Because as an Ubuntu user he learned to always sudo, but never why.
That's not what the NSA did, and US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones. Also, if the NSA is operating within boundaries set by other laws like the PATRIOT Act, which they were, then they're in the clear.
Blame the law and the politicians for poor oversight, the NSA is just a bureaucracy told to go do something without sufficient guidelines and oversight.
Several problems with this.
First, the NSA has swept up plenty of information about US citizens, e.g. in requesting phone records in bulk, and we only have their word that they're only interested in foreigners. Not that that legally justifies sweeping up people you're not allowed to look at without a warrant.
Second, James Sensenbrenner, the Republican main sponsor of the PATRIOT Act, has said that the NSA is far overreaching its authorization under the Act. It's very possible that the agency's interpretation of the Act is far out of bounds with its congressional intent (or possibly even its language).
Third, even if they did not go beyond the bounds of the law, the question of whether the law itself is constitutional isn't a settled one. Many of the provisions have been untested due to difficulty in claiming standing due to government secrecy about what they do with the information they've collected.
Fourth, the question of legality isn't the only one. There's also the question of morality, of hypocrisy, and of the dangers inherent to information asymmetry between the government and the people.
Fifth, absolving the actions of an agency (or any individual) who uses a lack of clear guidelines as an excuse to go as far into bad behavior as they think they can get away with is a terrible idea. It's the same sort of mentality that says, "Well, it wasn't illegal back then to rape your wife, so how could it have been wrong?" You wouldn't raise kids that way, and you shouldn't expect your government to behave responsibly if they know they can get away with anything as long as it hasn't been written down that they shouldn't.
He was arrested because of it, but not for it.
The title is "California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website." What is the meaningful semantic distinction that makes the use of "for it" improper here? He was arrested for activities core to the running of the site: privacy violations (the images hosted on the site) and blackmail (a major revenue source for the site). Just because he wasn't arrested for using the site doesn't mean that we wasn't arrested for running the site.
If he's going to bargain, he should probably offer something the police doesn't already have.
Plus, unless those people are mostly in California, it's far better to go with the big fish you already have than a widely spread trove of hard to reach minnows.
What's to fear? I cheerily inform folks that I do not believe in their particular sky faery. Should I expect violence? Condemnation? Whatever.
Well, to be honest, if you regularly phrase it that way, yes. No one likes having their beliefs in just about anything dismissively insulted, especially when it's something rather central to their life. That's less about religion and more about just not being a jerk to people you disagree with.
Try treating someone's home country or favorite sports team that way and see if you don't get a lot of anger directed your way too.
The statistics from Britain, where something like 30% Muslims want the UK to become a SA-like theocracy, speak a little different.
Apparently, you have a different definition of "most" if the 70% that don't agree don't qualify.
Thing is, it doesn't take an enormous amount of intelligence to drive.
Well, that explains the abysmally low accident rate...
Driver distraction is the number one cause of accidents. In your experience, would you positively or negatively correlate intelligence and distractability?
Flippant, joking question aside, it turns out that IQ actually does correlate with lower accident rates at a national level. It seems that the social conditions that promote greater intelligence in the populace (higher standard of living, income equality, a more polite society, greater individual liberty) are good for better driving.
On an individual level, it's more of a wash. Individual income and academic education level do not correlate to accident rates, and both are good proxies for IQ. The study found that it's more "emotional intelligence" (aka conscientiousness) and level of driver training that mattered.
even for humans, one's own feces are safe to eat, barring mouth sores and the like. there's nothing in it that didn't come out of you in the first place.
This is wrong. Bacteria are not evenly distributed throughout both the small and large intestines. Look up small intestinal bacterial overgrowth sometime.
Have you recently read of anything done by anyone WITH a court order? I wonder if the courts still remember how to write one.
Of course they do. Much like how the navy trains our sailors in rigging a traditional sailboat, it's a rich reminder of tradition and where they came from as well as a skill that many will practice as a hobby for the rest of their lives, despite the total lack of use in the modern day.
That was a most satisfying demonstration that your pedantry outstrips your knowledge of the English language./pL
You're nitpicking a semantic strawman of your own creation. The GP only said that the constitution does not allow the state to favor one religion over another. He did not cite the First Amendment as the sole origin of this from the moment it was ratified on, and you yourself acknowledge that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates it against the states.
So, there was no reason to imply the GP had never read the First Amendment, because there's nothing he said that referenced it nor that was incorrect about the current state of the law.
Monotheism arose contemporaneously with modern civilization as a control framework for large societies. Monotheism encourages homogenous culture, thus discouraging creativity. Prior to that, polytheism, which implicitly implies multiplicity and diversity in all things, was the culture's guide. In a polytheistic culture every man can have his own muse without ridicule, fear or ostracism.
It's a nice story to tell yourself if you're disenchanted with modern Western culture and the still extant religions that founded it, but anyone with a deeper understanding of history and even of other modern cultures can tell you that isn't true at all.
Major polytheistic religions have more gods, but they don't work like your D&D game might make you think. You don't just pick one god and venerate that one at the expense of the others. No, you are expected to venerate all the gods in the proper mixture and at the proper time, and emphasizing one god above the others is a sign of eccentricity at best or disrespect to the gods you neglect at worst.
Plus, humans are humans, and the pressure to conform to the group is built into us at a evolutionary biology level. We're pack animals, and rules to conform identify who is "one of us" and who is "one of them" to compete with.
Do you think the Romans didn't have pressure to conform? Imperial China or the Mongols? Japan, back then and now? Do you not know anyone who is Hindu or read about some of the cultural clashes in India? Polytheism is no panacea.
My point is that generally it would seem that the higher the IQ, the more capable an individual is of being objective.
Generally, no. Objectivity is largely a function of temperament and deliberate effort rather than intelligence. Studies show that the more intelligent you are, the less objective you are. It seems that smart people are so used to being "right," that they are largely unprepared for the possibility that they are wrong. They also have an amazing ability rationalize and defend incorrect positions.
Worse, the more "informed" you are, the less impact facts have on you. Uninformed voters are more easily swayed with information challenging their beliefs, but people who know and have strong opinions on a subject are likely to become more entrenched in a position when confronted with facts that prove it wrong.
Objectivity takes training and deliberate practice. Being smart doesn't make you less susceptible to cognitive biases -- it just makes you much quicker at applying them, at least until you learn to recognize them and fight them.
Yes, trucks have always been around