Neat stuff (non-lulz but interesting things)

[FlyingMongoose]

I'll just leave this here then
http://artpolikarpov.github.io/garmoshka/

[DragonEkarus]

http://youtu.be/xogheZdAO18

I love the series... But this episode in particular takes the cake.

[k0ala]

Homemade Energy Weapon - Coil Gun/ Coil Rifle

[at0m]

http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-most-impress...-510451719

[Totla]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun...s-nsa-data

Not really sure what thread this should go in, but uh it's been confirmed that the NSA can take directly from the servers of Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple, and Microsoft (and soon to be Dropbox) any information they want.

[rumbot]

Yeah, the spooks who read your post advise that it should go in the FML thread.

[A. Crow]

fuck the spooks, I say it should be in the FML thread. 

[rumbot]

this guy is amazing. He really is a modern day L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones, able to create an entire empire by using the sheer force of his personality to exploit the flaws of his followers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

[at0m]

this guy is amazing. He really is a modern day L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones, able to create an entire empire by using the sheer force of his personality to exploit the flaws of his followers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

I can't wait to read about the tinfoil hat suicide pact.

[HeK]

PRISM Class

[FlyingMongoose]

PRISM Class

It is a valid suit. Although the target is not necessarily correct (unless they specifically signed the order in which to perform these actions). Anything that involves any search of any type of personal property or information without warrant is unreasonable search and seizure, no unreasonable search and seizure is a right guaranteed to us within our constitution. Any use of this information to incriminate us is a violation of our right of free speech.

My parents have specifically told me they don't care about these things because; "They have nothing to hide." and what pisses me off about that is, they consider themselves conservative republicans. Allowing something that directly contradicts the guaranteed rights of our constitution basically contradicts themselves.

Yes, our constitution was built with the expectation of change, and the ability to modify, but this is going beyond what is constitutional. I hope that person who drew that up follows through with it.

[rumbot]

waiting for a lucid description of the intersection between PRISM and ECHELON.

[Didzo]

[quote author=HeK link=topic=1507.msg268039#msg268039 date=1370908530]
PRISM Class

It is a valid suit. Although the target is not necessarily correct (unless they specifically signed the order in which to perform these actions). Anything that involves any search of any type of personal property or information without warrant is unreasonable search and seizure, no unreasonable search and seizure is a right guaranteed to us within our constitution. Any use of this information to incriminate us is a violation of our right of free speech.

My parents have specifically told me they don't care about these things because; "They have nothing to hide." and what pisses me off about that is, they consider themselves conservative republicans. Allowing something that directly contradicts the guaranteed rights of our constitution basically contradicts themselves.

Yes, our constitution was built with the expectation of change, and the ability to modify, but this is going beyond what is constitutional. I hope that person who drew that up follows through with it.
[/quote]

He's going to go through with it, but I don't expect it to get very far.

Link to Larry Klayman's wiki.

[Neptune]

I'm a little baffled why it's a surprise that the NSA is monitoring communications.  I'm also a little baffled why people care.  Are you really that important that you think you have big secrets?  Nobody cares that you're looking at (legal) pr0n online and calling your friends every five minutes.  The people who are getting the most pissed off are really just the least interesting people on the planet.

Now someone's looking up bomb blueprints and may be a shady character?  I think I want the government to know about that shit.

[Dtrain323i]

I'm a little baffled why it's a surprise that the NSA is monitoring communications.  I'm also a little baffled why people care.  Are you really that important that you think you have big secrets?  Nobody cares that you're looking at (legal) pr0n online and calling your friends every five minutes.  The people who are getting the most pissed off are really just the least interesting people on the planet.

Now someone's looking up bomb blueprints and may be a shady character?  I think I want the government to know about that shit.

It doesn't matter what you're looking at or how mundane it is. They need a search warrant saying what specifically they're looking for, where specifically they want to look and what their probable cause is. What they're doing is entirely unconstitutional.

You say now that you don't care if they look. But what happens if something you do or look at or say becomes taboo or illegal in the future?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[HeK]

[quote author=Neptune link=topic=1507.msg268053#msg268053 date=1370921128]
I'm a little baffled why it's a surprise that the NSA is monitoring communications.  I'm also a little baffled why people care.  Are you really that important that you think you have big secrets?  Nobody cares that you're looking at (legal) pr0n online and calling your friends every five minutes.  The people who are getting the most pissed off are really just the least interesting people on the planet.

Now someone's looking up bomb blueprints and may be a shady character?  I think I want the government to know about that shit.

It doesn't matter what you're looking at or how mundane it is. They need a search warrant saying what specifically they're looking for, where specifically they want to look and what their probable cause is. What they're doing is entirely unconstitutional.

You say now that you don't care if they look. But what happens if something you do or look at or say becomes taboo or illegal in the future?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
[/quote]

Thought Police here, please step outside.

[Didzo]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=1507.msg268058#msg268058 date=1370923829]
[quote author=Neptune link=topic=1507.msg268053#msg268053 date=1370921128]
I'm a little baffled why it's a surprise that the NSA is monitoring communications.  I'm also a little baffled why people care.  Are you really that important that you think you have big secrets?  Nobody cares that you're looking at (legal) pr0n online and calling your friends every five minutes.  The people who are getting the most pissed off are really just the least interesting people on the planet.

Now someone's looking up bomb blueprints and may be a shady character?  I think I want the government to know about that shit.

