jcd11235

You should probably reread my post, more carefully this time. I stand corrected, you had an "until", and a "then" in there. I'm with you, then. Most of us read posts a little too quickly from time to time. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You should probably reread my post, more carefully this time. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Let's not forget that fossil fuel use is also subsidized in the US, via tax breaks and hidden costs that must be picked up by the public. Until those subsidizations are eliminated, and fossil fuel consumers are required to pay the entire cost of their fuel and its effects, then I think subsidies for cleaner, renewable energy technologies are justified. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Canopies sized appropriately for newer jumpers hold their resale value very well. Don't expect deep discounts. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As opposed to how everyone believes Snowden despite how he provided zero evidence supporting the claims of the biggest privacy violations, e.g., direct access to servers, claims that even the papers which broke the story have backed down from? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/ Give me a break. The guy couldn't even provide an non-embellished salary figure for his (then) current job. And we're supposed to take his word at face value? I love your double standard, though. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

On one hand, very cool! On the other hand, it's rarely a good sign when you can remember back when your new to you antique was brand new. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Can be and are are two completely different things. I suspect the analysis is almost all automated, and the data doesn't even get looked at by humans unless the mathematical model identifies certain numbers that need to be investigated further. Chances are pretty good that the numbers they would be most interested in after completing the initial analysis aren't connected on paper or electronically to any persons of interest. It isn't much of a stretch to assume that most people the NSA are in are smart enough to use burner phones. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And yet, here in the US, we have quite a lot of both, even though neither is absolute, which is pretty much how the Framers intended. Yes. It isn't North Korea. Or Cuba. Etc. But - the more secure, the fewer the rights. Which way are we headed? I don't like where we are going (yes, just my opinion) and I see us going much further. The sum of the two need not be constant. In other words, both can be increased, or both can be decreased simultaneously. In the case of the US, both are increasing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It was anonymous in the sense that the data, as collected, were not connected to persons. And anonymous data would definitely not be useless. "The order called it 'metadata' that consisted of telephone numbers and the times and duration of calls, but not the contents of the phones calls or the names and addresses of those who owned the phones." Source Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I get it, but only because I watched West Wing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And yet, here in the US, we have quite a lot of both, even though neither is absolute, which is pretty much how the Framers intended. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I disagree. It may not be easy, but it isn't impossible. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Either one, without the other, would be pretty useless, anyway. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Constructive Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What crimes, exactly, are those? Metadata from phone use isn't private. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You seem to have skipped over the part where companies that receive FISA orders are explicitly forbidden from even speaking about having received the order, never mind any information about it. And since this sort of action violates both their privacy agreement and their public pledge to provide such information only under court subpoena, their silence is hardly a confirmation of The Man's statement. To reiterate, the burden of truth lies with the rat bastard who gets caught. Uh, no. I find it hard to believe that a someone with as much access as Snowden claims to have had would lack the access to documents verifying the most important claims he made. What documents has he provided that provide evidence that something actually illegal was going on? He made some baseless claims, and provided only evidence of legal surveillance. You're an intelligent guy. If you were going to risk your life and career blowing the whistle, don't you think you would gather some evidence before going public with your claims? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away. That happens. People are free to philosophically oppose the law and lobby their lawmakers to change it. But when an administration operates within the bounds of the law, even if we disagree with that law, complaints about abuse of power or about the president trampling all over the Constitution, etc., tend to lack merit. Regarding telecommunications, Congress did little in response to Smith v. Maryland to expand the rights of the people. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you seriously claiming that obtaining data legally, with authorization from the courts, is an expansion of warrantless wiretapping? Are you high? Negative. I am saying that calling something "legal" doesn't mean it's "Constitutional." Kindly note the difference between those two concepts. So you believe that after the SCOTUS rules that a particular practice is allowed, we cannot infer from their ruling that that particular practice is constitutional? Got it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you seriously claiming that obtaining data legally, with authorization from the courts, is an expansion of warrantless wiretapping? Are you high? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If you just now found out about that, rest assured, you're among the very last to know. It's noting new or malicious. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's not different at all. The government need only go to the service providers, not the individuals, to get the data. Since the individuals have already provided the service providers with the data, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy; they have no fourth amendment protection for the data. The service providers have long acknowledged providing the government with access to specific data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's amazing to watch the full court press you're putting into defending this. I don't think anyone else is remotely close to your level of cheerleading. A man known for lifelong adultery gets outed by a witness and now tells his wife "yeah, I slept with her, but I didn't enjoy it. And I never penetrated. And I absolutely, definitely did not go anywhere near those sweet pieces of ass that that were her friends." You're telling us that we should believe him, and that the burden of truth is on those who don't trust him to speak truthfully. Not a fucking chance. Since the NDI and representatives of the companies that supposedly provided direct access to servers all unequivocally denied such unilateral access, no actual evidence has been presented, and the leaker is hiding out in China (because they're such champions of free speech and transparency in government, no doubt), yes, I'm inclined to call bullshit on the leaker. Sure, it could be everybody else who is lying, but the probability is pretty damn low. It might be that Snowden actually thought the government was doing something illegal, and, for whatever reason, embellished the facts when speaking to reporters. Or he may have just had an axe to grind. Either way, I haven't seen anything that lends him any credibility. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Your logic breaks down completely when you ignore the fact that the metadata collected was anonymous, not connected to specific persons. says the people who didn't want it known that they were doing anything at all. put another way - without unique identifiers, what's the fucking point to collecting it? ??? Anonymous data can have unique identifiers. Unique identifiers don't have to be linked to a particular person. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Write a check or fill out a deposit slip, and the info is not private in the eyes of the law. Dial a number, and the info is not private, unlisted number or not. It's not protected by the fourth amendment. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/425/435 Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Your logic breaks down completely when you ignore the fact that the metadata collected was anonymous, not connected to specific persons. No. Are you? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not at all. As an example, most people would like for their phone or bank records to be private, but the SCOTUS says they are not protected by the fourth amendment, since the information was freely given to the phone company / bank. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!