even if it's just some anti-government website exaggerating everything
it still makes the valid point of 'do we need to know everything about everyone'
the answer should and always will be a definite NO
because if I can find enough info in 5 minutes on someone ive never met to make a whole fake account complete with family pics and a bio just based on a few rttp posts, imagine what THEY can do
I listened to a segment on npr about this yesterday. The NSA claims they dont have the right to intercept transmissions. According to a defense attorney the NSA uses it's own legal definition of terms that you wont find in a dictionary. For example their description of intercepting something is having it viewed and reported on by an agent. Using this definition they have the right to store any information for future use. As long as they dont read the contents they dont need a warrant to store the info but once a warrant is served they can then use and read the info. So much for having the right to remain silent. Anything you have already said can now be used against you in a court of law.
Plus if they want at it faster, sans warrant, they just have Canadian or British agents do the intercepts then report it as an inter-agency info-share.
I love stuff like this, it dazzles stupid people but means nothing
it also "dazzled" Niel Degrasse Tyson... who is not exactly stupid.
no, he's a stupid-person-dazzler
Ya because all the dumbasses of the world watch Nova and the Science channel regularly to be "dazzled". If by dazzled you mean fascinated, then yes I am dazzled by the infinite possibilities of the world we do not yet understand. I fail to see your logic here.
Neil has the credentials and eduactation to be respected by his colleagues. He just kmows how to put things into Layman's Terms, much like Michio Kaku. Does that make Michio a dud, too?
post by ThirdKnuckle at Mar 24,2012 9:05pm edited Mar 24,2012 9:52pm
I love stuff like this, it dazzles stupid people but means nothing
it also "dazzled" Niel Degrasse Tyson... who is not exactly stupid.
no, he's a stupid-person-dazzler
Ya because all the dumbasses of the world watch Nova and the Science channel regularly to be "dazzled". If by dazzled you mean fascinated, then yes I am dazzled by the infinite possibilities of the world we do not yet understand. I fail to see your logic here.
If you haven't already, read Carl Sagan's 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' and then listen to this again. The interviewer continually leads this conversation into the sensational, and Tyson allows him to do so.
Everyone knows that our fundamental understanding of the universe is based on mathematics; mathematics explains everything. But the language of mathematics, or more specifically, of equations (notation, syntax) is man-made and extremely limited. So it should be no great shock that equations used in computer code are also involved in string theory. Look up fractals. Oooooh!
Neil has the credentials and eduactation to be respected by his colleagues. He just kmows how to put things into Layman's Terms, much like Michio Kaku. Does that make Michio a dud, too?
No, there's 'layman's terms' and there's sensationalism, which currupts presentation of fact, misleads the layman and trades rigor for gosh-golly-WOW!!
