Oh, how unfair for us to build a missile defense and not to get killed. Really unfair. We probably should just bomb ourselves to keep your "score" happy.
Here's a deal - you threaten our population - we kill you. That's it. Fortunately Israel have better economy and many educated and motivated people to build enough weapons to teach those scums a lesson. And a lesson is simple - "point a gun on us, and you dead".
btw - you comparison of palestinians with five-year-old is insulting even for palestinians. They chose to support Hamas. Now cry me a river.
Before taking such moral high ground, remember how US "differentiated" population of Dresden and Hiroshima. I guess it was "long time ago" and thus doesn't count.
Infant/child/dog/cat and other things are utterly irrelevant at war. Did Hamas rockets differentiate them? Yea, millions spent on rocket defence made those Kassam useless, but that's a _point_ of having defence.
Contrary to US, in Israel we have actual terrorists, not the kind of TSA is "searching for". And we have war, not "war". Those "innocent" palestinians should not be persecuted. They should be shot. That's what you do with enemies. That's what you do in war.
When YOUR house will be shelled, we'll see whether you will require "prosecution" OR you will cry for CIA/NSA/USFA/whoever-else to kill those "freedom fighters"
While I'm not a California resident, I don't how does it have anything to do with innovation. If I've got it right, they say "you can't charge like a taxi unless you're acting like a taxi". Which is OK in my book.
While there're plenty of examples of TSA incompetence, this is not one of them. The policy of "nothing that _looks_like_a_bomb_ is allowed" makes sense. And yes, this thing is looking like a bomb.
Whoever brought it to the plane is idiot looking for attention. So - he's got it.
Now, it's unclear whether this thing was in luggage or taken in a hand bag. In most places in the world, you can't take such stuff with you - but you can _declare_ and put it to the luggage. Same as a real weapons.
>> Nope. The servers belong to Microsoft Ireland, which doesn't have an office in the US, merely an owner.
Say wwwwhat? By this logic, if I have a warehouse, here, and you rent it, and put your stuff in there, local judge can't order me to open the warehouse and examine content just because stuff doesn't belong to me? Common sense just doesn't work this way: judge can order a _owner_ of a property to do something with said property.
>>> That's not the case here, Microsoft is merely STORING the data for others, and it is doing so under specific laws. You probably talking about laws of physics, because other laws are irrelevant. What if MS using sort of distributed file system, where files are spread (shadowed/mirrored) all over the world? Will you apply jurisdiction per filesystem block? Your idea about "specific laws" is ridiculous.
>> We have jails aplenty to teach you otherwise. Putting someone in jail doesn't make law more just or less stupid. Some people were burned at stake, and this didn't make heresy laws sensible.
As non-US person, I must say this is blown out of proportion. Common sense says, that my local court can request data from me, even if I store it on Amazon/Google/Dropbox or any other "cloud" service located nobody-knows-where-exactly. Exactly same thing going on here, where judge correctly pointed out that data is not a document or object. And as was repeated many times on this very site - data can't be "owned", only copyrighted, patented and so on.
I also must note, that I couldn't care less about kind of form judge must fill. Be it "order", or "subpoena", or "hybrid warrant/subpoena" or purple scroll. That's issue of US bureaucracy.
Bottom line is clear - MS has office in US, data is stored on MS's server and judge ordered a copy. Because "has office in US" part, MS must comply. "Privacy protection" laws in Europe are as stupid as "right to forget" - by same token they can outlaw gravity.
Why does it matter whether he is US citizen? If wrongdoing happened in USA _and_ done by US citizen and/or corporation - that's under US jurisdiction. If some US person steal from me while I'm visiting US - he's gonna be caught and put to trial. Even if alleged wrongdoing is not a criminal matter - let's say it's breach of contract, I still can go to US court.
Note, that it doesn't matter whether "publicity rights" are ridiculous or not. Assuming US laws works this way - Noriega definitely can sue.
"Invading privacy" is not binary decision. There's lot of grey area there. Example - I don't mind checking call metadata, but opposing to wiretapping.
"Oversight" is not binary thing either. Of cause there is oversight. But - what exactly to be overseen is not so straight-forward.
Now, the problem is not in NSA or Congress. The problem is american general cowardice. Large majority of US population are actually very afraid of terrorists (real or imagined). That's understandable - US people never had to defend their country. US people never in history were threatened (Civil war doesn't count and other wars was fought overseas). They thought they are untouchable, invincible and so on. Here come 9/11 and show that all expensive warfare won't protect you from really determined people. So, the fear is real. And yes, NSA have many bona fide supporters for what they do.
Add to this known american arrogance ("why can't we spy on German - that's what CIA is for!"). Yes, of cause you can spy on whoever you want, but beware of consequences.
... and since when Schneier become expert on terrorists?
Last time I checked, Bruce Schneier was expert on cryptography. Did he ever saw real-life terrorist?
Now, where did Mike get this patently stupid idea that "For obvious reasons, terrorists won't be able to draw on the knowledge and skills of the global crypto community"?! What, "terrorists" suddenly lost an ability to read? Or, I know - terrorists are stupid! Yes, and uneducated!
Go back and read some real-world statistics: there's disproportionate amount of well educated people among all kind of extremist groups, jihadists included.
>> I would not call the terrorist stupid, more likely technically ignorant. And I would call _you_ ignorant. Your idea of "terrorists" comes from BS Hollywood movies, where "terrorist == batshit-crazy". Back to reality, you will find, that there's enough very well educated and technically competent people among those "terrorist organization". Reason is very simple - one man terrorist is another men freedom fighter.
>> you can't (in most cases) switch phone service providers without replacing your hardware. You should be saying "In US ...". In "rest of the world" (please check your map where is it) we can switch SIM card and go to another provider; no hardware replace needed.
Re: Re: And what exactly is wrong in presented picture?
>> but the other functions of the internet are even more important and not reflected in in the diagram at all I'm hw engineer, 10 yrs experience in networks, and never heard of those "other functions". Care to elaborate?
>> My email is not paid for by ad revenue at all. It is paid for by money I give to my service provider Seriously? You're paying for email? Well, good for you, but I suspect it's you're either of: * Using your ISP email. Not wise - what happen if you switch ISP? * Tiny minority - paying for email service. What makes me think of you as tiny minority: huge userbase of gmail+yahoo+outlook(or whatever it's called today).
>> Same with literally every other communications I'm confused: you're paying for Facebook too?! Twitter? Skype? Are you high?
Above diagram is mostly correct. Yes, Internet is content-distribution network. Some of this content is paid directly (iTunes etc) while other by ads revenue - all user-generated stuff (YouTube etc). Those who cry "it's for communication" are living in denial. From all communications, only VoIP is paying for itself. Rest - _including_ email, is paid by ads revenue.