If they need a warrant (from the FISA court) to access the data (just like previously)

Well, if you put the "just like previously" part into your own post, then we aren't disagreeing, that this is not much of an improvement — and that was my premise.

That agreement now established, let's move on to what's wrong with the existing Act — and what's likely to remain wrong even after the proposed amendments are passed...

And the problem with FISA-court is that — unlike all other courts — it does not hear both sides . They may deny the rubber-stamp allegations, but they have only rejected 11 surveillance requests out of 33900 submitted since the court's inception to 2013...

how is it not abiding by the fourth amendment?

I said nothing about the Forth Amendment, actually. Whether it even applies to one's communications is no immediately obvious. No, my claim is not whether Patriot Act violates the Constitution, but whether or not the upcoming changes to it constitute a discernible improvement.

Would you prefer that law enforcement/spy agencies had to be fully tied and unable to conduct investigations?

I would prefer, that the government had no way to force private companies to preemptively record data about me just in case it may be needed by some future investigation.

Without being so forced, some companies may still prefer to do it seeking your business and others may choose not to seeking that of libertines. The existing regulatory mandate — cooperate with the FBI or else — troubles me greatly, and should trouble everyone...

they want to listen to music. hardly a grave moral transgression

I said nothing about listening. I wrote only about playing.

is it written somewhere in the bible or the quran that making money off of recorded music is some sort of basic human right? no

If the 10 Commandments were the sort of "living and breathing document", that certain people claim the US Constitution to be, the "Thou shalt not play records without recorder's permissions" would've been in it by now.

you make money form live performance, patronage, ads, ancillary revenue, etc.

Why must an artist's (or, indeed, anyone's!) money-making be restricted to the sources you find agreeable? And what of others of your kind, who'll claim, for example:

• that mixing ads with art iis wrong,
• or that patronage is immoral,
• or that live performance is insufficiently egalitarian?

We are paying people for their utilizing their skills in the way we like. If Elon Musk can profit from designing a wonder battery in different ways, why can't a singer squeeze everything from a successful song?

If the artist didn't exist, you would've had no song and nothing to complain about. If does exist, but you don't like him or his desire to be paid — well, just ignore him, as if he didn't exist. Problem solved.

the words you say are in defense of a temporary power arrangement, physical media

Which words of mine do you consider relating to any particular "physical media"? I certainly meant no such relationship — the only presumption in my post was that a verbatim recording of musical performance is possible. Whether the recording is on a tape, CD, a flash-drive or whatever is of no consequence.

So, are all you skeptics paid shills, or just really passionate about your cause?

I, for one, am rather passionate about some odd numbers not being primes.

That there is an infinite amount of them strengthens my position, but having only a few exceptions is enough to invalidate the theory I cited as an example.

"The bill ends bulk collection, it ends secret law," says Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act who has now helped author the Freedom Act.

Well, according to New York Times:

Under the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called National Security Letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves [emphasis mine -mi], and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

I'm not sure, we gained all that much here...

If you neither sung it yourself, nor obtained the singer's permission, you have no right to play it. Seems like a perfectly self-evident rule to me.

This a plain BS, so what, by acquiring a trademark on "google", now google has trademark on all words terminating in oogle?

Maybe, not on all.

But it is perfectly obvious, that Andy picked the name for his app to associate with Google — seeking a free ride on their coat-tails. And further more, it is a legitimate concern, that some user may be sufficiently confused to sincerely believe, Andy's app is, in fact, coming from Google — some sort of "New Google"...

Some psychologists say this shows the field has a replicability problem.

I'd say, credibility is the problem plaguing the field.

The experimenters really wanted each experiment to predict their theory... The less precise a science, the worse a problem this is.

In Mathematics, where absolute proofs are possible, and proponents of this or that public policy fiddle not, things are fine. But if a psychologist or, dare I say it, a climate scientist thought, that all odd numbers are prime, for example, they would've staged an experiment: "3, 5, 7" and declared the theory confirmed... Yes, the subsequent "9" is problematic, but "11" and "13" are further confirmations and how much research do you need anyway, skeptic, before you start doing something?

The gigafactory is the recipient of the largest incentive package ever given by Nevada at $1.3 billion, which followed a hotly contested tax incentive bidding war between various states to land the Tesla battery plant. For the investment to pay off, Tesla needs to convince hundreds of thousands of consumers per year to buy its cars and battery products, with the gigafactory serving as a cornerstone to the company's sales strategy.

I see, that Slashdot is eager to help in advertising with free (it is, is not it?) promotion.

Corporations are, after all, a charter granted by the government

Semantics. As long as people are free to associate and work together on something, such groups may as well be called "corporations" (or "cooperatives" or "collective farms"). And no, they don't exist on government's sufferance.

Government is a monopoly — and its pretense to "care" is being shattered in Baltimore as we argue — and I don't mean only the still-investigated death of a miscreant in police custody, but the mayor's orders to police to stand down and not protect citizens and their property from the rioting scum.

legally obligated not to care

Nonsense. They are legally obligated to maximize shareholders' value. This makes them care for my money and the only ways for them to get it is to offer me something I want. Government-run service-providers (such as police or Amtrak) don't have these ugly concerns for so base an object as "money" and consequently care not. All you can hope from them is the pretense of caring...

doesn't seem like a good trade.

I would've left you to your follies, except your decisions to hand over more and more control over your life to the government empowers it to take the same control over mine.

There's always limits on freedom due to conflicts, eg the classic conflict between my waving my fist and your right not to get punched.

Sure. Now please explain, how this truism is relevant to the issue at hand. Whose "nose" and whose "fist" are we talking about?

Staying on topic, there is limits to how many Individuals can erect telephone poles and how many wires/fibers can go on the poles

There may be a limit, but we are far from reaching it. FiOS cable runs to my house from the same pole, from which Comcast's cable runs to my neighbors. I think, the same pole can handle 10 or 20 more such cables easily.

the collective can put up the poles, run the fiber and allow anyone to use them for a reasonable fee

You must be a real fan of our collectively-run roads ($2mln per mile!! where I live) and public transit, but I am not. Just what is it, that makes the normally monopoly-abhorring slashdotters all weak in the knees, when it comes to governmental monopoly is beyond me. It is the worst monopoly imaginable...

there's also a limit on the number of roads that are possible so they're run by the collective

First of all, I do not accept the "cables are like roads" analogy — they aren't. But even roads can be private and competing. If Tokyo has privately-owned competing subway lines, why can't New York?

Moron.

Please, don't hate.

In a free country, businesses don't get massive government subsidies and de-facto monopolies.

That's absolutely true. And Libertarians fought those things tooth-and-nail too.

But a government's folly of subsidizing a business does not give us the right to take it over. We don't own Internet infrastructure any more than we own Tesla's wonder-cars.

Also, in a free country, governments can decide no business serves their constituents well and decide to serve their constituents directly.

Huh? Can you elaborate on the logical chain that lead you to this statement? What sort of freedom is it, that allows the Collective to arbitrarily prohibit an Individual to offer a service?