For all its faults, I have never heard of a single instance of Google attacking anybody at all. The closest was their bypassing of Safari security controls -- which was certainly bad, but nothing even on the same planet as what the various governments are doing.
Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
"I was going to write again but I can see that would be pointless."
Do it anyway. It may be mostly pointless, but it's also easy and painless. Congresspeople do keep track of what their constituents think, and that can sometimes have a surprising effect. You never know.
This is an excellent point. Using software development as an analogy, there are a ton of various "cookbooks" (actually called that) that give you handy implementations of common algorithms. However, you cannot become a great software engineer by copy-and-pasting from them. You need to understand what's being done and why so that you can tailor the ideas to the actual need in front of you.
I suspect that most people who use the internet to a great extent have deeply incorporated it into their daily lives. Cutting themselves off from it would be a huge, painful, lifestyle change. People don't like huge, painful, lifestyle changes. It's a lot easier just to tell yourself "well, I have nothing to hide" and ignore the whole issue.
Yes, it's selling out your neighbors and counrymen for the sake of your own comfort, but that's human nature in action.
Pretty much every poll on this question shows that Americans are split roughly 50-50 (give or take a handful of points depending on the poll) on the question of whether or not Snowden should be charged with a crime.
So, yes, it's pretty clear that large number of Americans are glad he blew the whistle.
y my reading, the oath congresspeople take includes obeying the Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]
I don't see how one can "bear true faith and allegiance" to a document without adhering to the rules of said document.
Re: Re: By definition, a soul would be supernatural.
"If it’s not natural, it’s artificial, is it not?"
No, "supernatural" lies above the notion of "natural" and "artificial".
"if something does not obey the laws of science, by definition it cannot be real."
I disagree with this. The "laws of science" aren't some fixed set of rules. Scientists find things that break them all the time, requiring the laws to be revised.
The thing about things supernatural (this includes notions like god, of course) is that they cannot be judged by science at all, since they can't be tested experimentally.* Therefore scientifically speaking, science can say neither that they are or are not real.
*There have been many, many "supernatural" things that have become testable and therefore came within the realm of science. Some of those things were disproven and are now laughed at, and some of those things were proven, incorporated into the scientific body of knowledge, and a lot was learned form them. Sometimes (alchemy is the great example), it was a little of each and resulted in something entirely new (chemistry).
All that said, there's a lot of things people believe in based on exactly no physical evidence whatsoever. While lack of evidence is not proof of nonexistence, it is a really strong hint in that direction. Things that exist tend to leave some kind of repeatable physical effect.
This was his plan all along. He wrote, prior to 9/11, that the US's political foundation was rotten and that all it will take to bring it down was one good, hard kick at the front door. The rest of the work would be done by US reaction.
I forgot to put the caboose to this train: "More likely he’d be painted as out to embarrass Obama for political reasons, even at the expense of national security."
That could happen, or he could be hailed as the second coming. Which way the media would go with that has nothing to directly do with parties, conservatism, or liberalism. It would have to do with which way would get the owners more power and money.
Would a boost for Obama be good for them? Then they'll give him the boost. Would knocking him down a few pegs be good for them? Then they'll knock him down.
I can't even go with "slight liberal bias," because that's still using the wrong yardstick and misses the actual bias, which is to help the corporations that own the news outlets maximize their profits.
Whether newsroom workers lean left or right isn't meaningful at all. They aren't the ones who set the slant of the news. The owners are, and the owners don't care one bit about left vs right. That's just the nonsense meant to keep us serfs fighting amongst ourselves so we won't notice that we have lords.
"how many of these complaining chefs give a good value for the money?"
What is "good value" depends on what kind of restaurant you're talking about. The value you get from a high-end restaurant is way beyond the food. It's the service, the pampering, the atmosphere, the entire experience. At that price point, what you're getting is theatre. If it's great theatre, it's a good value even with small portion sizes.
You you would be upset that you weren't stuffed after laying out a couple hundred bucks for a meal, then what you want isn't theatre, it's a buffet.
Personally, I've been in good (and better) restaurants where customers have photographed their food, and it really is incredibly distracting and annoying. I am very pleased when restaurants have a "no photos" policy for the same reason I'm pleased when they have a "no cell phones" policy.
That's the good reason to prohibit it. To prohibit it based on some half-baked (see what I did there?) notion of IP rights is a very bad reason.
"One used to be able to get a medium rare hamburger, even at McDonald’s. You cannot any more"
Actually, you can easily get a medium rare (or rare) burger in my part of the country. Not at McDonald's, of course, but every non-chain burger place I've been to will cook it as much or as little as you like.