from the summary: with the Obama administration seeking Supreme Court approval for its use of the devices without a warrant

Yep the republicans are sure responsible for continuing abuses...OH WAIT

I notice you didn't cite your comment about the lack of reciprocal respect from the prisoners. Also "reciprocal respect" would in this instance mean the prisoners water-boarding guards, depriving them of sleep, and pissing on their holy book or did you forget what reciprocal means?

This is your opinion. Also please show me proof these specific prisoners "threaten death and destruction" on anyone and that their faith requires it(plenty of Muslims would disagree). Generally such proof is presented during a trial.

How do you propose this is done without a trial? And no keeping them all locked up is not supporting the release of the innocents.

Why is that? We here in the USA do not deprive prisoners of the right to read, there is no reason we should to people we incarcerate abroad.

That is your opinion, and a very radical one at that. Was the purpose of the quotes you added to the word peaceful intended to imply that peaceful Muslims do not exist? Why do peaceful Muslims bear the responsibility of eradicating anyone?

They give a crap, and so should anyone who believes we should treat our prisoners with dignity.

And they didn't/don't always year gloves or show respect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Qur'an_desecration_controversy
...and before you scoff at a Wikipedia link, check the 17 cites the article gives.

a soldier intentionally kicked a Qur'an;
an interrogator intentionally stepped on a Qur'an;
a guard's urine came through an air vent, unintentionally splashing a detainee and his Qur'an;
water balloons thrown by prison guards at one another unintentionally caused a number of Qur'ans to get wet; and
a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Qur'an (whether US personnel were responsible for this act, however, could not be confirmed).

nothing really bad, like being forced at gunpoint onto a plane, flown halfway around the world and put into a jail cell while the guards (from the land of the free) for almost a decade(with no trial), occasionally being tortured, and being forced to watch the desecration of their holy books?

Data does not translate into "movie" necessarily.

---But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money.

Then physically show me what they are being deprived of, offer some proof other than your words which amount to "this is how the system works license invest blah blah"

Deprive: to take away possessions from someone

In your scenario they are depriving the restaurant of a physical object, copying data deprives no one of anything. If they could print out any amount of meals for the cost of running a computer yet did not lower prices (substantially), that could easily be described as greedy.

Nah people were not pointing it out, you were (one person). I'm not a drama queen, and don't care for any attention from this. It is not plagiarized because I didn't take credit for it, I simply linked a story I thought others might find interesting (some did). Also ordinary shit would be way better if the summaries would not routinely make up facts which are not in TFA. I've just been trolled, damn.

I'd say racism is a strawman in this particular instance. Welfare programs are currently being cut so that we can keep providing tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations. Not that racism isn't part of it, I just believe it is only a small part of the problem.

Why the hate for the summary? I didn't editorialize it, and it fairly accurately represents the contents of TFA. I get complaining about an inaccurate summary, but the summary is verbatim from the link (or maybe you didn't notice that). Perhaps a better comment for you to make would have been: "It's better than TFA, that's for sure."

Oh and props to vlm, I also agree his comment was more informative than TFA on the science (not this particular experiment).

According to Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969)

1. Suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, and not those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Thus, codefendants and coconspirators have no special standing, and cannot prevent the admission against them of information which has been obtained through electronic surveillance which is illegal against another. Pp. 394 U. S. 171-176.

So evidence obtained through an illegal S&S CAN be used against anyone except for those whom had their rights violated during the search (IE the home/business owners and no one else).