Nintendo's cluelessness with all matters internet leaves me feeling that this program will go about as well as EA and Ubisoft's attempts to create their own versions of Steam. Then again, those Steam knock-offs are inexplicably still around, so one would think they must be doing something right, and if YouTube does indeed buy Twitch and everything goes down the tubes afterwards, Nintendo's affiliate program could actually end up protecting a lot of LPers.
Overall, it seems a bad idea that could be saved by even worse circumstances.
Anyone ever wonder how shallow and vindictive quacks like Mike Adams sabotage ideas that might actually have some merit to them? I mean, Hippocrates was probably on to something when he said, "Let food by thy medicine and medicine be thy food", but after seeing Mike Adams rant and rave, that idea seems as dead as the Batman movies were after Batman & Robin.
Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased
If what you assert were true, there wouldn't be ample opportunity to call him out on Google fanposts.
That... doesn't make sense though.
See, here's the problem, dude. If Mike really is a Google shill, then you need to be able to explain all the posts he's written that criticize Google and call it out for bad behavior. The explanation I've seen for that is that he deliberately writes those posts to throw people off his trail so no one will suspect he's a Google shill, but that explanation doesn't resist the cut of Occam's Razor. He'd have to be running a pretty convoluted scheme that would take lots of effort to keep up, and for what purpose, ultimately? He's just a blogger, not a Fox News anchor under the command of Rupert Murdoch or something.
That's not the only reason no one listens to you either. Your attitude makes it pretty obvious that you've put yourself in the center of a fantasy drama, where you gain a sense of personal power because it feels good to be the only one who's right on a website full of fools. If you were as honest as you think you are, you'd be a lot more humble. Even if you were right in your assertions, why should anyone trust you when you speak? Surely someone more knowledgeable and trustworthy than yourself should be able to corroborate your story.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
But I can respond in kind... obviously you are so enamored of Snowden's carefully constructed hero image that you cannot see anything else. Here we have this low grade sysadmin, whose parents were in grade school when I first hacked into an operating system, thrilling the world with his brilliance. Worship at his feet. I'm not impressed.
No-no, step out of that fantasy drama, Mister. That's how destructive religions form. I'm not the one who's expressed violent sentiments here, so I don't think you have the right to go pointing fingers back. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've said.
My main point is that your hatred of Snowden is misplaced. He's the messenger, and shooting the messenger accomplishes nothing. If there is going to be another big terrorist attack on American soil, it's going to be one that would have hit us with or without Snowden, and if Snowden hadn't discovered the flaws and abuse in the system, then someone else or even multiple someone else's would have because of all the holes in it, so focus your disdain on the people who actually got us into this mess in the first place.
But I don't think another major terrorist attack is likely to happen either. One of the reasons we haven't been invaded since 1812 is because the United States has become HUGE, like Russia. There's just too much land mass to invade, so all our enemies can really hope to do is take pot shots at us from outside.
Or... cause divisiveness from within so the country collapses in on itself. Thanks to the country shooting itself in the foot with a bazooka so much, the world already hates the USA, so the terrorists probably aren't going to try anything because they've already won. I think we can expect the next major attack after we use the Snowden revelations to repair our government and become a respectable world power like we used to be.
I do appreciate the historical primer though. Interesting that our intelligence capabilities got repeatedly nerfed, as if the US felt remorse for all the bad situations it got into. Part of the reason that World War 2 is so significant is because that was pretty much the last war where the United States did any good, where we had a clear decisive win over an unambiguously evil villain, not like all these wishy-washy recent wars where we run in, stomp all over a developing nation, then run out again declaring victory around the time the locals have to start eating their own dead.
...OK, maybe that was a bit too graphic there...
I sense that we're finally starting to see eye-to-eye, but you should probably go back and read all of That One Guy's links. A lot of your claims haven't been supported by evidence, and when you call upon your admittedly impressive experience, it's like you don't wield it to your advantage and instead somehow end up arguing on a disconnected level... which is how most disagreements form, I suspect.
