Is there any empirical evidence that information can't be destroyed?
If not, what would be the consequences of just ditching the law(?) that creates the paradox?
The 4th Amendment's warrant requirement only applies when there is an expectation of privacy.
And if they can get the data, there's no expectation of privacy.
Circular reasoning at its best.
Don't you know you have to use monkeys if you want to type Shakespeare?
But neither party is interested in ending the intrusive, ineffective "War on Drugs".
This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system
Law enforcement personnel don't think about these things the same way the rest of us do.
It''s called "telegraphic speech", as if the writer didn't want to pay for the extra characters.
Newspapers do it for space: the bigger the typeface, the less room for text.
I suspect it carries over to internet articles because of cognitive side-effects: if every headline was a complete sentence they would take more effort on the readers' part. You want something that will instantly grab (or lose) a reader's attention without any mental effort on their part.
(Look at how many people don't RTFA, or even RTFSummary. Full sentences would lead to people who don't even RTFHeadline.)
However, telegraphic speech can cause problems for readers.
The problem is that when the crew deliberately turns it off or it fails, what are you going to do?
Why does the crew have the capability of turning essential equipment off?
Mod up pleeze. This story has turned into the orgy that fuels the spree US media wants to be.
They were hoping a little blonde girl would be kidnapped or murdered, but they had to settle for a missing airplane mostly full of foreigners.
And with it missing at sea, they can't even pose a teddy bear in photos of the wreckage.
They usually post something to drive up hits on weekends. This weekend global warming, next weekend evolution.
Tomorrow we'll be back to Tesla and Bitcoin.
Climate change is inevetible and most ultimately dictated by the same orbital changes that bring us the "ice ages."
The second part of that claim is *utterly* falsified by the science. Temperatures are moving in the wrong direction: you'd expect global cooling as we exit the current interglacial.
You forgot to mention which side you're accusing of spreading FUD.
It amazes me that so many Slashdotters are trying to convince the world that change isn't coming, rather than trying to figure out how they can get richer than Bill Gates by founding a startup for mitigation technologies.
This ain't the Slashdot it used to be.
"pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed."
This has been asserted since 1985.
And you can convince yourself that it's utterly false, if you assume that the actual floods, drought, conflict, and economic damage are caused by something else.
[Actually I don't know of any conflicts attributable to GW yet. But both the US military and US national security agencies have concluded that GW is their biggest threat for this century. Some people can't afford to ignore the facts.]
And naturally, we should reject the opionions of an international group of scientists who specialize in the area in favor of the opinions of some slashdotters.
Big bang, climate, dark matter, evolution,
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
