In the end, the "freedom to be free" will be all that remains, but if will not be a freedom you can actually use as that would make you a "terrorist". Have fun in the 4th Reich! As the US is a bit larger than Germany, this time it will take economic collapse to remove the fascism. Can take 100 years or more. Or they might succeed in building a 1000 Year Reich.
Then they might have to give numbers and it might turn out that these people are by far not the threat they have been made out to be. Or rather that the problem is people abusing children, and not those downloading illegal pixels from the Internet. And then they might have to do something about it. Which they do not want, as that removes their straw-man. The US government depends on criminals of all sorts being active, to scare the population. So they can never do anything effective about crime, like, you know, outlawing guns or legalizing drugs.
Fits. The rest of the world is better, fortunately. The US is looking more and more like everybodies enemy.
Fortunately, in short order nobody will say anything critical of the "authorities" anymore, and "order" will be restored to society. That the economy will also go down the drains is an unfortunate side-effect, but better have "order" (and "security"!) than, say, enough to eat. You have to set the priorities right!
TMI is only a problem is you do not know whom to target. If you want, say, to eliminate a political activist or a foreign corporation, targeting is easy and TMI does not apply. Or if, in the longer term, you want some not conservative enough person from becoming president or a supreme-court judge, all the information is easily accessible and these people can be stopped without the public even knowing. Sounds scary? This is a primary reason to establish a surveillance state: Retaining power and undermining the democratic process and hence it is decidedly in the agenda of the NSA and those that sponsor it. Have to get rid of those pesky "citizens" that think they have a voice. They just disturb the "order" of things. Of course, freedoms go down the drain and the economy is right behind if history and present-day surveillance states like North Korea are any indicator.
You have a second network that transfers the surveillance information. Expensive, but nothing it to good or too expensive to establish a global surveillance-state.
There are already a number of index cases where people had illegal pornography placed on their systems by hackers. Hence it is already a valid defense in some countries.
That seems to be the intention behind this. They also drive cost of doing business up around the globe, making everybody poorer. If that is not evil, then I do not know what is.
Not too well. It seems they have stopped zero terrorists so far. But if you think that their mandate is actually spying on ordinary people and economic espionage, then yes.
There has been quite a bit of research identifying machines behind NAT. Have a look in the literature. Of course, it only works for small installations. With large numbers of hosts behind NAT, you need to penetrate. For banks, insurance companies, large hospitals, governments, etc. I am sure the NSA has achieved that globally, as their security typically sucks.
Now, nobody can claim that they will not get attacked. There is this global, ethically-challenged attacker that does sabotage and industrial espionage and leaves targets vulnerable to other attackers as well because they are not perfect (far from it, they just have tons of money). So in the long run, this might do wonders for IT security in general, even if that revolution may come from countries not too friendly towards the US. Of course, the British run with the big bully, but everybody else is getting more and more wary of that cancer growing in northern America.
He already found a solution, he's not going to follow your hostile advice.
He found a "solution" which may lead to him becoming a shuffling zombie. It's in no one's best interest to defend that.
Well, you are right about that. Unfortunately, I also find his characters bland and soulless and his "exploration" of the human condition far too simplistic.
The basis are "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" and incidentally are the first Google hit when searching for "incompleteness". A trivial implication is that any science done within the system examined will necessary not be able to find every scientific truth in that system.
I am not surprised that you have never heard of them though. These are decidedly only for people that know what they are talking about.
Really, you have it wrong. Mathematics certainly is a science and so is Psychology. And your definition of Psychology is pretty far away from the actual definition. Try this one: "Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors.". That is the first sentence from its Wikipedia page.
If you go around changing the meaning of well-established terms, you should really not be surprised that your statements make no sense.