"When the 'Drink' button is pressed it makes an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's metabolism, and then sends tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centres of the subject's brain to see what is likely to be well received. However, no-one knows quite why it does this because it then invariably delivers a cupful of liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."
From the reports, GCHQ is concerned about its employees seeing and/or disseminating nudity/sexually-explicit material, in violation of policy. Apparently, nudity is offensive. (I find spying on 1.8 million Yahoo users webcam chats offensive, but maybe that's just me.)
Although, this does make me wonder. Since GCHQ is apparently trying to filter out the captured images to protect its employees from viewing peoples' naughty bits, could these revelations lead to a new policy for video communications involving actual bad guys? ... "I'd like to call this meeting to order. First up on the agenda: Everyone get naked."
the simple fact the person takes the time to show the distance between him and the officers, way before the altercation, clearly show, in my mind, he had little interest in what was happening, but instead, hoped to prove something different.
That the photographer was expecting the police to violate his constitutional rights does not justify their doing so.
He challenged the police officer to arrest him and was demeaning from the very start.
Being demeaning or impolite is not a crime, nor should it be.
There's a middle ground, in each situation and in this case, the responsability seems to fall on both.
No. Police are given tremendous authority over the public, and because of this they do have a higher burden of responsibility. ("With great power...") It is their job to exercise a sufficient level of self-control not to respond to verbal provocation with violence.
It's probably not entirely unreasonable to assume that just about all of them are "on the take" (at least in the sense that you mean), but that would be awfully cynical, and cynicism is one of the things the powers that be count on to maintain the status quo. Having the detailed information is helpful if we ever hope to do anything to fix this corruption of our democracy.
I'm all for honest debate on competitive markets, but a recent bout of painfully un-nuanced Wired editorials featuring Szoka seem more like Colbert-esque satire than honest discussion.
As far as "honest debate" goes, Szoka and friends' recent articles have about as much credibility with me as articles from PRWeb. Although, at least with the Wired articles there is a little disclosure notice on TechFreedom's funding.
In cases of major disaster would be the only time I could see. Power is out and lines are cut leaving internet/phone, down, then most of those world wide options are gone. With a generator, you could get a radio or maybe a TV with satellite working.
This is why you keep a battery-operated AM radio and spare batteries in your home/car/workplace emergency kits. Much more reliable than a cable or satellite service. (Plus, it's hard to fit the 51" TV in the emergency kit.)
Maybe his strategy is based on "There's no such thing as bad publicity." ??? Because that's the only explanation I can think of. (Well, OK, that, and hubris.)
As for the suggestion that this could be a fun project for Anonymous (...no one's personal army...), I think this guy doesn't need anyone else's help to go down in flames. He's doing a bang-up job all on his own.
Microsoft should be in favor of quicker review. It would encourage real innovation by more quickly validating good patents and thus removing the lingering uncertainty of a strong challenge to the patent. Or am I misreading this?
This proposal would eviscerate the delicate balance...
That sentence is painful. Can a balance have bowels, even metaphorically?
As I've stated up above, what happens once bionic eyes with storage and Wi-fi are invented? In order for copyright to be enforced today and tomorrow inside of the cinema, you have to allow for extremely invasive search and seizure with very little justification...
It was a very targeted scam. They went after a senior citizen on a dating site. Someone who was hopeful and also someone who no doubt had posted information that allowed them to tailor the scam even further. Scammers prey on the hopeful and vulnerable -- I'm more cynical myself but what a world we'd be in if everyone was so suspicious. (And yes, of course she should have been more careful, but...) And targeting a lonely older lady like that... Bastards.
suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies.
He's their boss, isn't he? Or at least I thought the president was supposed to have some authority over national security agencies.
A president supporting and promoting mass surveillance is bad enough. But a president (and, for that matter, a Congress) too afraid of backlash from the NSA to make a meaningful effort to rein in their abuses is far worse.
What do you call a government in which elected officials are subservient to the secret police?