The good guys are those that are not doing surveillance. The good guys don't murder people with drones based on the above surveillance data. The good guys don't torture prisoners. And so on..
"good" is what does "good", and not what asserts its "good intentions".
One comment by an attorney for Google and it is automatically established the reason why a gag order was sought.
Well, they sought mails from journalists reporting on crimes of the US government. So what exactly do you expect the reason to be they wanted these mails in the first place?
Asked differently: What are the chances that a criminal investigation would be hampered by the public knowing these mails were sought, versus the likelihood that this was a fishing expedition not aimed at the journalists in question, but to get their sources, and the gag order put in place to avoid backlash for their own wrongdoing?
Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment
This is exactly why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment. You can see from the drug war and prohibition, that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. This is cliche, but true.
This is a total bogus argument. "We outlawed alcohol, and the Mafia has guns, therefore we also need guns"?
This is not what the 2nd amendment says. The 2nd amendment says you need guns if the government turns against the people, like by putting everyone under surveillance (4th amendment), or by incarcerating people for minor infractions (8th amendment), or by torturing prisoners (5th-7th amendment). In that case, your duty would be to depose of the government.
There are no conservatives and no liberals involved here.
Because conservatives are opposed to change, or want change very slowly, and sure as hell they don't want outlaw abortion which was legal since the middle ages. And because liberals are concerned with liberty, and not specifically with "health-care". But liberty happens to include the right to bear arms...
So whatever the names of these two groups, they're probably neither conservative, nor liberal.
Restricted or no-fly zones in aviation usually do not have a "radius", but have rather complicated shapes. And they're not two-dimensional either, they have a specific from/to height.
Plus you can usually enter restricted airspace if you announce your position, height and target by radio. The tower might give you further instructions on course and flight-level you need to keep.
So compared to what's usual in aviation, this "self-regulation" of course allows you to do much less.
The way I see it, a ban for communities to operate and offer their own infrastructure, is a blatant effort of companies to kill off the competition.
Why shouldn't I be able to group up with some other people with the aim of providing ourselves our own infrastructure? That's free market. Banning people from competing is not. If a company comes in and can offer better services, well good for them and for us.
Dunno. Maybe the oppressed people of the Fascist States of America need help to free them from their Junta?
Well, maybe they don't want to be free. They're content to have their government to spout their orwellian nonsense about "Freedom" around the world, while imprisoning their own, hunting journalists and having been always at war against "the Terrorists".
It's not like they didn't vote these guys in (well, so did germany in 1933), even when it was crystal clear that Obama neither stood for "transparency", nor for "freedom", and not even for "human rights", unlike the first time, when there was some kind of hope things would change. Well they did, for the worse. Obama took up where Bush Jr. left off and turned the noose tighter. A bit more assassination here, some more torture there, a few more whistleblowers condemned, some more "trade agreements" to fill the coffers of some cronies, a lot more secrecy all over, and of course, building up Bushs illegal surveillance of the people.
I don't think Obama even realizes that what he's doing is completely fascist and totalitarian (as opposed to Cheney for instance, who probably knows very well that he WANTS a totalitarian state) and I can't comprehend how he turned into this.
In any case, I think it's futile to hope for an invasion force that will liberate the USA ;). Not the least because the ideas of the US government have either been exported, or popped up by itself, in most countries around the world.
Oh, and terrorism is of course no solution at all. Terrorism works only ever in one way: Towards totalitarianism. Even if the terrorists think they're working for "freedom"; the backlash will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. Of course, Christians or Muslims wanting to enact their own totalitarian theocracy don't care. The only ones that always loose are those that value liberty.
In the 80ies, heads were rolling when it turned out my government spied on thousands of people indiscriminatingly. Today, laws get enacted to allow them to do just that, and nothing happens to those that illegally spied on us the last decade. And this is in one of the (still) best democracies of the world (The US democracy has long been surpassed by the way, at least since 1848, and since the late 1990ies, I'm suspecting it's not a democracy but a plutocracy).
I think it's going to get bad, really bad, Nazi-Germany bad the next decades, all over the world.
Don't you have something like the FBI to investigate these criminals?
Or are the too busy setting up sting operations for fake terrorists by chatting to people interested in "praying circles" and trying to get them to want to "blow up infidels" instead?
On the post: Study Confirms That Revealing Secrets, Rather Than Hoarding Info, Is Good For Inventors
Not surprising
On the post: Obama To Germans Worried About NSA Surveillance: 'Hey, Trust Us!'
The Good Guys
"good" is what does "good", and not what asserts its "good intentions".
On the post: French Government Declares Independence From Free Speech: Broad Internet Take-Down Powers Now In Place
Vous n'êtes pas Charlie
Rien à ajouter.
On the post: Taiwan Nannies Rule: Parents Can't Decide How Much Time Their Kids Spend With Electronics
Pretty much everything could contain electronics.
And in any case, this is a law against education, and not just because it would kill of reading on e-books...
On the post: Canada's New Anti-Terrorism Legislation Echoes The PATRIOT Act, Expands Spying Powers And Government Reach
Re:
Soldiers are NOT civilians and thus can not be victims of terrorism.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Bought: Drone Maker Updates Firmware On All Drones To Stop Any Flights In DC
Re: Different application, same old cr@p...DRM
On the post: You Don't Own What You Bought: Drone Maker Updates Firmware On All Drones To Stop Any Flights In DC
Re: Re:
http://www.skyguide.ch/fileadmin/dabs-tomorrow/DABS_20150130.pdf
the zones can change daily.
