If some guy sitting in a basement in Lithuania can get and keep all of this information plus drain your bank account, why is it so surprising when the US government can get the same information? I'm really not too concerned about this. They're not interested in arresting people for attending political rallies and activism, they want to know who is willing to carry a bomb into an airport. When they find such a person and save hundreds of lives who is complaining then?

I think it's really vindicating when their "contact" turns out to be an FBI agent who gave them fake bombs. It's kind of like getting a guy to describe in detail how his girlfriend is in bed and he doesn't know she's standing right behind him.

taking out all the sound deadening will definitely make your car sound faster

So racer X just copy pasted the entire "End the Lie" blog for us, thank you for that obviously unbiased source. I'll attempt to illuminate another side of the issue:

I can see why ISPs like Time Warner and AT&T are involved with the RIAA and movie producers. They are both also cable TV and PPV providers. Audio and video entertainment is one the United State's most valuable exports, currently being stolen and distributed for profit all over the world.

Again i think people are seriously overestimating the power of the US government to individually investigate every single internet user in the world.

bbman the government doesn't establish cybersecurity providers, they already exist (Norton, Symantec, Mcafee) The point of encouraging them to share info with the government and between themselves is so that networks can be more adaptable to emerging security threats. They don't need to...hack themselves... nor would it be illegal.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they don't have the resources because a lot of hackers operate from Russia but they don't seem to get caught very often.

I don't think they have the manpower to randomly investigate people

wagons ftw

I'm not very computer-savvy I don't even know how to use torrents or proxies. So i'm not insinuating anything I actually don't know the best way for the government to protect against cyber attacks. The answer may be more political than technical, with the US leaning on foreign governments to enforce US copyrights or simply being given permission to arrest and extradite foreign cyber criminals.

Just to play devil's advocate because I don't think congress has any idea what they're doing, but US internet users, corporations, and institutions have almost no defense against anonymous foreign hackers who steal financial information and copyrighted material. I don't know how they could catch any of these guys who are making millions illegally but live in countries where either the government ignores (or promotes) cyber attacks like China, or countries that don't have the resources to catch cyber criminals like in Russia.

Is there a way to protect US networks from harmful cyber attacks that originate in countries outside of the US government's juristiction without monitoring internet traffic?

A large scale attack on US networks would be very a expensive disaster because of a possible disruption of many different types of infrastructure. I want the government to protect me from foreign attacks because that's actually something they're supposed to do, but also I don't want them to see my fap folder because its not even hidden that good.

they were trying to be more annoying than you

He flipped out and ran over people with his car on purpose, unless you think gunning it into a crowded street fair sounds like an accident. Harsh punishment, but he wouldn't have been convicted if all of the witnesses at a street festival had not been in agreement that it was deadly driving.

it's not my car but I think the wood is photoshopped

older Volvo prices are artificially inflated by people thinking you can drive a car ironically, otherwise I would love to own a rwd wagon with a turbo 4cylinder.

here you go

Everyone knows that drinking alcohol and buying souvenirs in different countries makes you more cultured and above the reproach of ****s.

dog testicles?

I can imagine a drug education program run by you two.

"weed is okay, heroin is okay sometimes, meth gives you bad teeth, and X is fun at parties. Good luck!"

Not "You could end up spending all of your money and energy trying to get a drug that no longer gives you satisfaction just to avoid the crushing pain of detoxification or possible death. You will lose your friends, family, job, and the ability to hold a normal conversation. You will rely on others to deliver food and goods to you when you can no longer go outside because strangers cringe at your ruined body and mothers pull their children away from you. The police will arrest you for passing out in a puddle of your vomit in the kid's play structure at McDonald's and you will go to jail. You will forced to quit cold turkey until you are released. When you go home you will use again to stop the pain, but it will be too much and you will overdose. Since no one knows you and you never go outside, the police will only find your decomposing body after the landlord comes to collect the rent. No one will react to news of your death because essentially you died years ago."

Last edited by flymike91, Wed 18 Apr 2012, 00:11.

Quote from AndreNZ :

I want the state to extract revenge from me only if I harm others, is that too much to ask?

No it isn't, but neither should the government reward you with taxpayer money if you decide to use hard drugs. The main reason the single-payer healthcare system is so reviled in the US is because the majority here doesn't want to pay for the poor decisions of others (or really be forced to pay for anything for strangers.) The difference between suspending free medical services for junkies and not fat people is that heroin and meth addiction can only be harmful, while cheeseburgers can be eaten in moderation and when no other food is available. It takes 4-5 times taking heroin to become addicted within a month or so and no longer have the choice of when and how to take it.

you're seeing increased supply and availability of deadly and highly addictive drugs as a benefit. Any experiment to legalize hard drugs should be mainly focused on making it impossible to create new addicts, which across the board legalization does not do. Why would the government pay junkies by giving them their fix, when they could pay to force them into rehabilitation so they can potentially become productive citizens? When has a junkie become clean in a government institution and said they were better off before?

Every child in the US goes through a police-sponsored drug education program. Every US citizen knows that hard drugs are bad for you and illegal to use because of this education program. The 'armed kidnapping' analogy implies that people are unaware that you can be arrested and incarcerated for having hard drugs. If they have the brain cells left to remember 5th grade then it shouldn't be a surprise.

Last edited by flymike91, Tue 17 Apr 2012, 16:17.

somehow I don't think that's exactly true blueflame but it wouldn't surprise me if luxury cars depreciate quicker in the UK when the cost to run and insure them is astronomical compared to the US.

*edit: you're kind of right except you're overestimating the value of the dollar compared to the British pound. For 8500 pounds sterling (~13,500 USD) I could buy a much nicer model.

Last edited by flymike91, Mon 16 Apr 2012, 21:18.

just like your sample of you taking heroin a few times and having a sick girlfriend means that heroin doesn't cause illness. I'm saying that no one is forced to take drugs because of their social status, just like no one is forced to commit murder because they were abused as a child. It's a cop-out for lack of responsibility.

Weed is cheaper than any other illegal drug and far safer. I have no desire or curiosity for any other drug because I know what they do to people. So whats the difference between me and you, kev, that makes me satisfied with weed and you want to try heroin? Is it social status? Education? You want to improve your look?

why would addicts be any more able to afford their drug if it were legal? It's not like pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of medicines that people need to live. Do you think tax money should be used to buy heroin for junkies if they can't afford it?

It puts the government in a situation it should never be in, both providing hard drugs and discouraging their use. Whether you think it's moral or not it will never happen.

Also what social problems cause drug abuse? Drug abuse is a choice. I knew a girl here in Texas, beautiful, rich family, hopelessly addicted to heroin. She never had any problems except her parents enabled her with a $600 per month allowance.

If just marijuana were legalized it would go a long way towards solving the problem. People want to get high, there should be at least one safe, legal way to do it. I don't think all or nothing is a logical way to think about it.

Quote from e2mustang :

Dont ever like a benz.u'll regret it

funny that's what I always hear about BMW's

imo a lot of what happens is blogs like speedhunters always try to be on top of the next big fad and push them on people. They have been posting pics of this Golf with the inside-out wheels every week for more than a month despite everyone saying it looks horrible. I guess they figure if they post it enough people will start to like it and every Golf will have inside-out wheels this year.

I already made my point. Sounds like you're confusing yourself.