We should make a legislative framework that will outline the boundaries of such a program, sort of like the Geneva Conventions. Then countries like the US would never violate those rules.

Seriously. What's the point in even talking about it? the US is just going to do whatever it feels like.

Buddy: nothing in your post has anything to do with why any bank anywhere wanted OWS gone. The banks didn't like OWS because it represented lowly commoners daring to challenge their power and authority. It's as simple as that.

You're story of the banks "just trying to do their jobs" in the face of evil, evil peaceful protestors saying mean things is heart wrenching, truly. The article talked about cracking down on the protests themselves, not about the banks trying to ensure donations were made in a legally sound manner.

There is no valid reason to crackdown (your word choice) on peaceful protest. That's why the right to peaceful protest is enshrined in the constitution, rather than as some addendum to some bylaws.

You're either extraordinarily naive or dishonest. So tell us, which is it?

I think the concern is less with the investigation and monitoring and more with the FBI walking-hand-in-hand with (for) private entities.

If the FBI were working for the people, they would have been doing everything to protect the public from extremists as well as defending the right to PEACEFUL PROTESTS. But since they work for private entities, they do everything in their power to undermine peaceful dissent which their true bosses find undesirable.

I mean if they are going to stifle free speech just for the sake of it, why not stifle the racists (i.e. KKK and such)? Because the racists don't naturally find themselves in the crosshairs of Corporate America, that's why.

To be fair, I think we're talking about more than one soldier, especially if you expand your search to include rape.

You broad brush of the military is probably more fair than the brush of the OWS movement.

Not to mention we are at the dawn of the age of 3D printer. If you want to make money you should "short" the bricks. Maybe you can hedge that with an option.

Actually it's a valid point...I mean if movies depicting gore and senseless killing are merely rated R, but movies depicting sex with genitals and penetration are X-Rated, what does that tell you about our priorities?

Sex is more traumatizing that decapitation and evisceration, apparently. Think "Saw" vs pretty much any porno, even the lighter stuff.

They call it intellectual property, not intellectual licenses. They also say that downloading is stealing (of property?)

But how does one steal a license?

If depriving someone of income is a crime, then so should negative reviews on yelp?

I'm terribly confused. I think it would be more relaxing to teach evolution to a creationist.

But what if it gains self-awareness and takes over the world. Can we ticket it then?

I don't know. I always built them with the instructions, just once and never again to see it as they imagined it, and then I never touched the instructions again. I'd then tear it down and do my own shit.

How about a protestor in a repressive regime, like China? Wouldn't they rightfully want to be anonymous?

You basically argued "nothing to hide, nothing to fear."

Well I think a more impressive piece of software than this one would be a program that can "understand" writing and deconstruct the meaning of the message to it's simplest form. If all anonymous writers used the same software, they would all have the same "style."

Obviously you would only use it for writing that needed to be anonymous, because a large part of writing is the personality you put into it.

Here's an example of software that seems to "understand" language, posted to /. in the past:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html

He's just trying to throw you off his scent. The first guess was right.

Sure, I'm sad that this tragedy took place. So in that sense yes I am a sad individual.

No I have no idea what your political views are. I'm commenting on the reality that pro-gun lobbyists usually also want to curb social programs.

No need to get personal though, particularly if the above doesn't apply to you. But it's hard to deny that many do subscribe to that duality.

But let's quash Obamacare! Don't waste money on mental health, amirite?

Tell that to the gun lobby. It would be easier to take them seriously if they were seriously interested in solving the root of the problem. It's easy to say people kill people, but they have no interest in helping prevent people from killing people because it would cost money.