Slashdot Mirror

Fact check? Not. Google whores for hillary http://www.democracynow.org/20... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... https://theintercept.com/2016/... https://aeon.co/essays/how-the... http://thehill.com/policy/tech... http://observer.com/2016/08/te...

... as though I'm going to trust a mega-corp for the truth.
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
https://capitalresearch.org/20...
https://www.spreaker.com/user/...
http://observer.com/2016/08/te...

I think everyone is a little confused about how the justice system works. As it stands, a secret committee can sign a secret death warrant to be executed by the president against American citizens abroad, and the US attorney general Eric Holder wouldn't rule out the possibility of said extra-judiciary process being used on Americans on US soil. So I don't blame Trump for thinking that maybe the POTUS can rule like an emperor from time to time.

Trump may understand however that the justice system is compromised, as demonstrated by Email-gate where Clinton has already promised to keep Lynch as the attorney general. This is why Trump is choosing senator Trey Gowdy to be attorney general, and if you've actually watched the house judiciary meetings you'd see that if anyone is capable of cutting through the bullshit to get to answers when in an actual position of power, it would be Gowdy. It could be the one good thing that comes from a Trump presidency.

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect, that an All-white jury may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.

Extreme reluctance to reject or disavow David Duke or other white supremacists

Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?

Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin? Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence and is responsible for at least one Jew getting killed by a Black mob? No, she not only didn't disavow the asshole, she actively sought his endorsement and attended a rally at his organization.

but many of the things he says and does are quite racist.

So far, the number of actual racist quotes is a perfect zero... Keep trying...

Read:

http://observer.com/2016/08/ns...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ve...

Other emails show DNC staff in damage control over allegations from the Sanders campaign, when a report - corroborated by a Politico - revealed the DNC’s joint fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign was laundering money to the Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats. Regardless of the fundraising tactics, because both major campaigns didn’t agree to use the joint fundraising committee super-PAC with the DNC, the DNC should have recused itself from participating with just the Clinton campaign.

Follow the money.

Are you saying FBI Director did not recommend prosecution because he did not think DoJ would prosecute

That is, how FBI's statement is worded. The real reason, of course, was a polite request from the White House. Clintons and Obamas hate each other and that's why the investigation was allowed to proceed as far as it did.

But, without any other credible options for Democrats come November, Obama held his nose and asked (ordered?) the FBI to stop it... For the good of the Party.

Couldnt he have just recommended prosecution and lay the blame on the DoJ then? Am I missing something?

He likely wanted to, but that was not deemed good enough for the ruling Democrats. Loretta Lynch is already known as a highly partisan figure in cahoots with Clintons. So Comey was asked to lend his credibility to the cause.

The entire Federal government is now pulling for Hillary — not only because she is the Government Party's candidate, but because she is a vindictive bitch — another fact known since the 1990ies. If she prevails and becomes President, those who opposed her will find themselves rather inconvenienced. Whereas if Trump wins, nothing bad will happen — Comey, for example, will likely retain his job.

Crushing a media organization under the power of one's wallet is NOT standing up for free speech. Even if it's a shitty company that was actually just used as a pawn for other rich people.I'm torn between celebrating this as a great victory and mourning it as a blow to an important pillar of society. Gawker wasn't just shitty for its hypocrisy on a variety of topics but for some seriously evil acts, not the least of which are directly related to the lawsuits at hand. In the end all I can say is I'm glad it's over and the world has a moment's rest before a "crowd funded" Totally-Not-Gawker picks up the pieces and starts spewing vileness again.

Very depressing: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... http://motherboard.vice.com/re... http://motherboard.vice.com/re... http://motherboard.vice.com/bl... http://www.newser.com/story/19... http://www.dailydot.com/techno... http://tech.slashdot.org/story... http://observer.com/2015/03/se... http://www.newser.com/story/22... http://tech.slashdot.org/story... http://www.newser.com/story/20...

Gutsy would imply an act of bravery

Committing a crime in a country with robust law enforcement takes bravery...

But this extortionist is not merely "gutsy" — the "stunt" is also described in the write-up as "daring"... Carefully selecting terms and adjectives for (not so) subtle spin — while remaining factually correct — is what they teach in journalism classes. But some people are just natural — Vladimir Putin's weaponized propaganda organization would be most interested.

When the subject is described as "gutsy" and "daring", the punishment seems excessive — even if only to subconsciousness. Were it "plucky" and "outrageous" and a "crime" (or, better yet, a "felony"), rather than a "stunt", you'd be less likely to develop any sympathy for the criminal.

