They can't literally put you in Guantanamo Bay, but they can fuck you pretty hard.

Anything's possible, especially when corporate profits are at stake. But preventing people from using VPN's seems like it would be tough in practice; not from a technological standpoint, but from a practical one. So many businesses use VPN for so much, blocking it would be a real issue. The BBC can say they want every VPN user to be considered a copyright infringer, but VPN has so may legitimate (and at this point, necessary) uses that making that argument in any serious way would be difficult.

Yeah, ya can't just do that. Though that is a frequent response to the idea that we have unlimited money. The reason you can't is that you'll get massive inflation. The money supply can't increase faster than GDP or you'll get inflation. Sometimes inflation is desirable, BTW.

Funny story though: Since 2008 the Fed has tripled the money supply. Tripled! There are now three times as many dollars in existence than there were 7 years ago. The inflation hasn't materialized as much as some would think, for various reasons. I don't know entirely why myself. But the Fed's action is an example of how we have as much money as we want. It's really a matter of distribution. That's why I say these are political decisions, not financial ones. After the crash in 2008, the government could have given people money to pay off part of the loans on their underwater homes, thereby avoiding the devaluation of the CDO securities. But instead they bought a lot of the securities based on those loans, which cratered in value, at their peak prices. They bailed out the banks while leaving borrowers to be foreclosed on. Political decisions.

This is true, and bears repeating. There is no debt crisis. It's not even that no one is ever going to pay it. It's that the US can print its own money. It is not like state governments or a household. It has the capacity for infinite dollars. It will always be able to pay its debts.

So yes, we have plenty of money for science. We have plenty of money for everything. It is only political decisions that affect funding.

LOL. Look at the drug laws in many other countries, and then find out how they got that way.

If you had bothered to RTFA, you'd know that these systems turn off encryption, unbeknownst to the user.

That's the way it seems now, too.

Nothing has meaning until we give it meaning. Our entire society is just a bunch of agreements and customs. There is no God that will enforce the Constitution from on high. But the Constitution is understood to express our values as a society. It is an attempt to lay the groundwork for a stable, just and equitable civilization.

So yeah, unconstitutional is just a word. But it has meaning. That's actually inherent to words; they have meaning. It means that something is contrary to our values. But it also has the power of law. So saying that unconstitutional is just a word and has no meaning is to invalidate the concept of law. Of course it only has as much power as we enforce. Congratulations, you just described every law in the world.

Overreacting seems to be the default mode of police in many parts of the country these days.

I always vote for the other guy.

Hah? Weight loss can certainly be attained through exercise. Basically, you need to burn more calories than you take in. You can do that by reducing calories, or by increasing the burn rate. If you keep your calorie intake constant and increase your exercise, you will lose weight, all else being equal.

That and the fact that we subsidize corn and soy at the federal level. Processed foods like Cheetos and Hot Pockets end up being cheaper than healthier foods. So people on a budget (most Americans) can stretch their dollar by buying cheaper food that is higher in simple carbs and salt but not very nutritious.

That's really not true. You are correct that exercise is an integral part of being healthy. But what you eat is just as important. If you do an hour of cardio a day and weight train, but eat McDonald's french fries and milkshakes you will not realize the benefits of your exercise. Will you be better off than someone who eats the same but doesn't exercise? Sure, but you will not be better off than the person who exercises and eats lean meats, whole grains and lots of fruits and vegetables. The lean meats are optional as long as you get complete protein from some other source.

From Wikipedia: "The radio program This American Life reported in 2009, that, contrary to claims made in the case, the accident report contained no information on the secret equipment on the plane except to note that secret equipment was present, a fact which had been reported in the press at the time. The program interviewed the daughter of one of the crash victims who described the government's claims in the case as fraudulent."

The court may have found that the government did not abuse its privilege, but I do not agree. Courts have also ruled that people who suspect they are being spied upon have no standing to find out, since the spying is classified and they can't know if they are or not. Whatever the material of my hat, court rulings do not guarantee fairness, good judgement or good policy.

The defense, as I understand it, was that the accident report was privileged information and therefore not subject to disclosure under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the cause of the plane crash was determined to be a fire in the engine. What does a fire in the engine have to do with secret surveillance equipment on the plane? Why would an engine fire be privileged? How would its disclosure impact national security?

I know that the families of the airmen received a settlement, so they didn't go away with nothing. But the precedent was set and it really looks to me like the government used a supposed threat to national security to avoid accountability. YMMV