It's not treason. Once again, "Treason" has a very specific legal definition: Waging war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies."
"Aid and comfort" is defined as material aid, not just "gave our enemies a chuckle."
Nothing anyone has done here (including Snowden) qualifies as Treason. There are likely many other crimes committed, but let's stop trotting out treason.
If I'm that kid's mom, I go buy him a different My Little Pony backpack. Maybe a blue one.
And then see what happens.
"We left that one at home. Now he's got a new backpack. Oh, that didn't stop the bullying? Hmm... I wonder why. Why don't you just give me a list of 'approved' backpacks, and then make all the other kids follow it as well?"
Ah, so the histrionic lady is actually the idiot then.
This was a case of "so and so posted a new photo!" notification that she somehow transformed into "someone broke into my house and put that picture on my phone!"
How did Google fuck anyone? It's not like they can instantly fiber-up the entire nation. And it's not like GF going in to some other city makes your service any worse.
Just be patient, and watch all the providers in Google Fiber cities shit their pants. Enjoy the show, and someday soon it will come to everyone.
The Pokemon Company would like a word with you. (http://www.pokemon.com/us/about-pokemon/)
Pokemon IS a company and a brand in its own right. The rights to the video games are jointly owned by TPC, GameFreak, and Nintendo. Nintendo has nothing whatsoever to do with the card game, for instance.
So it's not Nintendo who's fighting this at all, it's The Pokemon Company
No, because our legal system is supposed to be founded on the notion that we'd rather let a hundred guilty people go free than send one innocent man to prison.
That's why we have due process in the first place. Idealistically, we'd be protecting the rights of everyone, not only the "innocent."
[blockquote]Good place to store wealth.[/blockquote]
Is it though? Usually you'll want to store wealth in less risky and volatile places. Bitcoin's price fluctuates too often and too dramatically to make it a good idea for safe "wealth storage."
That may change in the future, but for now, bitcoin seems to be "don't put anything in bitcoin you can't afford to lose."
The sad part is that initiatives to cost the NSA much more money will just result in that money coming out of taxpayers' pockets.
I applaud these measures, but matters are going to get a lot worse before they get better. No way is the NSA going to just roll over and say "welp, we tried. I guess we'll just have to build our own/go elsewhere."
Nope, they'll fight it. And then there will be lawsuits. And those lawsuits will take years to finally come to the Supreme Court where we can finally get a ruling on this mess.
They're passing laws that simply reinforce the 4th Amendment, and then make it unlawful to support anyone assisting the law-breakers. (Something that's already illegal... Since an "accomplice" is a thing already)
It creates a due process for the "cutting off of power" to establishments that are breaking the law (in this case, the 4th Amendment-likes).
They have to pass these as state laws, because they have no way to enforce Federal Law (the real 4th Amendment).
They've basically written themselves the jurisdiction to enforce, at the state level, a federal law.
This is going to be a pretty interesting tactic to watch. The same sort of fight is coming as more and more states support various legalization/decriminalization of marijuana.
To me, it speaks to the absolute loss of faith in Congress/POTUS to legislate what the American people actually want.
Everyone knows that federal law trumps state law, but that just means a bunch of cases that can eventually go to the Supreme Court. That means actual rulings on the constitutionality of some federal programs.
The Court can't rule on, or set precedents on things that haven't been brought to court. There need to be arrests or lawsuits for the Court to consider. They don't get to just say "hey, this NSA stuff isn't right." They have to have an actual case brought to them to decide on.
The states are acting to force the Federal Government to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. They're throwing down a gauntlet that says "go on, try to get your arrests and cases heard here... We dare you."
Then the legal system, on up to the Supreme Court gets to act as the check it's supposed to be on un-constitutional laws and programs.
Re:
Apparently not, as she wasn't actually charged with anything.
Re: Binary Evaluation Set
It's not treason. Illegal, probably, but "treason" isn't the charge.
Treason has a very specific definition: "Waging war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies."
The NSA has done neither. Stop using "treason" to describe everything bad someone in the government does.
Re: FISA court is illegal, entire operation violates 4th Ammendment
Please see my comment above regarding the definition of treason.
TL:DR it's not Treason. None of it.
It's shady, illegal, immoral... All of those things. But not treason.
Re:
It's not treason. Once again, "Treason" has a very specific legal definition: Waging war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies."
"Aid and comfort" is defined as material aid, not just "gave our enemies a chuckle."
Nothing anyone has done here (including Snowden) qualifies as Treason. There are likely many other crimes committed, but let's stop trotting out treason.