It also helps prevent any sympathy for the victim of the crime — see, it is Mitt Romney's own fault, according to many posters here, not all of them anonymous. (Should not have worn so short a skirt, if he did not want to be raped.)

Podesta is taking a leaf from Trump's book: bury bad news under an outrageous and palpably nonsensical story.
In Trump's case he starts cracking menstruation jokes after a bad debate or primary loss, in Podesta's case, he's trying to distract attention from his involvement with Sberbank who are currently under the spotlight thanks to the Panama papers.

Fortunately for Trump, Podesta (and Hillary) the American public has the attention span of a stoner goldfish.

This is a sympathetic article designed to sow confusion about this stuff. The article made the true but irrelevant statement that of a recent batch of emails not many were classified and those not Top Secret; it repeated Hillary Clinton's assertion that nothing she sent or received was marked classified, without discussing what is questionable about that assertion; it didn't mention how many Top Secret emails were found, didn't mention the satellite data or the discussion of the names of spies, and didn't mention that about 7% of all the emails were classified at some level. It also didn't mention that the State Department offered a Blackberry and Huma Abedin said that idea "doesn't make a whole lot of sense." But the article did spend several paragraphs talking about how well she is doing in the primaries.

Problems with Hillary Clinton's claims that no material was marked classified:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/09/judicial-watch-hillary-e-mailed-classified-info-to-get-printout-without-any-identifiers/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Names of spies discussed in insecure email, lives probably lost:
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413033/Hillary-s-emails-contained-classified-information-HUMAN-SPYING-State-Department-says-won-t-meet-deadline-publish-emails.html

Satellite data discussed in emails:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3196774/Hillary-s-emails-contained-secret-CIA-intelligence-satellite-info-panic-hits-Democrats-campaign-issues-4-000-word-explanation-s-innocent.html

7% of emails classified... 2079 out of about 30,000:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/new-email-release-brings-final-total-of-classified-clinton-emails-to-2079.php

"doesn't make a whole lot of sense":
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/18/state-to-huma-in-2011-your-boss-better-get-an-official-e-mail-account/

P.S. So Hillary Clinton wanted a mobile device that could be used for secure communications, and was told "nope, that's not secure, you can visit the SCIF just like everyone else has to do." So naturally she just used her own insecure server to send and receive classified information, so she could use her mobile device. Great.

If President Obama doesn't pardon Hillary Clinton, she will have problems fr

What about services which allow you to admit houseguests with access to your network? There's already been an accusation of an AirBNB host leaving surreptitious webcams about: http://observer.com/2015/01/co... ...but it would be pretty simple for an unscrupulous guest to leave hidden cameras about to stream other guests' activities.

I predict a business model in selling modified routers or network attached devices that search for network behaviour indicating this.This is a specialised subset of IDS I guess. I could secure my own setup, but I kinda know what I'm doing, but I don't see 99% of hosts being able to do this, so get going, entrepreneurs! I could see an AirBNB API certifying LANs...

I believe the items below is what he was referring to. (Surely this sort of blatant ant-Israeli bias isn't new to you?)

Thousands of Israelis join lawsuit against Facebook over pages inciting violence
Facebook’s anti-Israel double standard on hate speech

Facebook and Israel: What’s Not to ‘Like’? Lots, It Seems

An experiment: Make one anti-Israel page and one anti-Palestinian page. Wait to see what happens. . . .

Shurat HaDin also posted graphic photos on both pages. For example, a photograph on the anti-Israel page featured a young girl preparing to punch an Israeli soldier, with text reading, “these children will liberate Palestine with blood.” That photograph was mirrored on the anti-Palestine page by a picture of a bare-chested Israeli soldier wielding a gun and vowing war with all Arabs.

On Dec. 30, Shurat HaDin reported both pages as violating Facebook standards, using Facebook’s report mechanism of a simple button-click available to all users. Within 24 hours, Facebook sent the NGO a message that the anti-Palestine page it reported had been closed down for “containing credible threat of violence” and that it had “violated our [Facebook’s] community standards.” The page immediately became inaccessible to all Facebook users.

The complaint about the anti-Israel page (which had spiraled into an explicitly anti-Jewish page) also received a reply from Facebook. This reply stated that the content was “not in violation of Facebook’s rules.”

Facebook changed its tune after Jan. 4, when Shurat HaDin published a video detailing the experiment, which made waves in the Israeli press and on social media.

Facebook Caves on Israel Hate Page

Exclusive: Social network rescinds earlier decision to allow page that incites violence . . . .

