The more I learn about these programs and watch the intelligence community react, the more certain I am that much of what Snowden revealed was in fact a limited hangout propagated to protect the real assets.
Of what have we learned? Techniques and programs that are many years old and that have likely already been replaced. While we fight over the scraps left by the activities of the IC over the last decade, they are free to continue their current activities, largely unabated.
The only thing that makes me feel better about how absurdly tyrannical the MPAA acts is that both them and their copyright have an expiration date. Technological progress is not held by their impotent attempts to stifle innovation and keep the public behind the gates they control.
We won't even have to legislate or lobby the MPAA out of power. As tech improves and the cost of production plummets, we will simply walk right around their gates and completely forget about them.
The MPAA is a flailing beast that sees its own demise on the horizon. Expect them to continue to get more absurd and vicious as they near their inevitable end. Good luck MPAA, it was hell while it lasted.
Translating articles into another language makes newspapers die? The only way for the public to be informed is via "traditional journalism?"
It sounds like "you have NO clue about what journalism is."
Traditional journalism has been dying a slow death at the hands of traditional journalists. When infotainment and parroting become an organizations primary content at the expense of actual journalism, reporting sourced information with as little bias as possible, who then is to blame for killing "traditional journalism?"
You know one of the worst parts? It's that the U.S. is an extremely important country in certain ways and this importance lends it inappropriate weight in the international community. A large reason it has this importance is because the U.S. is a massive consumer country. We buy relatively more shit than anyone else. So the bitter and dark irony(?) of the situation is that our government is using our own purchasing power to effectively erode our rights. If we truly had control of Congress, TPP would never become law. These modern "trade agreements" are a literal collusion of government bodies with corporate/business interests against their citizens and constituents.
TPP is and will be a massive failure of the American democratic process. Probably more of an indicator of how much of it has largely been illusory.
I think the point is that the government cannot come to them and require a change without first having a "legal" reason to do so, as in a gag order. A gag order really cannot be ordered on the basis of "we will probably require they let us spy on their future user base." So by doing this before launch, the government has no grounds to issue any requirements of any kind.
If there was nothing outside of the interaction with the TSA, there should not be an investigation. the passenger should not have had their funds removed. Having cash is not a crime, and it does not constitute a reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Just the idea that the government feels they can open an "investigation" based on whim really irritates me.
"We have looked into Mr. Passenger and concluded that there was no crime that took place. Since our investigation has shown that he broke no laws while engaging in his legal activity, we have returned his money. Less the admin fee."
I think Uriel-238 is questioning the legitimacy of the system, not whether anyone "earned" their money legitimately within the system. Using communist as a pejorative does not lend itself to me taking your comment seriously.
Do you claim capitalism is the absolute superior among economic models? True, it has been the most efficient at allocating resources of the systems tested by modern societies. Much of economic theory exists within a "clean room" so to speak and has never dealt with reality, IMO. There is more to interactions between people than efficient resource allocation.
Doesn't really matter, capitalism as a system is simply unsustainable and its expiration date is likely within my lifetime. An economy and the market largely exist because people are more productive when they specialize. When machines do almost everything, then I (currently called a consumer) will no longer need (almost any!) external producers.
This guy is seriously calling having to get a warrant "going dark?" The only reason to say they cannot access communications at all is if they only do so without due process. Interesting how honest these guys can be when ignore the foolish point of their statements and read into the implications.
"Note: Unused data does not carry over to the next month."
I love how they try to have it both ways. Limiting me to 700GB/mo should mean they are selling me 700GB. If they are not selling me data, but bandwidth, then I should get that bandwidth for the entire month (regardless of data usage). These usage caps really are absurd and obviously nothing more than a cash grab.
The idea that copyright holders (or their thugs) think it is reasonable to have someone's internet access turned off because of infringement is insane. Internet access is just as important as many other utilities.
Would Gatorade demand that the courts order your water service turned off if you were using it to make and consume your own Gatorade? ...no. But their proprietary formula!
Copyright infringement is not theft. No resources are removed from the copyright holder. The whole concept is based on the idea that an infringer cost them a sale that would have otherwise happened. Couldn't the infringer clear up that issue?
"Would you have purchased the song if you had not pirated it?"
No infringement should be legally actionable without the alleged infringer distributing the work for profit.
Just like no individual making use of a patented technology, in their own home through their own creation, should be found to infringe on any patent. The courts and industry need to stop trying to regulate private usage as if it were a competing company. They are fundamentally different.