I don't think I could have said it better.

If they really broke so much of his encryption and found child pornography related stuff, why has he not been charged? Sounds like they don't have any real proof at all and want HIM to provide them with something to use. I don't need to be a judge to say that would come under the fifth.

Some people feel that if you use encryption, you must have something to hide. That idea is often promoted by prosecution in law enforcement. Ever written a short letter to someone? Why didn't you use a post card? "Do you have something to hide, citizen!?" Of course not. That logic needs to be shot down right up front. If someone encrypts their hard drives, it's not because there's evidence of a crime. It may just be because what is on them is nobody else's business, even the government's.

Why not ask the government sometime if you can look through their hard drives. Expect to hear words like "confidential" and/or "national security" or "executive priviledge". Ok. Maybe those things apply sometimes. How about these words: "private", "personal security" and "personal priviledge". Don't those words apply too?

It wouldn't be so easy to be critical of such things if the law worked both ways.

To keep the device in my backyard ready for launch. The Smiths live next door and they've been getting ahead lately.

I get your drift and have to laugh myself. It does seem like just deserts.

At the same time, one might ask why the Federal Government thinks itself immune to all charges and believes that it has final authority over all in these situations? And if that were true, do the states also have final authority over counties and the people in monetary and legal matters as well? In the end, doesn't that kind of thinking make the people lowest on the totem pole and little more than slaves who serve the will and the needs of those above them, especially the Feds? The questions are rhetorical so please don't form a judgment of me too quickly. But it is the rule of law that is supposed to stop that sort of thing. The highest law in our country that puts specific limits on government to stop this sort of thing is the Constitution.

To me the issue here is not that the state is taxing the Feds but that the Feds think they should have this center that spies on everyone's email. Where do they get that right? Are they really trying to stop terrorism or are they trying to find people who disagree with them? What would they do when they find them? Such thinking is more in line with a tyrannical government not a constitutional one.

So I'd rather the state of Utah not tax the center, even indirectly. They might get used to the extra income and want to keep that place around.

Ahhhh . . . . Darn!

Correct. The article is a little vague on the specs for this little project.

But please don't lecture me as to whether I should keep something private or not. If I write a personal letter by snail mail, I may have nothing to hide but I still put it in an envelope. I could send all private letters on post cards. But I don't because it's private. No one else needs to see it. That includes any/all people and government agencies.

By the way, that's also why encryption (without a back door) should be offered in ALL email software.

"1 milliamp -- a tiny fraction of the voltage of an AA battery"

Don't they mean, "1 milliamp--a tiny fraction of the CURRENT of an AA battery?" The article never gives the voltage used. 'Course it couldn't be much. High voltage would jump the gaps between neurons and damage them.

Still, once we have the specs, we can all make one and do what our grade school teachers always asked us to do. "Now class, put on your thinking caps for this one . . . "

Heh. Heh. And where will you sell your products . . . In the grocery store - near the fruit and vegetables?

Although the post suggests this bill will get a lot of resistance from the media, one of the biggest contributers to John McCain's Campaign was Newmax. Go ahead and look it up on www.opensecrets.org. You can find there who donates and how much to any national politician. My question, if this is so bad to TV and such, then why would a News Media organization be one of the top contributers to his campaign? It doesn't make sense. Politics doesn't work that way. What is REALLY in this bill?

Now I know why Vampires live so long!!!

The word "regulate" has changed somewhat in meaning since the time the Constitution was written. At the time, it's meaning was more along the line of, "to strengthen". This addition in the Constitution of the federal government being able to "strengthen" trade amongst the several states was deemed necessary as under the Articles of Confederacy (the first Constitution), states would often charge high fees for the flow of goods through them to other states. This stiffled the market and escalated prices. It also adds some light to the place in the Bill of Rights where it says, "A well regulated [strenghened] militia . . . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." There was never an intention to stifle or abridge there, either. Like trade, they wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be Strengthened!

About eight years ago, I went to the Dr. for an ear problem and got to take a look at their software. There was a computer in all of the examining rooms and the nurse, after examining me would run down the list of symptoms and check them off on her computer screen. There were also text boxes and ways to enter additional information. Being into computers, I asked the nurse about it.

She showed me some of it and said one of the Dr.'s had developed it. It was written in MS Access. It may not be a first choice for many Slashdotters but most are familiar with it. At the time it had plenty of capability for handling the data in a small network like that of a Dr.'s office. And it did the job. Apparently, one of the Dr.'s was pretty computer and programming savy.

I then asked why they had developed their own and not used one of the packages that must be on the market. She said they had tried. The sales rep said the cost was about 90K+ and the upkeep was about 70K after that. Then he said the software was good and a great deal because they would get their money back through increased efficiency in the first year (no figures to prove it though). After the presentation, the medical staff were all shaking their heads. How would they get back 70K per year. . . not to mention the original 90K+? They had other expensive equipment to get too! So one of the Dr.'s, who apparently had experience programming and working databases, took a brief leave of absence and developed a database that worked for their needs. I doubt it took more than three weeks actual work time to develop what I saw. How much money do you think they are they saving now!?

The point is that databases developed by a large medical specialty software company may not be the end-all solution for the needs of small businesses in medicine. Some of you guys with good computer skills and savy in putting together what the customer wants could put something together for a better price. Think of it this way: some of these specialty software companies are BEGGING for good competition. :-)

It may not cause quite as big a difference as hydrogen sulfide, but it has also been shown that even slight increases of CO2 also cause an increase in the speed of plant growth. It has been known for some time that plants take the carbon out of CO2. How hydrogen sulphide works is not quite as obvious.

In many ways you have to agree with Steve. What item of value backs Bitcoin? Its value goes up and down. But then what is backing those pieces of paper in your wallet? Steve says that money should have a fixed value. Agreed. And so would the founders of this nation. They limited the government's control of money by originally setting the standard value of a dollar to twenty dollars per ounce of gold. They already knew how central bankers in Europe operated.

But once our government (like so many) decided they wanted more control of the peoples' money via Central banking, they and their comrades get richer and the middle class suffered from the loss in value of their currency. How many dollars to an ounce of gold (or anything else) now? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provides even today unlimited funding for gov programs via the Federal Reserve's printing presses. The FR makes sure their banker friends get a huge cut and then provides some back to the politicians to get them re-elected. This is a story covered in many other places on the internet.

To summarize, I'm not sure if Bitcoin is a good investment or not. After all, does it have any true item backing it that has value? But then again, does the dollar? Isn't it a Joke (and hypocrisy) to deride one currency and ignore the other's problem with a constantly downward spiraling value? At least with Bitcoin, it's heavily encrypted and not controlled by the same people that control the dollar. That alone gives it fascinating possibilities.