Is there any upper bound on what you find acceptable for a government to mandate or prohibit its citizens do?
I'm thinking you agree there is one.
If so, we agree North Korea overdoes it, right?
As for the United States, government isn't bossy enough?
They are never supposed to.
They are supposed to set policy to provide a direction instead of micromanaging.
I guess you haven't read Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United State of America.
Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And here's the text:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Hope this helps.
Only if handled according to the law, they're all regulated. If done against the law, they are illegal.
Well, yeah. By definition.
The first rule of Tautology Club is the First Rule of Tautology Club.
Aiding fugitive slaves was a violation of the Fugitive Slave laws.
So, did you have an actual point? Maybe you were kidding, and I missed the joke. There are so many earnest dolts on the Internet, it's hard to tell them from those who mock them.
I was kinda hoping it would include the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.
Golly, I was so disappointed to have my hopes dashed.
But only in other countries.
Just because they thought of it (and perhaps not right away) doesn't mean they planned to do it.
I lock my car because I don't want it stolen. Before I did that, I thought of that possibility it might happen. But I didn't do it because I planned to steal cars.
It's paranoia when your suspicions are unjustified, and prudent suspicious when they are. Too bad you won't know which is which until after the fact -- if then.
Believe it or not, they are not all-knowing, nor all-telling.
Parents are not governments.
Governments are not parents.
Totalitarian governments try to muddle the difference.
They could try doing that for the people in their own country, too.
Or at least quit trying to thwart their own efforts to do it for themselves.
If the FBI existed in 1789, they would have sought to ban opaque envelopes.
Or live ones.
"With God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
If anything, Russia has provided a service to the US in strengthening our democratic process.
... By hastening the day one or both of the statutory duopoly political parties is replaced by a new one, or dramatically re-habbed so much it might as well be a new one.
Not that I think that's actually likely in the near future -- meaning the lifetime of anyone voting now.
Bring in more oxygen. Plenty of sources to chose from, including: cometary ice, the Oort cloud, satellites of outer planets. Hard to say which is cheapest way to do it, at a fast enough pace. Bezos will probably pick some ways, Musk others.
Of course, there's that pesky hydrogen attached to it, but there's a solution to that: electrolysis powered by practical controlled fusion.
This has the advantage of producing helium as waste, which can be used for buoyancy of balloons, blimps, dirigibles, etc. When it escapes it'll just float up to the top of the atmosphere, and beyond.
And it will escape -- an atom at a time, because it's good at leading through surfaces and past fittings, or in bulk when the balloons pop or the buoyancy cells vent, or whatever -- eventually.
So, all we need to replace that lost oxygen is to become spacefaring (for the ice runs) and practical fusion power (which is only 15 to 25 years away, as it has been for about half a century).
At that rate of loss, we have time to work out the practical details.
I've done the hard part. You youngsters just have to work out those details.
Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.