I don't think my statistics are misleading, I'm afraid. I think they're frank, and I'm concerned you're a little too afraid of another major terrorist attack that probably won't be as significant as the last major one we had because the economy's been systematically run into the ground since then and we've gotten many more important things to worry about since.
Or maybe you're so convinced that Snowden is the enemy that you secretly, deep inside, find it hard to let go of your personal desire for revenge or something. I mean, you keep talking about how he should be locked up for all eternity and should never see the sun again, which is a rather violent sentiment to share. Even if he was the bad guy in all this, you should never wish for such destruction on a fellow human being. You should be sad and regretful instead because it's always a shame to see a person go to waste, even if that person has given you nothing but headaches.
It's like Mega Man said at the end of the Curse of Ra Moon arc:
Mega Man: "Dr. Light, I'm worried about how I'm reacting again." Dr. Light: "What are you feeling now?" Mega Man: "...happiness? I mean, I'm relieved it's really over. I'm glad nobody has to worry about Ra Moon again. But... I don't like being happy that something is dead. I mean... he was evil! But... it still doesn't seem right to be happy he's gone. That I... killed him." Dr. Light: "And you never should be. I have no easy answer for you, son. But the fact that you have that concern shows a greater humanity than some. May you never lose that, Rock."
(Yeah, I'm using a Mega Man reference. We could use the levity since we pretty clearly hate each other's guts by now, right?)
Something I probably should have mentioned before though: evidence suggests that the terrorists already knew about our weaknesses before Snowden made his move. It wouldn't be surprising if they did, since you kinda have to know about a target's weaknesses before making a successful attack, and security measures generally tend to keep the amateur ne'er-do-wells at bay, but not those that are really determined to crack them and break through them. DRM is a notorious example of that. If that evidence is true, then Snowden's revelations had little if any effect on compromising our already weak security.
Furthermore, we know now that our security has continued to be weak long after 9/11 even though steps should have been taken to strength it right away. Again, it's not Snowden's fault if he was alerting us to how the USA's pants are already down around its ankles and the only one who can't see that is the USA itself, as if it's the emperor in The Emperor's New Clothes or something. It's the USA's fault for being so willfully proud and ignorant instead.
The problem is, Snowden DID actually know better than Congress, the FISA courts, and the Administration, and I suspect that's the major impasse between us that will keep this conversation from going anywhere meaningful.
Nevertheless...
It is that he didn't even try releasing it to a congressman - when it is clear that many congressmen (many of my own party) who are happy to pummel the NSA for political gain.
Think about that statement a little more. Reach deeper into it. The key phrase there is "political gain". The motivations of the congressmen you speak of are selfish, not for the benefit of the people they're supposed to serve. Look carefully at that statement, and it's kinda like you're admitting that the government is filled with people that are not worthy of their positions. That's one of the major reasons more and more people have been hailing Snowden as a hero; he gave us the information and the power to combat the corruption in our government and turn the United States back into the country it was supposed to be all along. We can worry about that terrorists again after all that work is done.
Even if that avenue had had greater than a 0% chance of working in the first place, what do you think would have happened after your congressmen had gained that upper hand? It would have been back to serving their corporate masters. Snowden's revolution would have just been a flash in the pan at best, while the path he's chosen has already been reaching far and changing much more, forcing people to wake up and realize what's really been going on in the world.
Besides, as I said before, terrorism isn't really a threat to us. Look at these statistics here:
Your chances of dying in a terrorism attack in the United States are ridiculously low, just like they were before 9/11. We do not need to go insane as a country and restrict everyone's freedoms when there are far many other things killing us in far greater numbers than a few Taliban agents who happened to get lucky one fateful day in history. You can't have a free country that also restricts freedoms for the sake of security because then you no longer have a free country.
I think you're dealing with a fantasy version of civil disobedience that isn't actually supported by history, myself. You seem to look only on the surface of people's actions and presume there's some kind of nobility involved when that isn't the case at all.
