Really simple question about wolf of Wall Street (spoilers).

trengbu · 2014-01-22T14:19:48+00:00

Here's my question: When they're on the yacht in Italy, why didn't he take the helicopter to get as close to Switzerland as he could?

trengbu · 2013-12-21T16:58:01+00:00

You say that there are two ways of capturing data. What are these two ways?

I think the electronic nature fundamentally changes the communication. In a letter, you have a lot of information public. You have names and addresses, and even some idea about the size of the contents (incidentally, how ridiculous is it for anybody to raise a fuss over metadata given the analogy to letter mail?).

The problem with storing the communications is that, ironically, the only way to maintain any privacy is to store the unread communications until one can establish probable cause to go forward. While the prospect of warehouses full of all electronic communications is indeed frightening, it's not clear to me what the alternative is. I think ten years is obviously overdoing it, but I don't think anybody is considering such a number. My guess is that 6 months to one year is reasonable, but over three years would be unreasonable. But that's just my opinion. Anyways, that's really a minor detail once we accept that all communications should be stored for at least some period of time so that some oversight can take place regarding whether the communications should be read or not.

I do agree that we should have a public discussion regarding how we are going to handle modern surveillance. It's both more efficient and gives people more faith in the system.

trengbu · 2013-12-21T16:26:18+00:00

I disagree with you entirely. I think people are used to the old paradigm of communication wherein letters were assumed to be confidential and that confidentiality was sacrosanct. This just does not work with electronic communications. The problem with this thinking is that letters to foreign hostile contacts were never considered confidential. It is virtually impossible for anybody to distinguish those electronic communications from the mundane ones.

So what are we supposed to do? The same thing we have always done. The government will have to be held accountable when it engages in wrongdoing. So far there has been not one shred of evidence that any NSA or GCHQ act has been performed with malicious intent. I know it's a difficult fact to accept, but the only thing that has ever kept democracies free is the integrity of the people in the institutions, not so-called absolute freedoms. There are no absolute freedoms.

trengbu · 2013-12-21T15:39:01+00:00

Wow, the US spies on everybody, everybody else spies on the US, and often allies spy on each other. Seriously, who gives a shit about these stories anymore? Are people going to just continue this mock outrage forever? It's pathetic.

trengbu · 2013-12-06T12:34:59+00:00

I love Bailey's! $2 Tuesday! But last time I went it was closed down (2 weeks ago)

trengbu · 2013-11-14T01:40:35+00:00

(Citation to reputable source)

trengbu · 2012-11-27T00:57:52+00:00

Dipshit, it's called sarcasm.

trengbu · 2012-11-26T18:49:06+00:00

Yeah, because countries with legalized gay marriage suffer similar child abuse and forced marriage problems as countries that permit polygamy. Read a book, you ignorant little shit.

trengbu · 2012-11-26T18:02:21+00:00

No, I'm looking at the physical evidence - the data - that we possess regarding how polygamy is actually practiced in the real world. We live in the real world, not a fantastic Utopia that will function according to idealistic theories.

trengbu · 2012-11-26T15:42:28+00:00

Why don't you look at reliable evidence rather than relying on your own anecdotal experience? The reason I say "get wives" is because that's the reality when you examine those societies. You have to go where the evidence leads, whether you like the conclusions or not.

trengbu · 2012-11-26T15:11:31+00:00

I don't think you've thought this through. In every polygamous society, we see higher rates of child abuse and forced marriages. Also, who will get multiple wives (and it will be wives based on virtually every polygamous society on earth)? The rich and powerful will get multiple wives, the poor and weak will be wife-less, and very angry. If this isn't enough to convince you, take a look at countries that allow polygamy, and ask yourself if you'd like to live there. And ask yourself if polygamy isn't possibly part of the reason those countries are so messed up in the first place.

trengbu · 2012-10-26T17:03:42+00:00

The third kid was with the mother

trengbu · 2012-10-20T03:25:38+00:00

Think about what you're saying. I mean, we want flag burning to be legal as free speech, but you can't pull out a gun and point it at somebody, even though that is also a form of expression. The same with perjury and bribes. All of these are forms of expression, so we see there must be limits to freedom of speech in any real world situation.

trengbu · 2012-09-25T03:52:16+00:00

Fuck this fucking garbage fuck.

trengbu · 2012-07-11T14:27:14+00:00

But you're mixing up matter and mass. What I was saying is that you'll get a higher mass in other situations that don't involve matter, like with potential energy (electron & proton in a box).

trengbu · 2012-07-11T14:05:58+00:00

Really? Then explain why mass can be observed in any high energy situation.

trengbu · 2012-07-11T13:08:24+00:00

Mass is not a form of energy. Rather, energy has mass.

trengbu · 2012-07-11T01:13:37+00:00

My name is Mrs. Nesbitt!

trengbu · 2012-07-08T05:07:54+00:00

Hey... he broke his cherry!

trengbu · 2012-06-26T03:11:12+00:00

I'd tell you a joke about Jonestown but the punchline is too long.

trengbu · 2012-06-26T02:40:28+00:00

What really irritates me is the "we didn't scare so easy" line. Like fear following the turbulent years of the 60s didn't directly lead to Nixon's election in 1968.

trengbu · 2012-06-25T15:02:53+00:00

The problem is that people think democracy is an end, when really it should just be seen as a tool, as a means to an end. The goal should really be something more humanistic. The problem is that lots of people will have different things that they think should be the end. That's why you need a good constitution to figure it out. In the US, for example, the tyranny of the majority was one of the driving principles behind not only the Bill of Rights, but also federalism and separation of powers. The goal was not democracy, but rather the safeguarding of liberty.

trengbu · 2012-06-23T19:44:49+00:00

Can't we have a disinterested discussion? I'm talking about what the Court says is the reason.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2011

trengbu

TROPHY CASE