Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 2:54am
Re: Re:
We elect people on what they say they're going to do. If what they say is assuredly a lie, why vote for them?
A very good question. The only answer I have is the old quote "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."
That or a perception of no choice because the notion of revolution in our "politically correct" world is abhorrent and the spectre of possible need for violent revolution even more so.
how is our system any better than single-party systems such as the USSR or China?
I don't think it is, it just started from a better place.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Jun 2013 @ 2:45am
Re:
You can't have 100% security... and then also have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience.... We're, we're going to have to make some choices.
Makes perfect sense in a real world,
No, it really doesn't because the statement sets up a False Dichotomy. You can't have 100% security at all.
There is no such thing and striving for it at the expense of privacy and freedom is an ever-devolving circle that gets you increasing small returns of imaginary security at the expense of ever-increasing amounts of very real freedoms being lost.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:27am
But...?
During negotiations, ASCAP and the publisher increased the pressure by refusing to provide Pandora the list of tracks that were being withdrawn, exposing Pandora to copyright infringement liability of up to $150,000 per work.
Hang on! I thought only the government was allowed to have secret interpretations of what's legal and what's not!
...Oh, wait... the RIAA is the government, isn't it? Carry on...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 4:06am
Re: Transparency has it's limits too
The result? 250 plus million back seat drivers, all screaming to drive a different direction at a different speed and crying "are we there yet?". Nothing gets done.
A fair point, but rather artful in the context don't you think since you've gone to the other extreme?
In the interests of transparency then, let me ask you:
What do you think the key aims are/should be in TPP?(i.e. the changes to trade agreements that are actually NEEDED)
Do you know whether these are in fact addressed in TPP?
Do you think it is better to have a trade agreement at any cost even if all but about 10,000 of the afore-mentioned 250M people end up getting out of the back of their locked van yelling "What the f*ck are we doing here?"?
Is this outcome better or worse than no additional trade agreement and how?
Do you think it is all or nothing or is there a way that public interest could be included without the 250M "back seat drivers? (And don't say politicians represent the people because I'd like your answer based in reality please)
Since it is supposed to be a "secret" negotiation, is it right that those industries (and most of the afore mentioned "10,000 people" that like the destination) that benefit directly from them get to know and influence what happens?
Given the usual US strong-arming of such processes, it's reasonably likely that the US economy will come out of it with some sort of net "win" even if most of the people in it get screwed. This is likely to be at the expense of many of the other countries concerned. Do you care?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:41am
Re: Liz...
As a member of the populace of the 51st state of the US of A, aka Australia,
No, I'm afraid you're the 52nd state... We in the UK claim the 51st spot - our government has been toadying to and taking it up the arse from the US for many more years than you guys...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:00pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
The average citizen doesn't have a clue about what "metadata" is
Which is exactly the problem - and instead of explaining what metadata is in this case, which would probably scare the hell out of most people as much or more, he goes with "but it's OK we don't listen to phone calls, honest!". Also carefully refraining from mentioning the other data they get to scarf up like the theory that emails older than 6 months are "abandoned" and therefore don't need a warrant either.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:07pm
Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
So instead of lying, Obama is obfuscating instead? Saying "Hey look it's not so bad that the NSA has every single detail of your associations and contacts and much of the content of your communications and can do whatever the hell they want with the data without asking anyone because look over here - they need a warrant to listen to what you say on the phone!"
Yeah, that's much better...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 11:57am
Re: Re:
the word “people” encompasses non-citizens who have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States to be considered part of the “national community
Considering that the US is the biggest damn meddler in the concerns of other countries and people, that must include everyone on the planet by now, surely? /sarc
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 7:31am
Crazy???
that the government never actually has to have the Constitutionality of such laws determined in court, because it can claim sovereign immunity to kill off any such lawsuits. If that seems like a crazy result, you'd be correct
Crazy? Try "bat-shit insane"! If I'm reading that correctly it appears that, far from being the foundation of a nation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in fact nicely decorated toilet paper for all the force and effect they have.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 11:09am
Re: Re:
with masses of data being passed to GCHQ probably illegally
And indeed from GCHQ by reciprocal agreement. I will lay a fairly substantial wager that the NSA is not the only "democratic" intelligence agency scarfing up data they have no justification for.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 10:53am
Re:
So, Google's making it easier for law enforcement to find lawbreakers.