People only engage in civil disobedience when they think they have some kind of safety net that'll save them from serious consequences, or when the consequences already unfolding are so bad that they decide that have nothing left to lose. In either case, there's no nobility involved, but instead people carefully weighing security versus desperation. We are not an honorable species and it is foolish to pretend that we are or ever will be. For better or for worse, we're all human in the end, and honor more often than not tends to be an excuse for behaving irrationally. Don't be fooled by history's tendency to doll up the corpses and give them lavish funerals.
I wish I had kinder words since you compose yourself rather well, but I'm afraid you seem very blind to how the world actually works and how it has changed as well. It's like your arguments are relics of a bygone age or something.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
But there are also unofficial channels, the use of which is a lot more responsible than spreading critical national security secrets around the world. He could have gone to a congressman critical of the administration, for example.
That would not have worked at all. Snowden was dealing with confidential information, so revealing it to anyone, even a sympathetic congressman, would have gotten him labeled as a traitor and dumped into the same situation he's in now. Senators like Ron Wyden have tried to be activists inside the system and not only have gotten thwarted and bogged down by its glacial pace and the tangled web of people trying to outmaneuver each other, but they also cannot officially share information about what they're actually fighting against, not even to their own allies, otherwise they could be imprisoned or worse. That is why there's no such thing as official channels for whistleblowers. If you want to alert people about dangerous government activity, the only way to do so is to break the law.
Also, there is a tradition in this country of civil disobedience. One believes the government is acting unfairly, one violates the law to try to get it corrected, and then on takes whatever punishment is meted out by the courts. This is what the civil rights people did in the 50's and 60's. It's honorable.
If you just take whatever punishment the courts had you without protest though, then you're no longer being civilly disobedient, are you?
Besides, honor before reason is usually not a good policy. There's an important differences between being honorable and being plain stupid. Ghandi was able to appear peaceful and honorable in 1920 when he protested the British Raj because he had the backing of the United States Congress, while Snowden was completely alone. Being a martyr may be honorable, but you can't be an activist after you're dead or locked away for life, so it's horribly impractical.
I'm not convinced you have a sense of honor either. It seems you call other people dishonorable for the same reason kindergarteners call each other "poopyheads". It sounds to me like you're calling Snowden a coward just because you don't like how he was thoroughly smart and savvy about what he was getting himself into, including trying all those "official channels" before realizing that they didn't work and he had only one option left. He did not do anything lightly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
I should also point out that there's really no such thing as official channels for whistleblowers. They are a fictitious construct. The main reason whistleblowers pop up in the first place is because the official channels have broken down and no longer work due to any feedback sent through them being systematically dismissed. Claiming that Snowden would have been fine if have used them makes absolutely no sense and puts you on the wrong side of history.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
Eh, no, not perfection. Just trust. And the NSA has betrayed the trust of the American people. You are aware of all the lies they've told to preserve their operations, right? You can't trust them now just because they used to be good years ago.
I'm not convinced that the terrorists really want to destroy us that much anymore either. It was just a flash in the pan, not something worth modifying this country's core principles over. All they had to do was attack once, then watch the country slowly destroy itself, saving them a lot of effort.
And it's really not possible to make rational tradeoffs between civil liberties and protection. As Ben Franklin once wrote, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We should follow Norway's example and respond to crisis with more democracy and transparency, not fence people in "for their own good".
I think there's no possible way to take that in the best way possible. In fact, your question may be horrifyingly valid. The country is in such a state that we seem to be beyond the point of peaceful resolution, but not yet at the point of violent revolution.
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
It's not too strong. It's too broad. The NSA is casting a wide net over as much as possible, and what's worse is that net is old and ratty and full of holes. To compensate, they've been trying to bend the law to their favor. Haven't you seen the stories about the NSA holding encryption back so it can make use of zero day exploits, allowing many other thieves and con men to take advantage of them too?
That's why the NSA and FBI have had to make up a lot of stories about terrorism plots being foiled, but they're running out of people to fool. Before 9/11, the USA had gone over 200 years without a major terrorist attack, and we haven't seen a major one after, either. Terrorist attacks have always killed less people than drunk driving, smoking, and even falling off ladders, so to combat it so relentlessly is senseless.
