All of it.

Eventually, we big-government socialists will be able to control and regulate 3-D printers so that threats like Cody will cease to exist, and life will go on as normal - that is, big government will always be in control of individuals and subsequently limit their freedoms. Remember, government will always maintain its power, as people like us will make sure it happens. We big-government types will always be able to control the population.

Ultimately, libertarianism is the defeatist philosophy. There is a reason libertarians are seen as the equivalent of 12 year olds dorks and geeks, which is why they are limited in power. I have no idea why people want to limit their power by being libertarians. It is so unsexy when individuals are weak.

One should always work to gain more power, which is the meaning of life. Libertarianism is a good way to do the opposite of that.

BTW I won't be able to respond to whatever you say, as the libertarians dorks that infest this site tend to cry and have sad at my posts, so they limit my posts to one a day.

Good thing most people in the real world are socialist and can't stand freedom-loving libertarians.

The key talent with Apple is them knowing when NOT to release a product. Steve Jobs has said several times he was proudest of what he didn't release vs. what he did. Editing is a major skill that tech geeks rarely ever have: "Gotta have more Megahertz! NEED MORE MEGABYTES!" without questioning the necessity of it.

Sometimes market research tells you this, as in the case with Nokia here, but intuition can be just as valid when you have an intelligence behind it.

Closed source was always safer.

Not sure where you got that idea that open source was safer?

It's alluded to in the summary, and spelled out in TFA - both companies have shown interest in providing internet access in underserved areas through aerial platforms:

Incorrect.

The correct answer is both companies have no idea what the fuck they're doing, so they're throwing money at whatever they can in the hope that something sticks and draws press publicity.

Remember, Facebook is the same company that had no problem showing beheading videos, while having an advertiser supported business model.

Think about that: Why would any company place their valuable brand ad next to a beheading video?

Plus feel free to look up horrifying shit on Google or YouTube and check to see if brands want their ads placed next to them.

And everything in Google is ultimately an advertising-based business model, including Google Earth.

So, these west coast tech idiots have absolutely NO idea what they're doing, as they try to replicate the success of east coast advertising businesses. They're so fucking bad at advertising, that somehow they caused geeks to think of advertising as bad.

Meanwhile, non-geeks are able to sell local newspapers and magazines with hundreds of ad pages BECAUSE of the advertising.

Right now, advertising business model is some mysterious secret art that west-coast geeks can't figure out. Even with 1.5 billion viewers, Facebook only ends up making $6billion/year on ads, something Hearst does with just a few million subscribers.

But the geeks have money, and they'll keep trying.

It's incredible how bad tech geeks are at advertising business models. Just completely clueless.

The engineer behind the heart bleed bug is named in national news: http://www.latimes.com/busines...

Sorry, you are a narcissist if you think you, and not the Supreme court, gets to decide what is/isn't constitutional.

Is there anything else a precious snowflake princess like you think is important?

In this life, you don't get to follow orders of those in higher power above you, and the US government has higher power above you.

If the US government decides it is constitutional, your role in life is to obey.

Perhaps in your next life you should decide to have more power than the US government? But for now, we socialists will prefer that you do as we say, if you wish to remain in our land we control.

Actually, it seems they've already crushed them on specs, since A7 is 6-wide execution pipeline, while this is 3-wide.

We Apple fanboys will forever torment and humiliate the Android poors.

Most people are statists.

We prefer a strong controlling government.

We prefer not to have freedom-loving libertarians.

Freedom loving libertarians do not help me, so why should we allow them to live in our society?

Did you pay for my health care? Do you want to pay for my health care? Then why the fuck should I let you live in this property we control? What exactly are you doing for me?

It's sad when libertarians learn that life isn't free, that no one is interested in giving them freedom.

It's just a basic rule of socialization: you make friends by doing stuff for them. Too bad unsocialized geeks that tend to lean libertarian never figured this out.

Normal, socialized people are statists.

Normal, socialized people are never libertarian.

Libertarians are generally just terrible, god-awful people. There is a reason they have that social stigma.

