>> 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.
>> how exactly is the US any different than the other terrorist groups What makes you think that "US any different"? You are not. US fighting for some political interest against people who stay against said interest. Pretending you are different sounds like you're "superior race". I've heard that idea somewhere before. It didn't work then either.
In short - make love, not war. It's cheaper, people will like you more.
>> So you are okay with killing 49 innocent people in order to get 51 bad guys? Your definition of "innocent" is probably skewed. They maybe unarmed, but in no way "innocent". Guess what, army is supported by population. This population provide food, shelter and other resources. And while some targets (like hospitals or schools) are usually considered illegitimate, rest of things is perfectly OK to hit.
So, back you your questions - yes. "innocence" have nothing to do at war. In war, there're "we" and "they" (for given definition of "we" and "they"). And "they" are target.
>> I really, really hope that was meant to be sarcasm No sarcasm at all. Believe it or not, people killed in Yemen doesn't care about stuff your Congress declare. When foreign soldier firing on me, I don't care about whatever stuff his ruler(s) declared or not declared. News for US people - rest of the world don't care that match about your internal "checks and balances".
>> a solider does bear responsibility for what/who they shoot/bomb It's a joke, right? No, he does not. That's a difference between soldier and street criminal. I guess you never been in army (as wast majority of US people). That's why you think that soldier make all sorts of decisions. Maybe it will shatter your worldview, but here's the thing: "kill or to be killed" is very powerful incentive to kill.
Yes, they "choose" to pull the trigger, but conditions under which they do it, pretty match make them "mindless killing machines". By the way, why "mindless"? I understand "heartless", but "mindless"?
"they always, always have the option to refuse" As US citizen you have an option not to go to army to begin with. As for "objectionable order" - that's more or less urban legend. In real war it simply doesn't happen, sorry to disappoint you.
>> Can you point out when the US Congress declared war on Yemen? Thanks. What a funny guy. Must be a lawyer, that thinks that war starts when it's being "declared". Guess what - it's started when one army of foreign army start killing the people on another country (without one's consent).
It doesn't matter what documents your US Congress or President or Holy Spirit or anyone else signed. It's called "casus belli". When US Army start shooting - that's war. Call it whatever you want.
Remember - soldiers are not policemen. They are not trained to observe some complex legal code. They are trained to fight. Definition of "fight" differs per soldier and his/her duty - be it infantry or intelligence.
And yes, sometime pilot will be tired or simply not care enough - and will hit wrong target. And no, pilot is not guilty in anything beyond wasting ammo. He/She is a soldier and supposed to follow orders.
While I do believe that US government overreach must be stopped, I also understand what this man is talking about.
Basically, you can't assign lawyer to every soldier. You want to use army against foreign targets? Get ready - innocent people will die. Not "may die" - "will die". That's what war is about, that's what armies do.
Don't like it? Don't start the war, bring ALL of US Army back home. You want fight terrorists (real or imaginary) in Yemen/Afghanistan/Iraq/etc - yep, innocent people gonna die.
Don't like it? Stop acting like world police. That's simple.
This is live ammunition. This is actually a dangerous thing. Yes, it can fire. And yes, it supposed to be banned on plane. TSA do a lot of stupid things, but this is not one of them.
Don't sound ridiculous - it's not a breast milk or bottle of shampoo. And average TSA agent is not supposed to be weapon expert: he supposed to follow set of simple rules. "No weapons or ammo or something that looks like it" is one of those rules. Advice to vocal weapon - lovers: take this bullet, fly to let's say India. See how far you will get with this in a pocket.
Mike have typical US-centric attitude and can't see the forest behind the trees. Here's a hint: NSA doesn't have infinite budget. And USA doesn't have infinite political influence. So, while US can pressure national government to do things, it's not a matter of piece of paper sent by mail. In some high-profile cases, sure, CIA can cooperate with national agencies. But, fishing expeditions like NSA is running - no way. Moreover, most of western-style democracies don't have NSL-like laws, so service providers can't be issued gag orders "just because". They will need to go to courts, run regular bureaucracy, and so on.
So, to answer the question - yes, it would be definitely better.
So, what's a point of an article? Highlight the fact that $country (or $company) selling military/defense/spy/surveillance products/services? I thought that people understand that guns doesn't come out of thin air. Some people design,build,sell,support them.
>> What we are trying to do is encourage acceptance of different types of families. What is this "different types of families" you're talking about? Breaking news - 2 guys (or girls) living together doesn't make a family. No, your liberal/progressive/whatever opinion doesn't count. The core purpose of human family is reproduction. Some families have 1 male and several female members, some - other way around. But - from the dawn of time family didn't consist of members of same sex. And homosexuality was very acceptable in ancient Rome/Greece/other places.
So GeneralEmergency guy is absolutely right - this IS inappropriate subject for young children. Yep, discussion about almost any sexual subject is inappropriate.
And yes, school firewall should be set to "default deny" and whitelist is supposed to be very short.
>> So... where is the angry mob you're talking about You should grasp concept of proportions. For angry mob to form, _very_ bad things should happen. Bad in scale of Europe-start-of-20-century, not US-recession-21-century. Usually famine+cruel government+unfair justice system speed things up. Your example doesn't really count - people still have right for assembly, for speech, for vote etc.
>> how can you guarantee that they'll be sensible enough to only guillotine the bad guys You can not. And they will not "guillotine only bad guys". Again - look at Europe and beginning of 20's century.
In short - I don't wish you to be there when such stuff happen. It's bloody and ugly.
>> they have the tools to do so. Of cause they do! They are _SPY_ agency for ***'s sake! Of cause police/NSA/CIA/Mossad/GRU/KGB can make your life very miserable (and short). That's what they do. The only problem with this ridiculous NSA dragnet is enormous wasting of public's money on stuff that have nothing to do with safety/security of the state. Spying on Merkel (or other european politicians) ? No problem, probably she/they should fund her own agency better. Getting caught IS a problem, and this is indicator of incompetency.
If only someone could invent such a justice system, where guilt and punishment would be decided by humans, and not by machines. I suggest we call those people "judges". Wait a minute - we already _have_ such a system. In short - your " black and white justice system" is strawman. It doesn't exists in real life - that's why you appointing judge (and jury in some countries).
Now, NSA doesn't enforce anything. They maybe spying on all you do, but in the end of day - it's police who will arrest you and judge who will convict you.
>> If we REALLY wanted speed limit laws enforced, why are we complaining about speed traps Because different people ballance convenience and safety differently. Some prefer convenience (speeding) while other safety (speed traps). Whether speeding is actually dangerous or not - is another matter entirely.
>> If we want a car to NEVER run a red light, why are red light cameras being shouted down in cities across the country? Short explanation - because majority of people are incredibly shortsighted. Actually, you DO want to enforce traffic laws 100% of the time. On some systems (hint: it runs on rails) you have no choice, but enforce it 100% of the time.
In my opinion, all this article is largely bullshit. Yes, it is correct that if some powerful entity wants to harass you - it can. Government spies, police, IRS, even firefighters and local municipality. They all can make your life miserable. It doesn't happen (too often) because of several things: your government (down to local level) is (at some extend) elected and justice system (in average case) is fair. When those condition violated too hard for too long - people will (and had) revolt. No amount of spying will prevent it. On the other case - if you want to be political activist - prepare to be spied upon. Rulers spied on their rivals (external as well as domestic) from the dawn of time. Kings spied on their siblings as well as on another kings. Oh, you want to protest some stuff - please tell us who you are. Too afraid - I guess your issue is not important enough.