The U.S. govt. probably already has had this meeting. The back doors start in the U.S. on July 4th. Happy Independence!

While one or two people on the committee were probably lawyers, I don't know if it's really up to them to declare the program illegal. They can give an opinion saying they think it's illegal, but really, it can only be declared illegal, or in other words, struck down, by a court. It'd be nice if the article made that distinction. It leads one to think that this committee has just done all the heavy lifting for the libertarians protesting the NSA's activities.

Since this was a committee appointed by government, the appointees' opinions should carry weight, but like all the other commissions, it can only present findings and recommendations. And besides, Barry is too concerned with our safety to entertain the idea that our civil liberties and laws should take precedence in making policy.

Do you mean something like this? On the one hand, the government blatantly tips its hand about being able to track people and the protestors shouldn't be surprised. On the other, I bet it was still a bit of a shock nonetheless to be one of the people receiving the text, realizing that the govt knows your steps.

Perhaps it would be better to just use walkie talkies and leave the phone somewhere "safe" if one is planning on going to a protest. This way, a mass movement can still be kind of coordinated without revealing participants individual IDs and locations? I realize it's not a perfect solution, but it solves the anonymity conundrum.

Not sure what would be a "safe" place for one's phone, except at home, but that's not gonna help when the cops suspect you're at the protest and bust down your door while you're getting your strike on.

Customer, one month after purchase , "Hi, yeah, for some reason, my door won't unlock. Can you guys do a remote open for me? I'm late for work."

Dealer: "Sorry, Mr. Smith, your door unlock feature was only available for an introductory month. Would you care to renew for the $99.99 / qtr lease at this point?"

I hope the conference has a good turnout and results in something useful that pisses off the feds.

The previous story on /. about the low morale at NSA? It's not low enough in my opinion. The employees need to start feelin' shitty enough that they stop doing all this bullshit.

I think the distinction between the two is pretty blurred. I'm too lazy to look, but there have been plenty of stories just on /. about law enforcement agencies that have totally ignored laws and/or acted without regard for morals. I almost think this whole discussion is moot due to this situation.

Science asks questions. It is skeptical. This means being skeptical of authority too. This will make the government nervous. They would probably prefer official "scientists" to a bunch of "hacks". This doesn't mean they are right. The government is great at bureaucracy and officiousness, especially if it means they can then exclude otherwise able people who don't toe the party line.

I was thinking the same. Instantaneous gratification probably played a hand in this. People are getting used thinking everything is a 24/7 operation and there can't ever be a hiccup.

I don't want to work on Thanksgiving or New Year's or any other major holiday and I feel bad for people who have to because there are customers to satisfy. I'm not talking about police or fire department. But does someone really need to go shopping or to see a movie on a holiday?

I'm not sure it will go as smoothly as you think. I think what would probably happen instead is that Google would lobby states (or probably feds, they got enough pull) to pass laws similar to hate crimes, i.e. punch someone wearing Google glass and the prosecutor will throw an additional charge at you specifically intended to punish would-be glassassins. Google can't have a sub-population threatening the cachet of their new shiny.

can NOT be comfortable on that thing. Imagine all the little lego impressions on your bum.

Still, that's a pretty nifty project, imho.

Let's see, 3 out of 4 of those species were also revived by humans. So it seems to me that you've opened your mouth to put in your foot.

Humans have altered the environment in myriad ways. And attempted to alleviate some of the worse changes. Cats on the other hand? I don't see a defense for letting them seriously threaten, possibly eradicate, several species; not just birds. Amphibians, reptiles, small mammals.

If you don't see my point, look at where the "wanton killing" is happening by reading the paper I linked to. Then if you still don't, go ahead and make another personal attack, since you don't seem capable of much else.

Right now, we pump - oh sorry "inject"- our wastewater from fracking underground. That water contains heavy metals and radioactive components. (Nothing like just making the problem 'go away'.)

Now that these large potential sources are revealed, what's the implications for their purity with that waste being underground also? There is no way to be sure that the wastewater won't find a channel or crack that will let it flow into those reserves.