Re:
That reinforces the idea of shows/toys that are "for girls," or "for boys," which only perpetuates the problem.
If I'm that kid's mom, I go buy him a different My Little Pony backpack. Maybe a blue one.
And then see what happens.
"We left that one at home. Now he's got a new backpack. Oh, that didn't stop the bullying? Hmm... I wonder why. Why don't you just give me a list of 'approved' backpacks, and then make all the other kids follow it as well?"
This is how Snow Crash started, with efforts to control the minds of the "hackers" working for big organizations.
Re: Debunked
Ah, so the histrionic lady is actually the idiot then.
This was a case of "so and so posted a new photo!" notification that she somehow transformed into "someone broke into my house and put that picture on my phone!"
Baffling.
I can't wait for these to hit shelves, so I can start slapping warning stickers on them.
"Warning: Only works with Green Mountain brand k-cups."
Re:
What did that even mean?
How did Google fuck anyone? It's not like they can instantly fiber-up the entire nation. And it's not like GF going in to some other city makes your service any worse.
Just be patient, and watch all the providers in Google Fiber cities shit their pants. Enjoy the show, and someday soon it will come to everyone.
Re:
No, it isn't.
http://www.pokemon.com/us/about-pokemon/
Nintendo shares the publishing rights to the video games (along with GameFreak), but does NOT own the entire franchise.
Re:
The Pokemon Company would like a word with you. (http://www.pokemon.com/us/about-pokemon/)
Pokemon IS a company and a brand in its own right. The rights to the video games are jointly owned by TPC, GameFreak, and Nintendo. Nintendo has nothing whatsoever to do with the card game, for instance.
So it's not Nintendo who's fighting this at all, it's The Pokemon Company
Re: Bad test case
No, because our legal system is supposed to be founded on the notion that we'd rather let a hundred guilty people go free than send one innocent man to prison.
That's why we have due process in the first place. Idealistically, we'd be protecting the rights of everyone, not only the "innocent."
Re: My 2 Bitcoins
[blockquote]Good place to store wealth.[/blockquote]
Is it though? Usually you'll want to store wealth in less risky and volatile places. Bitcoin's price fluctuates too often and too dramatically to make it a good idea for safe "wealth storage."
That may change in the future, but for now, bitcoin seems to be "don't put anything in bitcoin you can't afford to lose."
Re: Re: Re:
The sad part is that initiatives to cost the NSA much more money will just result in that money coming out of taxpayers' pockets.
I applaud these measures, but matters are going to get a lot worse before they get better. No way is the NSA going to just roll over and say "welp, we tried. I guess we'll just have to build our own/go elsewhere."
Nope, they'll fight it. And then there will be lawsuits. And those lawsuits will take years to finally come to the Supreme Court where we can finally get a ruling on this mess.
Re: i say we bring back 'shunning'...
Luckily, most businesses I know have a clear sign on the door: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Re: Anyone else find this worrisome?
It's not that worrisome, actually.
They're passing laws that simply reinforce the 4th Amendment, and then make it unlawful to support anyone assisting the law-breakers. (Something that's already illegal... Since an "accomplice" is a thing already)
It creates a due process for the "cutting off of power" to establishments that are breaking the law (in this case, the 4th Amendment-likes).
They have to pass these as state laws, because they have no way to enforce Federal Law (the real 4th Amendment).
They've basically written themselves the jurisdiction to enforce, at the state level, a federal law.
Re: Re: average intelligence
The problem with that argument is that "average" intelligence is still probably intelligent enough for people to navigate their jobs and lives.
Yeah, not everyone is going to be a rocket surgeon, but not everyone needs to be either.
This is going to be a pretty interesting tactic to watch. The same sort of fight is coming as more and more states support various legalization/decriminalization of marijuana.
To me, it speaks to the absolute loss of faith in Congress/POTUS to legislate what the American people actually want.
Everyone knows that federal law trumps state law, but that just means a bunch of cases that can eventually go to the Supreme Court. That means actual rulings on the constitutionality of some federal programs.
The Court can't rule on, or set precedents on things that haven't been brought to court. There need to be arrests or lawsuits for the Court to consider. They don't get to just say "hey, this NSA stuff isn't right." They have to have an actual case brought to them to decide on.
The states are acting to force the Federal Government to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. They're throwing down a gauntlet that says "go on, try to get your arrests and cases heard here... We dare you."
Then the legal system, on up to the Supreme Court gets to act as the check it's supposed to be on un-constitutional laws and programs.
Re: An actual letter to his attorney
You used "stood idly by" twice.