It doesn't matter what you're looking at or how mundane it is. They need a search warrant saying what specifically they're looking for, where specifically they want to look and what their probable cause is. What they're doing is entirely unconstitutional.

You say now that you don't care if they look. But what happens if something you do or look at or say becomes taboo or illegal in the future?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
[/quote]

Thought Police here, please step outside.
[/quote]

You're just overcompensating because your American counterpart spilled the beans.

[Neptune]

[quote author=Neptune link=topic=1507.msg268053#msg268053 date=1370921128]
I'm a little baffled why it's a surprise that the NSA is monitoring communications.  I'm also a little baffled why people care.  Are you really that important that you think you have big secrets?  Nobody cares that you're looking at (legal) pr0n online and calling your friends every five minutes.  The people who are getting the most pissed off are really just the least interesting people on the planet.

Now someone's looking up bomb blueprints and may be a shady character?  I think I want the government to know about that shit.

It doesn't matter what you're looking at or how mundane it is. They need a search warrant saying what specifically they're looking for, where specifically they want to look and what their probable cause is. What they're doing is entirely unconstitutional.

You say now that you don't care if they look. But what happens if something you do or look at or say becomes taboo or illegal in the future?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
[/quote]

I don't think that is the issue (Strawmen rarely are).  If you put it out on the internet, it's not yours, anymore.  Some dude outside your house with a laptop can get the info.  It's akin to shouting your business in a crowded area.  They're not actually coming into my house, looking through my stuff.  It's not mine.  So...big deal?  If I leave shit outside my house, people can look through it and, most of the time, I won't know or care.

Now, let's say something I do becomes illegal.  Either a) there's a good reason and they won't arrest me now if I stop doing it OR b) it's bullshit and enough people will get mad enough to change it.  Either way, I'm safe.  Like I said, I'm not worried about hypotheticals. 

I'm worried about people getting all butthurt about something that is protecting them.  And yes, I honestly believe that looking for terrorists is something that protects people.  This was the goal of the program, mind you, and I'm not that cynical that I believe it was intentionally being used for something else.

[k0ala]

That mpreg ad is only one in a whole series of pregnant young men.

http://www.mnn.com/family/babies-pregnan...-pregnancy

[rumbot]

If you put it out on the internet, it's not yours, anymore.  Some dude outside your house with a laptop can get the info.  It's akin to shouting your business in a crowded area.  They're not actually coming into my house, looking through my stuff.  It's not mine.  So...big deal?  If I leave shit outside my house, people can look through it and, most of the time, I won't know or care.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In 1791, it would have been common to consider my papers to include letters sent to me, and my diaries. Photography didn't arrive for another 30 years, but I imagine most in 1791 would consider locks of hair or other sentimental mememtos to be "effects," not to mention, wallets/purses, and I imagine by the time photos came around in 1820/30 that they, too, would be considered personal effects.

Telephones didn't come around till the late 19th century, and while there was always some risk that a switchboard operator would listen in, as the technology matured, there came an increased expectation of privacy. After all, this is where the "wiretapping" comes from. You know, in the phrase, "warrantless wiretapping."

Today, if I want to converse with dtrain, whether by phone, or by text, or by e-mail, or send him a naughty instagram, I'm most likely to do it via my phone. My phone, I most definately consider to be a personal effect. It contains my address book, my correspondences (papers), my photos (thanks Karrde!), and even my banking information.

If you hold to the view that the Internet isn't covered by the 4th amendment, as you propose, then what you are saying is that as technology advances then our Constitutional rights shrink. In your view, in order for me to retain the types of rights granted by the highest law of the land, I would need to eschew technology in order to retain those rights. So, basically, if I wanted real Constitutional protection I should live like the Amish.

I think clinging to this view is, at best, naive, as if you wish the US to remain an economic and technologic force in the world, then you can't peg essential rights and expectations to 18th century technology. Our strength as a nation has grown in proportion to the fact that we've been a hotbed of technological development.

Now, let's say something I do becomes illegal.  Either a) there's a good reason and they won't arrest me now if I stop doing it OR b) it's bullshit and enough people will get mad enough to change it.  Either way, I'm safe.

You are not safe. Please consult Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Did you not see what happened to aaronsw? He was a a tireless campaigner for internet freedom, helped get Creative Commons and Reddit off the ground, and it's widely believed that overzealous targeting lead him to kill himself.

I'm worried about people getting all butthurt about something that is protecting them.  And yes, I honestly believe that looking for terrorists is something that protects people.  This was the goal of the program, mind you, and I'm not that cynical that I believe it was intentionally being used for something else.

If it's the goal of the program, then the program should be measured in terms of its effectiveness. To measure effectiveness, you need transparent oversight. So,
- How many lives have been saved by wiretapping all of American and all sovereign nations that digitally communicate with America?
- How many terrorist plots have been foiled by this program?
- How many terrorists are behind bars because of this program?

Like I said, I'm not worried about hypotheticals.

Actually, until you can quantify the benefits of this program - how many terrorists have been captured and how many lives have been saved, then you are trafficking in hypotheticals. We had advanced notice from Russia about the Boston Marathon bombers and our dear intel leaders, with all this pervasive data, didn't stop that. The beauty of this leak is it enables people to democratically say: Show us the evidence. Put up or Shut up.

To quote a framer, and eminent Philadephian, Ben Frankin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."