Get real, if libertarian terrorists stole it they'd stash it in the Capitol Rotunda.

At least it would answer the question, where is your Congress Critter today? Just look for the handy-dandy nightlight in the corridors...

That is the most retarded post I have ever read and I am in a "hillbilly" state too! I would go along with your proposition if you would sign a waver that prevented you from suing anyone or making any claim what-so-ever including but not limited to SSDI, worker's compensation, health care or life insurance. In short, if you took FULL responsibility for your own carelessness. Oh, and when your carelessness causes death or injury to others you will take full responsibility for their costs too right? When your carelessness causes damage to plant equipment you'll pay for that too right? And I figure while you are taking responsibility for your actions you may as well pay for lost production while they are cleaning up the mess you make on the plant floor.

All because you feel uncomfortable in the safety gear you are required to wear for the job, you want to endanger yourself and more importantly, others. OSHA exists because they are needed to prevent companies from endangering their employees seeking profits above safety. Just look into Upper Big Branch Mine explosion in Raleigh County, WV for an example of profits over safety in action.

Why does everyone scream Three Mile Island...

Because it was... You know... A nuclear accident that had the nation on edge. And I consider ANY radiation release as non-trivial. It's effects may have been trivial but the release was not.

Or Chernobyl or Three Mile Island....

Still, the coal fired power plants have had their fair share of industrial "accidents" as the coal impoundment failures across the country has shown in the past 30 years. And now the wind and solar industries are facing off with the naturalists over bird and bat kills. So every effort we seem to make will have its risks. Welcome to life.

Whoa there cowboy! You threw out monetary figures, laws and even court orders without a single reference. And I take particular offense at this line:

The taxpayers have benefited from over $30 billion of free money gifted to the government by the electricity generating companies, it's not the other way around.

It wasn't the taxpayers that were screaming to build the nuclear power plants. It was the "power generation companies" who were seeking ever increasing profits with lower up front costs. They made a deal with the Devil and now they don't want to dance? Especially since I suspect it will take far over $30 billion to implement a storage facility that everyone and their dog will scream NIMBY at for good reason!

It's not hard to read US law, just tedious. It works a bit like a computer program, assuming you don't believe the lie that case law is law.

You evidently haven't read most laws that pass have you? They read more like program patches than full programs. Things like "strike 'the article' in part 24 of public law 93-025 and insert 'the code'.... etc...

To really get the gist you should be going to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) where the real rubber meets the road. Laws are implemented in the CFR. For example, the law that allows FEMA to do what it does is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288) as amended. The CFR that implements it is Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR). The Stafford Act has changed hundreds of times while the CFR reflects those changes every October. Trust me, you would go bonkers trying to read the law and all the amendments that go with it without the CFR.

Every law that has an implementation (most laws) has a CFR. Want to know about allowable expenses? 2CFR. Department of Transportation workings? 49CFR. The list is endless.

The police have, in the past, argued that they are allowed to *collect* that information because it is publicly available data, and that reasoning was accepted. Now they're arguing that they can't be required to *divulge* that data because it is *not* public data.

No, the police are arguing that to release it would compromise ongoing investigations by alerting the "bad guys" that they are being monitored prior to being charged. I tend to agree with that assessment. Hence a little thing called "protective orders". The judge can issue a protective order on the data and that should satisfy the issue.

I've always challenged the notion that the police are "trained observers" and can be trusted 100% of the time to tell the truth even under oath. They are human after all with all the failings of everyone on the planet including emotional issues. To trust them to destroy irrelevant data is foolish on its face. This type of data is too valuable to them in future cases.

A typical executive order simply designates procedures and requirements to be followed by people working for the Executive branch of the government.

Which is EXACTLY what this executive order does. It is implementing at the Executive Branch the legislation to which it is based, namely the National Security Act of 1947 as amended. It even says so at the start of the order:

by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, (Act) and as President of the United States of America, in order to provide for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights, it is hereby ordered as follows:

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/...

Also, nothing in this executive order "led to" the warrantless wiretapping as alleged in the story. In fact, there are several places in the order that state that if US citizens are involved, it MUST go through the FBI / Attorney General. Read it. You will see what I mean.

Did you even read the executive order?

First of all, it has been modified many, many times since Ronald Reagen the last that I can find was in 2008. http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/...

Second, and more to your points, sprinkled throughout the document are statements like, any intelligence collected concerning United States citizens must go through the FBI / Attorney General. This is so they can begin criminal investigations using the tools (read WARRANTS) to gain physical evidence of a crime. And the collection of that data, according to the order, is tangential to foreign intelligence gathering. As an example, here is 1.1(a)

(a) All means, consistent with applicable Federal law and this order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to obtain reliable intelligence information to protect the United States and its interests.

[Emphasis added]

This is 20(A):

(A) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall coordinate the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence collected through human sources or through human-enabled means and counterintelligence activities inside the United States;

[Emphasis added]

So sticking to the topic at hand, namely that this order authorizes warrantless surveillance of United States citizens, is patently false. That may be the way it is used but that goes counter to the executive order's language.

By the way, the "human enabled means" is the metadata you are talking about.

My biggest problem is with this line...

NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V."

So in short, the government is going to mandate yet another thing that nobody wants and that even the manufacturers don't want to make. Brilliant!

You are confusing things. Net neutrality isn't about what tier of service you have. It is about ensuring that you aren't getting purposefully manipulated speed for the tier you have. Let's use your examples since you seem to understand those...

Do you think everyone needs the same speed? Does your grandmother need the same speed as an MIT researcher?

Do you think the MIT researcher should pay for the higher tier and be slowed down to Grandma's speed for some sites?

Same priciple for package delivery. Do you think everyone needs their package overnight? Or are there different needs.

Do you think your overnight package should be 3 days to certain destinations for the same price of overnight delivery?

Same principle for travel. Do you think everyone needs a supersonic transport, or are some fine with taking a Greyhound.

Do you think those that pay for the supersonic speed should be shuttled to the Grayhound station for certain destinations because that destination didn't pay the airlines for it?

This DID cause some hurt to some members of my family, but the "suppress reporting of something which actually happened because it might bother some members of the family" approach would have been more harmful to the public interest (and therefore also to us, in the long run).

Reporting on it != viewing the entire episode from grim start to grisly end. There is a huge difference. Add to that the propaganda factor this incident has (for both sides) and it does nothing but damage to the family. Again, I will ask you in the terms of your experience, how would it affect the family had those "unnatural circumstances" been recorded, uploaded to YouTube and used for political purposes?

No it wouldn't since he was only using bank transactions. His idea is to charge that penny on ALL transactions including every transaction made on the stock markets which counts in the hundreds of millions if not billions a day. Add in all the other transactions that occur daily and it is easily in the trillions a day.

"Because an institution of higher learning prefers its workers to be dumb and uninformed"

No...because an employer pays for their employee's Internet access so they can do the employer's business. It's not like there aren't multiple ways to access the Internet.

In other words people will switch to using smartphones and tablets to access Facebook, Wikipedia, politically correct websites, etc... and nothing really changes. Censorship is a game of Whac-A-Mole that the censors will always loose.

It depends on the goal of the censorship. If the goal is to prevent you from ever accessing the restricted content, then you are correct. On the other hand if the goal is to prevent you from using my network to access it, then they certainly can do that.

And illegal to knowingly distribute it.

You just knocked out bittorrent....