Complacency. What freedom haters have for breakfast.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

Aside from statutes, beware the CFRs:

These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

Exactly. Everyone seems to think he was a hacker. He's a __reporter__ .

Not hacker.

Writer.

It's his job to tell people the news. He's going to jail essentially (though not technically) for linking to data. That ain't hacking.

Barret Brown didn't do any hacking. He's a reporter. Reporters are fucking supposed to report the news, not keep it secret. This was just an example of the fact if the Feds want to get you, they have criminal code base so large, nobody can even count crimes let alone fit all of that knowledge into a single brain. Of course, not knowing the law is no excuse (unless you are cop), and having no intent to break the is irrelevant. What this boils down to, is the Feds can fuck you up any time they want if they don't like you. It's called tyranny.

[In 1998, the ABA tried to count crimes contained in Federal statutes but gave up estimating the number to be in excess of 3000.]

* * *

None of these studies broached the separate -- and equally complex -- question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

See also, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" http://www.amazon.com/Three-Fe...

Are you referring to Obamacare and suggesting that no Republican ever tried to foist it on the whole country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
(yes, he was a republican)

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/2...

Nixon never really got anywhere with it though -- he had to resign the office. BUT, republicans have wanted to foist this forced subsidization of the private insurance companies crap on us for decades. Now they got it thanks to our Demoplicans.

I don't know why people keep calling it Obamacare, it's Nixoncare. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/2...

Today's democrats make Nixon look like a pot smoking hippie -- they've managed to engage in more war than he did, more massive surveillance than he did, and give away more money to private corporate interests than even GWB managed to do.

Sorry, it is not rude. It is a valid critique. You are publishing a teaching tool, thus you have a responsibility to ensure it is adequate for that purpose. That means you need to go out and find a competent editor for the English translations, a different competent editor for German, and yet another for each and every other language you are publishing in. If you don't do that, it calls into question the quality of the educational materials you are producing. Think about it, would you really want a person whose second language is X, despite being extremely smart, producing your marketing materials in that second language? If the answer is "yes" then I suggest looking up the word "hubris". A very smart person will know his or her limitations. English at the level of an educator is a limitation of whoever produced the English content for Gcompris.

I looked at the website too -- I don't think it is quite as vague as you make it out, but it is also clear to me that whoever wrote the summary and the website is either: a) not a native English speaker, or b) a very bad writer. Hopefully, there are no modules on English.

One year ago we took [^w made] the hard decision to fully rewrite GCompris in QtQuick in order to address tablet users while keeping PC compatibility. As you [can] imagine[,] it's [^w it was (*)] a daunting task and something for sure [^w^w that] could not be done alone. Thanks to the help of the many contributors who joined the project we have been able to port 86 activities of the 140 of the legacy version in a year. [clunky, especially the "of ... of" part -- maybe: Many contributors worked hard over the last year to port 86 of the 140 activities]. You can look at this page to see the status of the port. [rework: See the status report [with "status report" as the link, optionally and less desirably, append "here" and make that the link]] We can [^w] hope to complete the port in one more year ["one more year" is OK, but not really -- it feels off here, "in the coming year"]. The new version is far from perfect and we continue to polish it everyday(**) [^w every day,] but we already provide a better user experience than the legacy version. [This sentence is OK but a full rework wouldn't be a bad thing]

(*) They are still in the process of porting so "it is" could be considered correct, but everything else about this sentence is past tense. To adequately deal with the tense issue and porting stage would require a rework of that sentence.

(**) "everyday" means common. "Every day" means "each day".

Wow. I feel like a goose-stepping 3rd grade teacher. And of course, I will have made my own mistakes which will be pointed out with even more glee than I've exhibited here.

But my communications would not really be of interest to others. I am sure I may feel differently if I lived a life of politics or life of intrigue or sold bags of weed or raised money for Palestine or something ...

You actually have no idea whether your communications are of interest to the Government. If you are a member of the wrong religion compared to those in power, or no religion -- your communications might well be incredibly interesting. Or maybe it is your skin color, your sex, or any myriad seemingly mundane things. That could be very interesting, and dangerous to you, especially when you willing shrug as the only protections you have against the Government gulaging you, dissapearing you, or bankrupting you, is that Constitution you are so apathetic about.

If they aren't maintaining Consolekit, to say it should work fine on that is sort of nuts. Note the word "should" -- in other words, if you don't mind a broken Gnome setup, or one that is likely to fail as much as work in the future, than yeah, systemd isn't a dependency. That's like saying your computer should work with intermittent power outages -- sure, it'll crash when the power goes off but it will work the rest of the time. Just make sure to set your autosave timer to 10s intervals.

Yeah, sort of. Programming (or socially engineering) children to be subservient and accepting of constant surveillance. Surveillance of course, is basically 99.9999% tech.

Your thinking is what fuels the divide in punishments between the thug who mugs a person for $63, and the Wall Street bankster who mugs the nation for trillions. Your inner-chimp can understand instinctually why mugging a person is wrong, and why the law should be against it -- the complex multi-layered fancy suit wearing type of mugging however, is completely incomprehensible on that instinctual level.

Everyone knows that the Demoblican party is the only party to really care about America! Don't be such a partisan hack!

They'll vote for either the right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall-Street, pro-surveillance party or the other right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall-Street, pro-surveillance party based on the only issues separating the two: abortion and gay marriage.

An accountant is legally bound to believe a return is true. Only an idiot accountant would file something he/she knows is false. If the client insisted, the accountant would basically have to say, "find another accountant." The client, if he really wanted to file a false return, would then make sure the subsequent accountant was kept in the dark about the true facts.

Nice -- that's even better.