This is a panel to determine if the US "employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."
This isn't supposed to be oversignt. It's entirely for the NSA's benefit.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Whoever determined the purpose of this panel (ostensibly, Mr. Obama) missed the point of why Americans are upset. Furthermore, it indicates that the Administration has no intention of changing the status quo. This is why it is newsworthy and why it's to our benefit to know and understand what a "privacy reform panel" looks like. There are other threads discussing how to go about realizing real change (in the broken American political system), so I will refer you to those if you want to talk about changing how and why this panel is the wrong answer to a large problem.
Sorry, the problem with the declaration The free market has fixed this problem is that it only fixed it AFTER I spent my $500 on a really crappy phone...
No, the free market fixes the problem when no one else buys their phone after you spent your $500 and told the rest of us about it. That's the other part of a free market society that some people forget: risk. You weren't forced to but a new phone without researching it first and if you were the first to buy it you just took a risk and in your scenario, it was a bad one.
If Mormons can't see past one dev, can't see that Linus is just one cog in a very large machine, that's their problem and not his.
Don't worry... most of us are fairly even keeled. Bigoted attacks on my religion, I can handle. Ad hominem attacks on my personal views? No problem. Just don't take away my tax credits for charitable contributions. I'd much rather support the homeless than Uncle Sam.
Sigh.
While there is a slight argument to be made as to whether or not it was for "political expediency," those are indeed beliefs and traditions the LDS church has followed at one time or another (speaking to you from the heart and soul of Mormonism in Provo, UT):
Now as far as the Warren Jeffs, 12 year old bonking crowd, yes they're crazy, but no they merely started at the same root of the tree. No original-orthodoxy Mormons are left, they're dead. The rest -- at least much of the rest here in Utah -- seem to want to live their lives with blinders on about the past (and the outside world, help! I'm trapped in a bubble!). Go and ask your bishop about all of these things and he'll, a: sigh, and b: give you a well thought out, and historically accurate accounting of the church's somewhat malleable belief system.
Or as I do for the members of my ward who ask about these things, c) explain what Elder Oaks taught about the two channels of revelation and how understanding the history of the church ends up hinging on how well you and I can access knowledge from God.
Anecdotally = Pulled it out of your ass.
Well, he *is* talking about methane...
I'm experiencing deja vu.
I remember this same discussion back in 1991, when a stealth fighter crashed in Iraq, and "experts" were worried that the crash parts would be stolen and help enemies build their own stealth fighter. So far I've not seen any great harm caused. Remember: These pundits are paid to talk, even if it's just "the sky is falling" nonsense and/or hand-wringing like an old maid.
You mean 1999 during the Kosovo war? The only operational (combat) loss of an F-117 (S/N 82-0806) was in Yugoslavia.
They were right to be worried since China has developed a stealth fighter from the technology stolen from that very plane.
Balkan military officials told the Associated Press that China and Russia may have adopted some stealth technology from a Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, which was shot down by the Serbian military in 1999 during the Kosovo war.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek