I don't want a flag, but I do now want a model of the General Lee. That was my favorite show when I was five or six, and I think it's sad they're now calling it racist. The Duke boys weren't racists. They were just some good ol' boys. Never meanin' no harm.

I was okay with the government flying it in SC, because 1) it was the battle flag, for soldiers, not the political flag of the Confederate States of America and 2) it was flying at the memorial for South Carolinian soldiers who died in the Civil War. It's a sign of respect for the men who died fighting for their home and neighbors. Most of them were poor people who didn't own slaves themselves, and were, like every other damn soldier ever, fighting a rich man's war for the rich man's interests, but died believing he was fighting for home and honor. I don't believe they should be dishonored.

I can understand, though, Wal-Mart and pals not wanting to sell flags. That's fine. They can sell or not sell whatever they want (within the law). But Apple is just fucking stupid, pulling it from video games set in the Civil War. Might as well replace the soldiers' guns with walkie-talkies, too.

3D printing.

That's why I don't like the "ha ha look at the silly North Korean claims" trope. I think it's a deliberate ploy on behalf of the brutal Kim dynasty to shape a public opinion that they are silly and backwards and harmless. Who can take seriously a country that makes these claims? And that's the first thing that many people think of when they think of North Korea. It saps political will in the west to treat them for what they are.

So you're saying the lady doth protest too much? Perhaps. Looking at the comment, I can't imagine anyone giving it credence, nor could I think a political figure should be bothered by it unless there were truth to it.

If you, psuedoanonymous /. user, accuse me of being a pedo (assumingly under my real name) I would take no notice. It's yet another asshole on the internet mouthing off. And nobody else would take that seriously, either. Now if for some reason people did take it seriously, then you may have done real harm to my reputation, and I'd want you unmasked. You've actually injured me.

But this? Nobody gets that worked up over something as stupid as anonymous internet comments unless they have touched a nerve.

Maybe the other prisoners were just afraid he'd summon demon giraffe spirits to eat their souls if they were mean to him.

No. I do not like change. Put the comment link back below the summary.

Do it.

Do it now.

Do it.

Do.

It.

Also, one of the protections afforded by the Secure Communications Act was that while, yes, the government needs a warrant to get the records from the phone company, the phone company also MAY NOT hand the data over to the government WITHOUT a warrant. So the phone company is incentivized to protect records about you, because it's illegal to turn them over otherwise.

Which is actually why they need a warrant, and not merely a subpoena. A warrant is written authorization from the government immunizing you from punishment for something that would otherwise be illegal. So the phone company needs that warrant to protect them or else handing over the records is in violation of law.

Now how that works with regards to still over-broad warrants and NSL letters so you can't talk about them is something we'll just have to wait and see on.

Similar crimes exist in many American states. In Arizona, the definition of "without consent" includes:

(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.

(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.

Jesus. Good, hard-working, honest Americans are sitting at home, fapping to online porn, pirating movies and music, trolling n00bs, and some sick, twisted psychopath cuts their fiber. Some things...some things are just beyond the pale.

Nail 'em, FBI. Nail 'em to the fucking wall.

Which is why I put "freedom" in quotes. Because people like their own "freedom," however they choose to define it.

That's incredibly naive.

Pretty much everybody likes "freedom." But everybody has a different idea of what "freedom" means. A conservative businessman might argue environmental regulations impinge on his freedom to dump soot from his factory into the air. Hippies downwind might argue allowing the businessman to dump soot into the air is impinging on their right to breathe.

The Communist Party of the USSR defined "freedom" as "absence of opposition to world socialism." Some Muslim clerics believe freedom (or peace, at least) is found in "submission to the will of Allah."

I do not want a news service that promotes "freedom." I want a news service that provides facts, and promotes nothing.

And claiming to be unbiased, when in fact presenting a bias sabotages the arguments. Liberals have such a distrust of Fox News that Fox could say "the sky is blue" and liberals will question their accuracy and motives. Truth, reported from a news agency founded by somebody who founded a political party (that is seen by many as radical, and these very people we're trying to convince to change their minds) will be seen as suspect, and rejected.

There's a cognitive bias for this. I can't remember the name of it, perhaps one of you can, wherein truthful arguments presented by someone you don't like reinforces your adherence to your own false beliefs.

Intent. The same way we judge whether someone has criminal culpability for lots of other crimes.

"Hey can you pick me up at the corner of 1st and Main and give me a lift home?" -- No intent for wrongdoing. No crime.

"Hey I just robbed the bank at 1st and Main and need to get out of here. Can you pick me up and give me a lift home?" -- Knowledge of wrongdoing, intent to aid. Crime.

And the way you determine whether intent existed or not is evidence presented to a jury.

From the facts presented, this guy clearly intended to help swell the ranks and bank accounts of the worst group of bloodthirsty fanatics on the planet. If that's the case...justice boner.

I don't deny the same thought went through my mind when the leaks happened, but after two years, I just don't buy it. I think Snowden's on the level.

So what's the greater truth hidden by the limited hangout?

1) It removed the government's plausible deniability with regards to the rules of engagement (Manning) or the use of surveillance against Americans (Snowden).

2) The government's reaction to the leaks demonstrated that they are not incompetent, but evil.

These discussions would not have happened otherwise. Manning and Snowden did not sacrifice themselves for nothing. Tides will eventually turn, and history will eventually vindicate them (well, vindicate Snowden. Perhaps "Understand and excuse" Manning).