On the post: Feds Gagged Google Over Wikileaks Warrants Because They Were 'Upset By The Backlash' To Similar Twitter Warrants
Re:
Well, they sought mails from journalists reporting on crimes of the US government. So what exactly do you expect the reason to be they wanted these mails in the first place?
Asked differently: What are the chances that a criminal investigation would be hampered by the public knowing these mails were sought, versus the likelihood that this was a fishing expedition not aimed at the journalists in question, but to get their sources, and the gag order put in place to avoid backlash for their own wrongdoing?
Occam says it's the latter.
On the post: Sheriffs' Association Urges 'Investigation' Of Assistant Attorney General Nominee For Her Pro-Drug Legalization Comments
Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment
This is a total bogus argument. "We outlawed alcohol, and the Mafia has guns, therefore we also need guns"?
This is not what the 2nd amendment says. The 2nd amendment says you need guns if the government turns against the people, like by putting everyone under surveillance (4th amendment), or by incarcerating people for minor infractions (8th amendment), or by torturing prisoners (5th-7th amendment). In that case, your duty would be to depose of the government.
On the post: Sheriffs' Association Urges 'Investigation' Of Assistant Attorney General Nominee For Her Pro-Drug Legalization Comments
Re: The point is this
All this has happened under the current prohibition regime.
I changed the wording somewhat to fit the tone to the 1920ies.
On the post: Sheriffs' Association Urges 'Investigation' Of Assistant Attorney General Nominee For Her Pro-Drug Legalization Comments
Re: Re: Re:
Because conservatives are opposed to change, or want change very slowly, and sure as hell they don't want outlaw abortion which was legal since the middle ages. And because liberals are concerned with liberty, and not specifically with "health-care". But liberty happens to include the right to bear arms...
So whatever the names of these two groups, they're probably neither conservative, nor liberal.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Bought: Drone Maker Updates Firmware On All Drones To Stop Any Flights In DC
Re:
"It seems you want to fly your Boeing 747 into a no fly zone, this airplane can't allow this, Dave".
First think about the implications (in case of emergencies, for instance) something can have before making such stupid statements.
On the post: You Don't Own What You Bought: Drone Maker Updates Firmware On All Drones To Stop Any Flights In DC
Plus you can usually enter restricted airspace if you announce your position, height and target by radio. The tower might give you further instructions on course and flight-level you need to keep.
So compared to what's usual in aviation, this "self-regulation" of course allows you to do much less.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 9: Is Muni Broadband A Monopoly Killer Or A Killer Monopoly?
Competition, why not?
Why shouldn't I be able to group up with some other people with the aim of providing ourselves our own infrastructure? That's free market. Banning people from competing is not. If a company comes in and can offer better services, well good for them and for us.
On the post: President Obama Drops His Promise To Take Phone Metadata Away From NSA... But Perhaps That's Fine [Updated]
Stopping this?
Well, maybe they don't want to be free. They're content to have their government to spout their orwellian nonsense about "Freedom" around the world, while imprisoning their own, hunting journalists and having been always at war against "the Terrorists".
It's not like they didn't vote these guys in (well, so did germany in 1933), even when it was crystal clear that Obama neither stood for "transparency", nor for "freedom", and not even for "human rights", unlike the first time, when there was some kind of hope things would change. Well they did, for the worse. Obama took up where Bush Jr. left off and turned the noose tighter. A bit more assassination here, some more torture there, a few more whistleblowers condemned, some more "trade agreements" to fill the coffers of some cronies, a lot more secrecy all over, and of course, building up Bushs illegal surveillance of the people.
I don't think Obama even realizes that what he's doing is completely fascist and totalitarian (as opposed to Cheney for instance, who probably knows very well that he WANTS a totalitarian state) and I can't comprehend how he turned into this.
In any case, I think it's futile to hope for an invasion force that will liberate the USA ;). Not the least because the ideas of the US government have either been exported, or popped up by itself, in most countries around the world.
Oh, and terrorism is of course no solution at all. Terrorism works only ever in one way: Towards totalitarianism. Even if the terrorists think they're working for "freedom"; the backlash will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. Of course, Christians or Muslims wanting to enact their own totalitarian theocracy don't care. The only ones that always loose are those that value liberty.
In the 80ies, heads were rolling when it turned out my government spied on thousands of people indiscriminatingly. Today, laws get enacted to allow them to do just that, and nothing happens to those that illegally spied on us the last decade. And this is in one of the (still) best democracies of the world (The US democracy has long been surpassed by the way, at least since 1848, and since the late 1990ies, I'm suspecting it's not a democracy but a plutocracy).
I think it's going to get bad, really bad, Nazi-Germany bad the next decades, all over the world.
On the post: The MPAA Isn't About Helping Hollywood. It's About Preserving Its Own Need To Exist.
Re:
On the post: How Florida Police Falsely Arrest & Shame Men As Child Sexual Predators, Steal Their Cars... Then Try To Hide The Records
FBI
Or are the too busy setting up sting operations for fake terrorists by chatting to people interested in "praying circles" and trying to get them to want to "blow up infidels" instead?
On the post: DHS Watchdog Says Border Patrol's Drones Are Expensive, Useless
Re: expensive weed!
Besides, it's just frickin' Marijuana, it's not like this stuff is dangerous or something.
Just shows what kind of damage a determined nylon-industry with the help of some prohibitionist puritans can achieve..
On the post: Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dick Cheney Says CIA Torture Report Is 'Full Of Crap' -- Then Admits He Hasn't Read It
Re:
Next >>