the AG or FBI director. That's obviously false if there were 190K of them done in a 3 year period. Can any random FBI employee write one of these? That's ridiculous, because one of the fundamental ideas of The Constitution is that cops do NOT get to write their own search warrants.
The gag order provision is also a clear violation of the Right of free speech. The feds search your customer's data and you can't tell ANYONE, including your colleagues, let alone the affected customers? Under penalty of prosecution? Likewise ridiculous.
If my reason for not wanting to consume GM foods is that I've been visited by people who traveled back in time to warn me about them, that's my business. It's not up to you to judge the "rationality" of decisions that affect only me.
Certain religions impose dietary restrictions on their practitioners. That might be deemed irrational or superstitious, but it's up to the individual to decide.
If GM crops live up to all of these promises about being cheaper to produce, more sustainable, etc. and with no negative side effects, then I'll be wasting my money on more expensive products produced with non-GMO crops. That should be my choice however.
Actually, that gave me an idea. A lot of the Pagan religions have a deep affinity with nature. I refuse to consume GMOs because they are an affront to my sect of Paganism.
Natural systems have evolved over tens of thousands of years and have achieved very delicate balances. The symbioses that have arisen between various species are complicated and slow moving.
We have numerous examples showing the disastrous consequences resulting from importing a species of plant or animal to a non-native environment. Now, we have these GM species which have no natural habitat and properties that did not result from evolution of the species in concert with other species. I don't know how you can be so cavalier about the *possibility* of something going drastically wrong.
I'm not a genetic engineer, but I know that plants produce various toxins as a natural defense mechanism. Who's to say that cross-pollination of GM species with natural species couldn't produce a prolific strain of food crop that was unpalatable, or even inedible for humans?
A failed dictatorship in a state which has been subjected to multiple invasions from foreign military forces is hardly a laboratory for libertarianism.
You criticize libertarianism, but it is governments that have a habit of using their "big guns" to the greatest detriment. Conflict would occur in a libertarian system, but the resulting violence would be absolutely trivial compared to the epic amounts of death and destruction that governments have inflicted on the world.