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).

Exactly. Whenever the issue of "damage from leaks" comes up, somebody will say "Ya know, people died because of Manning." And I'll concede that Manning's leaks were far less discriminate than Snowden's, with a much greater potential to compromise a solider in the field.

But name one. Do you honestly believe that if brave, brave Private Schmuckatelli had died to some nefarious sneak attack by The Enemy, betrayed by Manning, it would not be plastered all over Fox and CNN? We'd have tributes, pictures of his wife and kids and dog, interviews with his parents and everybody who ever knew him, lamenting over the loss of Private Schmuckatelli, press conferences, talking heads discussing whether Manning should get death or merely life in prison for his criminal responsibility in this matter. There is zero chance the government would not have exploited that death for maximum political gain.

But it never happened. Not once. Because nobody, nobody, not one person, died because of Manning's or Snowden's leaks. Won't stop them from claiming people did, though.

I'm concerned too about the "politically motivated" part.

For instance, I agree that there is a problem with excessive use of force by police in America. Reddit, however, has a massive boner for any kind of story that depicts police as bloodthirsty maniacs. So you'll see a front page story with a headline like "Man Shot 47 Times by Police Just For Asking For Directions." And you open it up and find out the guy was raging on PCP, firing at cops yelling "Which way to hell pigs?! 'Cause that's where I'm sending you!" The authors of such titles are far more concerned with pushing their narrative than informing people.

It's bad journalism to assign motives to people that they didn't tell you and you can't back up with facts. Just report the facts, and leave the opinions to the comments section.

I support the Pirate Party, but I'm wary of any "news service" run specifically by any political party.