Your massive stream of consciousness posts are full of mischaracterization (exactly when was the right to challenge evidence in a court of law abolished?) because you aren't actually going to do basic due dilligence or are wholly imagining scenarios. You definitely have mental problems and those can't be fixed by this continued behavior, nor does it help our current legal situation. Good luck.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
> where anyone accused of a crime can challenge the evidence and the providence of that evidence against them
In the US, this has not been true for some time. You are asserting the very problems we're talking about. Secret Courts. Secret Evidence. Secret Process.
> In a similar case the Patriot Act has been used twice in court
The PA is a series of provisions (controversially, Section 215 - see John Oliver + Edward Snowden). Your statement makes no sense, without additional detail or citation.
> People continue to bitch and moan about the NSA "secret" data collection programs without ever realizing if they were "actually secret" how the fuck would we be arguing it?
Leaks and of course, limited exposure by the NSA (where they disclose that it exists, but no additional details under the cover of National Security). Primarily a number of service providers (from contractors to employees to ex-employees) that started with sources at Google and Yahoo almost a decade ago, then later, smaller providers. Snowden was another leaker. There have been many such projects (wikipedia: Carnivore via the FBI, Echelon - Multinational Effort, PRISM - NSA).
> The attempts to capture internet data was not a secret when the defining mass indiscriminate collection of data programs were shit canned because of the costs involved and the lack of usefulness.
I'm not sure where you get that information. It's unsubstantiated. Different bureaus seem to create them, routinely and with varying degrees of coverage.
> Even Snowden and his pet journalists have not released one piece if information that was not already easily discovered by anyone with an IQ over 50.
I don't think you are aware of the content of what has been released. Many of the documents are operational notes, which do not contain information you can deduce. Take a look @ https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.or... - link under the magnifying glass, click the search button. Go learn something.
You have a shockingly naiive narrative from my viewpoint. Some of it is not necessarily misguided. Perhaps you distrust a larger number of sources than the average skeptic. As I am someone who has had access to the FBI and Secret Service in the 90's, when dealing with software hackers and hardware monitoring, I find this all rather pedestrian knowledge.
> It's hard to claim someone is hiding something when it is front page news.
You're really not understanding the breadth of the problem. It's institutionally enforced, despite the fact that these abuses are known (ostensibly because they are not viewed as important or even abuses). The US Govt doesn't have to say much to sell it. You know, terrorists. https://www.eff.org/issues/nat... - At the very least, try to do some research regarding the stories you are referencing.
> QUIC solves nothing that hasn't already been solved.
Creating an IETF standard, based on a working implementation, isn't relevant to what problems it can service. While Google makes strategic and implementation mistakes, their technical research and solutions are usually quite good. The IETF is for this kind of documentation. ie Producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design. The fact that someone might reject it as a "NotInventedHere", is not a compelling reason to avoid documenting a standard that may never be used by anyone else. More is better, in this context.
> Then maybe we should change the GMO laws so that someone other than a multinational can afford to get a GMO plant certified as safe to eat
That is one approach, but not the only one to reduce dependence on GMO foods. I would argue that hoping that a corporate-supported legislature to legislate against their donors is the least effective approach.
Why would anyone vote for the democrat or republican candidates? You can't possibly believe that either candidate has any concept of what your life or concerns are like. These candidates are funded by private industry and will act on values they are directed to act on, after they are elected. Their campaign platforms mean nothing. Just like Obama, just like Bush, just like Clinton, on and on. The data is no longer hidden. Step 1. Pander to the public for votes. Step 2. Ignore the public after that with periodic press releases telling the vocal majority, what they want to hear. Step 3. The media supports these half-truths. Step 4. Repeat. This corruption is ingrained all the way to the state level in most of the US of A (Maryland is not too bad, iirc). The federal government, alone, is attacking freedoms DAILY in a myriad of ways. You think Net Neutrality was won? Hah. You think either party is interested in progressive taxation? Hah. What about that section 702 of the Patriot Act? How many cycles before these issues are quietly readdressed? At some point, you need to decide if you have a responsibility to protect your own self-interests. Even if this means something as appalling as choosing a different box.
> Not true, "natural-born citizen" is well understood
You are supposing that matters, in any sense. The US political system doesn't consider what's already written down, the parties care about what they can sell to the public as the correct interpretation.
Why would someone recommend
I don't know.
Without any actual evidence, the 40 years of careful research is nothing more than navel gazing. This research has been the equivalent of "don't you think this is true? here's why" which is not how any kind of science is established.
If the type system is broken, how is it broken? Broken meaning what? If you're going to make a compelling argument, you might want to start simply and at least give a practical example.
You've failed to come up with reasoning compelling that would cause someone with customers and a revenue stream to take notice. Would you put up with that kind of failure in your utopia?
My classical inheritance is intact, my multi-inheritance via composition (traits) is intact, I have lambdas. I have a lot less than that in other languages.
To whit, what does this have to do with what you or cannot do in PHP?
>> "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,
I may be in the minority here, but I think this is perfectly acceptable and intuitive. I'm sorry we WANT to be able to monitor communication channels of officials. At the top executive branch level, that's impractical. If she was never issued an address, that's largely irrelevant to the nature of the agenda. The Law often conflicts with reality, so this doesn't surprise or alarm me. The statement about nuclear winter is laughably partisan.
> because you're using terms like "pounded in everyone's head"
The BB theory is the only one that is well-known, because it's the only one that is mentioned in modern (and not so modern) textbooks, when making any cursory reference to a number of phenomena.
That doesn't make him a crank, it makes him savvy to the current state of education (largely, across the world). The crank part comes from promoting another theory as the only alternative.
Did not have the +1 for you today, sir.
> Failing to define a term
The term is self-defined. Common sense. Common human sense(s). Not limited to, or originally stemming from, "parables" or "superstitions", et al.
> Common sense is fearing something without understanding.
Continuing to try to redefine the concept to fit your beliefs, is disingenuous.