However, I must say thanks for you not coming in name calling and shouting everyone down. I sincerely appreciate you being civil, even if your stance is completely wrong. Just don't get so caught up in wanting to preserve your own sense of safety and security that you start blaming individuals who have been alerting us to the real danger around us every day.
It's probably worth noting that US security has been handled very, very badly since 9/11, and the terrorists already knew how weak we were beforehand anyway. That's what Snowden was trying to call attention to. We would have been even more screwed if he had kept quiet, and we'll continue to be screwed as long as we refuse to heed his warnings.
I mean, cripes, the Snowden fiasco like is a mirror of the climate change one, with people trying to warn everyone about the danger that's looming and the people in power telling them to shut up because our immediate and extremely temporary security and status quo matters more. It's a conflict between short-sighted and far-sighted people.
It IS a big deal. Accepting it doesn't mean pretending to be a jock just because you've suffered more than most. If you've become that numb to it, you're only a step away from becoming like the enforcers who abused you in the first place. Do you really want that cycle of evil to be perpetuated?
On the post: Actual Former Government Official Makes Totally Ridiculous Argument That Snowden's 'Harms' Are That Other Countries Are Angry
Re: Idiotic, but consistent
On the post: Nintendo Has A Plan To Share Ad Revenue With YouTubers, But Nobody's Happy About It
Overall, it seems a bad idea that could be saved by even worse circumstances.
On the post: Conspiracy Theorist And Alternative Medicine Salesman Threatens To Sue Writer For Publishing True Statements About Him
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased
That... doesn't make sense though.
See, here's the problem, dude. If Mike really is a Google shill, then you need to be able to explain all the posts he's written that criticize Google and call it out for bad behavior. The explanation I've seen for that is that he deliberately writes those posts to throw people off his trail so no one will suspect he's a Google shill, but that explanation doesn't resist the cut of Occam's Razor. He'd have to be running a pretty convoluted scheme that would take lots of effort to keep up, and for what purpose, ultimately? He's just a blogger, not a Fox News anchor under the command of Rupert Murdoch or something.
That's not the only reason no one listens to you either. Your attitude makes it pretty obvious that you've put yourself in the center of a fantasy drama, where you gain a sense of personal power because it feels good to be the only one who's right on a website full of fools. If you were as honest as you think you are, you'd be a lot more humble. Even if you were right in your assertions, why should anyone trust you when you speak? Surely someone more knowledgeable and trustworthy than yourself should be able to corroborate your story.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
- C. S. Lewis
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Risk of terrorism
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Risk of terrorism
No-no, step out of that fantasy drama, Mister. That's how destructive religions form. I'm not the one who's expressed violent sentiments here, so I don't think you have the right to go pointing fingers back. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've said.
My main point is that your hatred of Snowden is misplaced. He's the messenger, and shooting the messenger accomplishes nothing. If there is going to be another big terrorist attack on American soil, it's going to be one that would have hit us with or without Snowden, and if Snowden hadn't discovered the flaws and abuse in the system, then someone else or even multiple someone else's would have because of all the holes in it, so focus your disdain on the people who actually got us into this mess in the first place.
But I don't think another major terrorist attack is likely to happen either. One of the reasons we haven't been invaded since 1812 is because the United States has become HUGE, like Russia. There's just too much land mass to invade, so all our enemies can really hope to do is take pot shots at us from outside.
Or... cause divisiveness from within so the country collapses in on itself. Thanks to the country shooting itself in the foot with a bazooka so much, the world already hates the USA, so the terrorists probably aren't going to try anything because they've already won. I think we can expect the next major attack after we use the Snowden revelations to repair our government and become a respectable world power like we used to be.
I do appreciate the historical primer though. Interesting that our intelligence capabilities got repeatedly nerfed, as if the US felt remorse for all the bad situations it got into. Part of the reason that World War 2 is so significant is because that was pretty much the last war where the United States did any good, where we had a clear decisive win over an unambiguously evil villain, not like all these wishy-washy recent wars where we run in, stomp all over a developing nation, then run out again declaring victory around the time the locals have to start eating their own dead.