The quicker you nerds figure out why everyone hates you, the better off you will be.

Or you can just figure out that, no, there is nothing wrong with metadata collection by the NSA.

Remember, this is metadata, not data. Government has the right to collect information. Government has the right to maintain its powers. They don't have the right to collect your private communications without a warrant. And metadata isn't private.

Courts have already decided this.

You will have to catch up with what the courts have already decided.

Sorry, but normal, socialized people do not care about metadata privacy. We are not geeks, and do not care about what geeks care about. We consider geeks to be unsocialized and uncivilized, with way too much precious snowflake syndrome. Geeks are far too narcissistic and introverted to be helpful to socialized people. They are generally to be avoided, and mistrusted.

That is why normal people, like me, and President Obama, do not trusts geeks, and their concerns. We do not respect them.

It's a sad realization, but you geeks are going to have to face the fact that you're terrible people that the rest of society do not care for.

Maybe in the next life, you will learn to socialize, learn to make friends and influence people, instead of whine about why you are so important and libertarian and how awesome you are, because you are such precious snowflakes.

The rest of us will just continue with our normal lives, with a big, socialized government that provides necessary services that we want government to provide.

We will continue to maintain a big, powerful government, because we prefer a stronger government, instead of a weaker one.

Thanks.

“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”

So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.

What was the problem again?

"BUT GOVERNMENT NEEDS OVERSIGHT!"

That's exactly what the FISA court does. What? You don't trust the people you gave trust to?

Use iTunes for new releases instead of DVDs.

Don't complain about it.

The NSA may be efficient at amassing lots of data. But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence. They are efficient at creating haystacks, but that doesn't mean they are finding many needles.

Since you're speculating, it's just as useful to say that the NSA has the ability to find exactly what they need from vast quantities of data.

Look! I can make up shit too!

You know, one of these days, you will be the one arrested and thrown in prison without due process for 'terroristic acts', or some other set of stacked charges that cannot be challenged in court because they're matters of 'national security'.

This only happens if you're an idiot, like the average libertarian that infests this site.

Smart socialists know how to always remain in power.

The worst people in the world are those that don't know how to socialize with other members of society, and socialization is formally structured in society through a government.

When you people state "I fear and mistrust government", what the rest of us hear is "I fear and mistrust other members of society".

So, when you hate the rest of society so much, why exactly should we allow you to live with us again? Because all we hear from you is "Me! Me! Me!"

Can you explain how you benefit us? Do you think you produce more tax revenue than we pay for you? Do you think the road we paved for you all the way out to your private secluded hideout so you can avoid the rest of society came for free?

Is that what you want us to hear from you libertarians? That you're a precious snowflake and that you don't want to do what government tells you to do, because you're a precious snowflake?

You will note that this anti-socializition is extremely common among those that society traditionally rejects, such as geeks and other assorted libertarians. Remember, groups are far stronger than individuals. We socialists recognized that long time ago, which is why we can get things that libertarians cannot, such as a publicly funded health-care system.

Meanwhile, we socialist statists will do fine without your support, since there are so few of you - you will notice that no one in the real world actually complains about the NSA spying, because most people are well socialized, unlike the geeks. In the real world, no one gives a shit about the kind of privacy you think is important. The only real privacy we believe in are physical privacy, not internet ones, since the internet doesn't represent real-world. (you were actually mistaken all along in your view that the internet mattered..)

But it is your job to decide if you wish to remain with us.

Eventually you will decide to lick government's boot, and you will learn that it is better for you that way.

You know those filters used to remove American's data from surveillance? Those were there to PROTECT our privacy.

So what exactly is Snowden complaining about? Why would the US government have classified filters if their objective was privacy violations?

He really didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. That's the problem you get with mouth-breathing libertarians, like the kind that infest white-male nerd sites.

I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

This is precedent setting here as well. Usually the creator of the medium owns the copyright, not a contributor. It would change everything if new rule stands.

One point though is that the producer didn't get a release from the actress at all, so any modern release should cover any effects of changes to the film. This might case might be a unique one because of that.