Which is indeed the point... if as stated:
On every check we have made, Google's search engine gave us easy access to [snip]
Then it must be just as "easy" for the owner of said content etc to find it so where are the gazillion lawsuits against the actual perpetrators.
Of course, I'm sure that if Google is shut down all those "illegal websites" will magically vanish never to re-appear again... right?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 10:44am
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Google is not an inanimate object like a gun or car.
Except yes, it is. And no, I don't mean Google the corporate entity, I mean Google the search engine based on an algorithm. The fact Google have caved on previous occasions and naffed around to skew the algorithm to placate various "moral" handwringers does not change that it is an inanimate product and can't pass a Turing test.
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re:
That or a perception of no choice because the notion of revolution in our "politically correct" world is abhorrent and the spectre of possible need for violent revolution even more so.
I don't think it is, it just started from a better place.
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re:
You can't have 100% security at all.
There is no such thing and striving for it at the expense of privacy and freedom is an ever-devolving circle that gets you increasing small returns of imaginary security at the expense of ever-increasing amounts of very real freedoms being lost.
On the post: Legacy Recording Industry Claims Pandora Is Playing A 'Sick Joke' In Seeking The Same Rates Others Pay
Re:
Sorry, couldn't resist
/Wargames
On the post: Legacy Recording Industry Claims Pandora Is Playing A 'Sick Joke' In Seeking The Same Rates Others Pay
But...?
...Oh, wait... the RIAA is the government, isn't it? Carry on...
On the post: Congress' Response To Leaks? Stop Contractors From Access To Classified Material Rather Than Stop NSA Spying
Re: Post link, hit report, and move on people, don't feed the troll
On the post: Congress' Response To Leaks? Stop Contractors From Access To Classified Material Rather Than Stop NSA Spying
Re:
On the post: Senator Warren: If TPP Transparency Would Lead To Public Opposition, Then TPP Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Liz...
On the post: Senator Warren: If TPP Transparency Would Lead To Public Opposition, Then TPP Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Transparency has it's limits too
On the post: Senator Warren: If TPP Transparency Would Lead To Public Opposition, Then TPP Is Wrong
Re: Transparency has it's limits too
In the interests of transparency then, let me ask you:
What do you think the key aims are/should be in TPP?(i.e. the changes to trade agreements that are actually NEEDED)
Do you know whether these are in fact addressed in TPP?
Do you think it is better to have a trade agreement at any cost even if all but about 10,000 of the afore-mentioned 250M people end up getting out of the back of their locked van yelling "What the f*ck are we doing here?"?
Is this outcome better or worse than no additional trade agreement and how?
Do you think it is all or nothing or is there a way that public interest could be included without the 250M "back seat drivers? (And don't say politicians represent the people because I'd like your answer based in reality please)
Since it is supposed to be a "secret" negotiation, is it right that those industries (and most of the afore mentioned "10,000 people" that like the destination) that benefit directly from them get to know and influence what happens?
Given the usual US strong-arming of such processes, it's reasonably likely that the US economy will come out of it with some sort of net "win" even if most of the people in it get screwed. This is likely to be at the expense of many of the other countries concerned. Do you care?
On the post: Senator Warren: If TPP Transparency Would Lead To Public Opposition, Then TPP Is Wrong
Re: Liz...
On the post: If You've Got Nothing To Hide, You've Actually Got Plenty To Hide
Re: Re:
On the post: Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
Re: Re: Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
On the post: ACLU Sues The Government On Its Own Behalf, As A Verizon Customer, Arguing 4th Amendment Violations
Re: Re: Crazy???
On the post: Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
Re: Re: So POTUS lied, then?
Yeah, that's much better...
On the post: Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
Re: Re:
On the post: ACLU Sues The Government On Its Own Behalf, As A Verizon Customer, Arguing 4th Amendment Violations
Crazy???
On the post: Majority Of Americans Okay With NSA Dragnet... Or, Wait, Not Okay With It; Depending On How You Ask
Re: Re:
On the post: Majority Of Americans Okay With NSA Dragnet... Or, Wait, Not Okay With It; Depending On How You Ask
For all things political....
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Says Its Google's Fault He Can Find Infringing & Counterfeit Items
Re:
Of course, I'm sure that if Google is shut down all those "illegal websites" will magically vanish never to re-appear again... right?
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Says Its Google's Fault He Can Find Infringing & Counterfeit Items
Re: Re: Re: Google loves infringing content.
Next >>