...OK, maybe that was a bit too graphic there...
I sense that we're finally starting to see eye-to-eye, but you should probably go back and read all of That One Guy's links. A lot of your claims haven't been supported by evidence, and when you call upon your admittedly impressive experience, it's like you don't wield it to your advantage and instead somehow end up arguing on a disconnected level... which is how most disagreements form, I suspect.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Risk of terrorism
Or maybe you're so convinced that Snowden is the enemy that you secretly, deep inside, find it hard to let go of your personal desire for revenge or something. I mean, you keep talking about how he should be locked up for all eternity and should never see the sun again, which is a rather violent sentiment to share. Even if he was the bad guy in all this, you should never wish for such destruction on a fellow human being. You should be sad and regretful instead because it's always a shame to see a person go to waste, even if that person has given you nothing but headaches.
It's like Mega Man said at the end of the Curse of Ra Moon arc:
Mega Man: "Dr. Light, I'm worried about how I'm reacting again."
Dr. Light: "What are you feeling now?"
Mega Man: "...happiness? I mean, I'm relieved it's really over. I'm glad nobody has to worry about Ra Moon again. But... I don't like being happy that something is dead. I mean... he was evil! But... it still doesn't seem right to be happy he's gone. That I... killed him."
Dr. Light: "And you never should be. I have no easy answer for you, son. But the fact that you have that concern shows a greater humanity than some. May you never lose that, Rock."
(Yeah, I'm using a Mega Man reference. We could use the levity since we pretty clearly hate each other's guts by now, right?)
Something I probably should have mentioned before though: evidence suggests that the terrorists already knew about our weaknesses before Snowden made his move. It wouldn't be surprising if they did, since you kinda have to know about a target's weaknesses before making a successful attack, and security measures generally tend to keep the amateur ne'er-do-wells at bay, but not those that are really determined to crack them and break through them. DRM is a notorious example of that. If that evidence is true, then Snowden's revelations had little if any effect on compromising our already weak security.
Furthermore, we know now that our security has continued to be weak long after 9/11 even though steps should have been taken to strength it right away. Again, it's not Snowden's fault if he was alerting us to how the USA's pants are already down around its ankles and the only one who can't see that is the USA itself, as if it's the emperor in The Emperor's New Clothes or something. It's the USA's fault for being so willfully proud and ignorant instead.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re:
Nevertheless...
It is that he didn't even try releasing it to a congressman - when it is clear that many congressmen (many of my own party) who are happy to pummel the NSA for political gain.
Think about that statement a little more. Reach deeper into it. The key phrase there is "political gain". The motivations of the congressmen you speak of are selfish, not for the benefit of the people they're supposed to serve. Look carefully at that statement, and it's kinda like you're admitting that the government is filled with people that are not worthy of their positions. That's one of the major reasons more and more people have been hailing Snowden as a hero; he gave us the information and the power to combat the corruption in our government and turn the United States back into the country it was supposed to be all along. We can worry about that terrorists again after all that work is done.
Even if that avenue had had greater than a 0% chance of working in the first place, what do you think would have happened after your congressmen had gained that upper hand? It would have been back to serving their corporate masters. Snowden's revolution would have just been a flash in the pan at best, while the path he's chosen has already been reaching far and changing much more, forcing people to wake up and realize what's really been going on in the world.
Besides, as I said before, terrorism isn't really a threat to us. Look at these statistics here:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists. html
Your chances of dying in a terrorism attack in the United States are ridiculously low, just like they were before 9/11. We do not need to go insane as a country and restrict everyone's freedoms when there are far many other things killing us in far greater numbers than a few Taliban agents who happened to get lucky one fateful day in history. You can't have a free country that also restricts freedoms for the sake of security because then you no longer have a free country.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re:
People only engage in civil disobedience when they think they have some kind of safety net that'll save them from serious consequences, or when the consequences already unfolding are so bad that they decide that have nothing left to lose. In either case, there's no nobility involved, but instead people carefully weighing security versus desperation. We are not an honorable species and it is foolish to pretend that we are or ever will be. For better or for worse, we're all human in the end, and honor more often than not tends to be an excuse for behaving irrationally. Don't be fooled by history's tendency to doll up the corpses and give them lavish funerals.
