Ed, is that you?

Actually, in a poll conducted just this last week, 65% of Americans say that NSA surveillance has helped thwart terrorist attacks, and a plurality--49%--say that they believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. So yeah, maybe Americans aren't super thrilled about the fact that the NSA has our dick pics, the same way we're not thrilled that Facebook has licensing rights to all our photos or that Uber tracks our location and uses it to make inferences about our sex lives, but yet, at the end of the day, we're not changing our behavior--neither in the apps that we use nor in the ways that we vote.

Man, I feel dirty linking to the Washington Times, but it was the most recent poll that a two-minute Google search turned up.

McCain isn't running. And if you rule out all Republicans running for President, you're not left with very many prominent Republicans at all...

He really seems to live in his own bubble of self-delusion. The majority of Americans: (1) do not know about NSA surveillance, (2) do not care and (3) have no fucking idea who Edward Snowden is. Just this week, the USA Freedom Act reauthorized these programs, and the only politician who seems to care? Rand Paul, the most hated man in the Senate. I'm sorry, but the consequences of Snowden's leaks have been minimal, and, if the world is saying anything about surveillance, it's not no, it's "Yeah, okay. Whatever."

Okay, so this one had me scratching my head, but I think after reading this analysis, I might have a handle on it:

-This is not a First Amendment issue, but an issue of interpreting a federal statute making threats illegal.

-The issue is not whether a reasonable person would have interpreted what he said as a serious threat.

-The issue is the author's intent, and it matters what the author's intent is, but it's not clear based on the SCOTUS ruling what sort of intent is required to prosecute (actual intent to threaten vs. recklessness--not caring if it was taken as threatening) .

Basically, the long-and-short of it appears to be that SCOTUS just made this shit a hell of a lot more confusing.

Also notable: in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Watts v. United States that the following was protected speech:

They contain additional comments, making them transformative in the same way Prince's works were transformative.

From the Answers in Genesis article:

So, before Adam's sin, did animals not eat other animals? Did Tyrannosaurus not only coexist with Adam, but also eat kale? Mighty sharp teeth for peeling a banana, gotta say...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Sorry but they do...

VW is infamous for being able to use the head unit to actually interact with the CAN bus.....

Matter of fact... the controller is linux based and uses RTLinux on some models.

Are we just talking about blurring faces?

The most important skill I use in my everyday is critical thinking. No matter the technical details of the task at hand, using my noggin is the best asset I have.

I was about to ask how many seats you have in your butt.

No, it's definitely a hologram. But then, so is the whole universe.

If it's OK with you, I'm going to pretend they're all in the same folder.

Can we get this AI to test Slashdot summaries?

I'm not seeing the "well-reasoned" part. You don't like what they say and you spewed a poorly reasoned explanation for why you don't see local delivery happening. I'm not in love with Uber either, and I don't approve of all their actions. But my dislike for them doesn't preclude me from seeing the possibility of package delivery.

Look, those things are really flimsy, and while they may have barely held the Super Big Gulp in 2001, cups today are more robust. I daren't put my Double Gulp in there anymore, as it's barely hanging on. Heck, even the X-Treme Gulp came out in 2001! Microsoft should replace all the cup holders with ones not only capable of holding the Team Gulp, but also those Gulps anticipated to come out in the next 5 years.