Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 4, Insightful) 531

It is utterly laughable to attribute this to the imaginary Obama totalitarianism put forth by the paranoid ultra right. DoJ started down this path long ago. Republicans pine for gov't snooping to stop "the terrorists," and Democrats believe in the power of government too much to disagree. Plus there is pointless worry about file sharing. Government snooping would increase substantially under Romney and would continue at at least the current pace under Obama. Government seeks to control. This will continue to get worse no matter which party is in charge. Americans value comfort, not freedom.

Comment: Re:One question (Score 1) 238

by yt8znu35 (#41253265) Attached to: Bring On the Decentralized Social Networking

Joe Sixpack has one question: WTF you are talking about, who is centralized, and why should I care? Seriously, geeks are 1% of Facebook audience, 99% couldn't care less about "decentralization".

This^, despite the fact that I do understand the article and appreciate the concepts. Diaspora would never fly because ten nerds (and zero women) would not constitute a user base. Even Google+ has a user base of mostly nerds that keep it active. There (apparently) has to be a SN for utter dipshits, and that's the role that FB fulfills.

Comment: Re:Chief? (Score 2) 318

by yt8znu35 (#40793683) Attached to: Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos

Correct. It is illegial for police to take your phone, or any property without a signed warrant (for the US).

Do not give them up - even if the ask nicely. You can volenter to give them a copy of the photos or video if you wish - but you are certainly under no obligation to do so - just because they tell you to. Just be polite, and tell them you will be happy to comply when they produce a signed warrant for said property. They will mumble and then give up in most cases.

Sheep get pushed around and abused - stand up for your rights people!

From your _person_? Police do that all the time. I believe the term they would use is "confiscate."

Open Carry in a state with lax gun laws and see if the police don't confiscate your weapon without a warrant. Similarly, go photograph your nearest federal building with a big SLR and see how long before they take it.

Telling them they need a warrant is another way of asking to be arrested (for resisting arrest, no doubt). In the US cops have been able to beat people to death without any real repercussions.

Comment: Seriously? (Score 1) 183

by yt8znu35 (#40701161) Attached to: EPIC Files Motion About Ignored Body Scanner Ruling
I'm all for the effort succeeding, but it won't. No one is going to create an account on whitehouse.gov and sign a petition that runs contrary to what the security state has in mind. "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists." Under the next administration, that member list is going to become a government shitlist. No thanks.

Ask yourself this: What good can come of getting an account on whitehouse.gov?

Comment: Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score 2) 513

Maybe you "dunno" but eight years of Bush pretty much drove the point home that Repubs are statists--in the name of freedom, of course. There's really no need to pretend that we don't know that a Republican administration would have achieved more erasure of civil liberties as they relate to telecom. Repubs are against gov't unless it is trying to involve itself in your pants or ensure your false sense of security through authoritarianism. That said, no one should be surprised by this executive order. Gov't seeks to control. President Romney, should that fuckwit win in 2012, won't rescind this order, will pile onto it, and will eagerly sign any new, over-the-top PATRIOT Act additions (for Jesus, the children, or whatever). The president after that, no matter which party, will do the same.

At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon

Working...