I wish I had kinder words since you compose yourself rather well, but I'm afraid you seem very blind to how the world actually works and how it has changed as well. It's like your arguments are relics of a bygone age or something.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
That would not have worked at all. Snowden was dealing with confidential information, so revealing it to anyone, even a sympathetic congressman, would have gotten him labeled as a traitor and dumped into the same situation he's in now. Senators like Ron Wyden have tried to be activists inside the system and not only have gotten thwarted and bogged down by its glacial pace and the tangled web of people trying to outmaneuver each other, but they also cannot officially share information about what they're actually fighting against, not even to their own allies, otherwise they could be imprisoned or worse. That is why there's no such thing as official channels for whistleblowers. If you want to alert people about dangerous government activity, the only way to do so is to break the law.
Also, there is a tradition in this country of civil disobedience. One believes the government is acting unfairly, one violates the law to try to get it corrected, and then on takes whatever punishment is meted out by the courts. This is what the civil rights people did in the 50's and 60's. It's honorable.
If you just take whatever punishment the courts had you without protest though, then you're no longer being civilly disobedient, are you?
Besides, honor before reason is usually not a good policy. There's an important differences between being honorable and being plain stupid. Ghandi was able to appear peaceful and honorable in 1920 when he protested the British Raj because he had the backing of the United States Congress, while Snowden was completely alone. Being a martyr may be honorable, but you can't be an activist after you're dead or locked away for life, so it's horribly impractical.
I'm not convinced you have a sense of honor either. It seems you call other people dishonorable for the same reason kindergarteners call each other "poopyheads". It sounds to me like you're calling Snowden a coward just because you don't like how he was thoroughly smart and savvy about what he was getting himself into, including trying all those "official channels" before realizing that they didn't work and he had only one option left. He did not do anything lightly.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
I'm not convinced that the terrorists really want to destroy us that much anymore either. It was just a flash in the pan, not something worth modifying this country's core principles over. All they had to do was attack once, then watch the country slowly destroy itself, saving them a lot of effort.
And it's really not possible to make rational tradeoffs between civil liberties and protection. As Ben Franklin once wrote, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We should follow Norway's example and respond to crisis with more democracy and transparency, not fence people in "for their own good".
On the post: Patent Reform Is Dead; Patent Trolls Win
Re: Patent Reform Is Dead
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
That's why the NSA and FBI have had to make up a lot of stories about terrorism plots being foiled, but they're running out of people to fool. Before 9/11, the USA had gone over 200 years without a major terrorist attack, and we haven't seen a major one after, either. Terrorist attacks have always killed less people than drunk driving, smoking, and even falling off ladders, so to combat it so relentlessly is senseless.
However, I must say thanks for you not coming in name calling and shouting everyone down. I sincerely appreciate you being civil, even if your stance is completely wrong. Just don't get so caught up in wanting to preserve your own sense of safety and security that you start blaming individuals who have been alerting us to the real danger around us every day.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: It doesn't matter what his motivations were
I mean, cripes, the Snowden fiasco like is a mirror of the climate change one, with people trying to warn everyone about the danger that's looming and the people in power telling them to shut up because our immediate and extremely temporary security and status quo matters more. It's a conflict between short-sighted and far-sighted people.
On the post: Supreme Court Admits Copyright Infringement May Actually Help The Copyright Holder
Re:
On the post: USA Freedom Act Being Watered Down Even More... Getting Close To Useless
http://www.captainsnes.com/2003/03/11/296-he-makes-such-a-cute-padawan-too/
On the post: Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations
Re: Unlawful assembly
Next >>