“Unfortunately we do not believe it was a simple ‘mistake’ as Israelis and Jews worldwide have been relentlessly protesting that Facebook is completely unresponsive to this type of Palestinian incitement to violence,” said Shurat HaDin founder and Israeli attorney, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. “Two months ago we filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court on behalf of over 20,000 Israeli citizens, seeking an injunction against Facebook for “intentionally disregarding the widespread incitement and calls for murder of Jews being posted on its web pages by Palestinians. This simple experiment and its results speak for themselves.”

Israeli NGO says Facebook test proves anti-Israel bias

An experiment by the Israel Law Center sees the social network banning anti-Palestinian incitement, while anti-Israel hate remains online

Gotta look at unlikely targets or Obama's gonna be pissed!

Investigation has revealed that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were radicalized long before they embarked on their mass murder spree. Both had engaged in online radicalism for years and it’s evident that a devotion to violent hatred brought the couple together; speculation in counterintelligence circles that Malik was actually the prime mover of the couple’s jihadism – and may even have been a provocateur – are plausible but not yet substantiated.

What is known, however, is that Malik, a Pakistani national who had lived for years in Saudi Arabia, had written extensively on her public social media accounts about her ardent desire to wage jihad and seek martyrdom in the name of radical Islam. Americans who are accustomed to having their social media accounts examined whenever they apply for a job have questions here, and rightly so.

can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????

Jeb can fix it!

You are a moron.

For starters Hunt stepped down from his position.
Secondly it's now common knowledge that the reporter took his original comments out of context and choose to withhold the entire thing for her personal agenda.

http://observer.com/2015/07/la...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...

Unfortunately weeks of slander can't be undone by a couple articles pointing out how wrong they were to slander him.

You may be interested to know that Sam Yagan, who was the founder of OkCupid and now the CEO of match.com(?), at one point wrote a super-detailed blog post (including graphs and all) titled "why you should never pay for online dating", where he basically eviscerated the idea of paid dating sites.

Then match.com bought OkCupid and the post was taken down: http://observer.com/2011/02/ok...

Fortunately, as well all know, anything posted online is likely to never go away: http://static.izs.me/why-you-s...

Really a very interesting read.

No, but we do need to make a decision about the plural of emoji.

Because the Daily Caller would never do that!

Mod AC up.

The trial court ruling is how things ought to be, but how things actually are is a much different story, as reflected by the CAFC and SCOTUS.

You need a vanishingly small amount of originality to meet the copyrightability threshold. Like choosing categories for yellow pages rather than listing everything alphabetically. Like selecting and arranging public domain stories. Like adding a few lines to someone else's pictures.

It's worth arguing that even by the lowest standards, the APIs do not possess even a modicum of creativity. It's also worth arguing that they are so purely functional on a basic and elementary level that they should not be afforded copyright protection at all. But since the higher court rulings force us to concede copyrightability arguments, what's left to argue is that Google's use of these validly copyrighted APIs was fair and thus permissible.

Saying that this launch failure has certainly

Not saying it is a certainty — but rather a possibility, which should not be ruled out.

Russia today is proudly claiming legacy of the country and organization, which once sent agents to kill John Wayne — for trying to drive Communists out of Hollywood. Compared to that, crippling an enemy's space program is a perfectly normal and even noble thing to do.

Wikipedia does not qualify as evidence--it would not be admissible as evidence of a crime. Don't cry wolf on that because when police really do tamper with evidence, it's a *LOT* more serious than making updates to Wikipedia.

Sometimes the court of public opinion is the only place you can get justice, because you won't get it in the (snicker) grand jury or the courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

Tampering with evidence is something that the courts regard as a venial sin a few steps lower in their priorities than caging free coffee and donuts from coffee shops.

There's a long history of pigsxxxx cops getting caught red-handed lying under oath, not just once but as a routine practice. I'm hard pressed to think of a case when they were held to account (except for one with a probationary officer who knocked an innocent cyclist off his bicycle and arrested him).

http://observer.com/2015/03/ca...
California Prosecutor Falsifies Transcript of Confession
Court of Appeal slams Attorney General Kamala Harris again
By Sidney Powell
03/04/15

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04...
Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest
By JIM DWYER
April 12, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa...

Holding a cop liable for tampering with evidence is about as likely as the Ferguson government saying, "You're right. Our conscience can't take any more demonstrations. We'll abolish the government and hold new elections, democratic ones this time."

Charlie Hebdo is a cultural icon in France. Besides that, if you don't follow french politics/discourse you won't get most of their jokes. Here's an interview with R. Crumb which puts some perspective on the issue: http://observer.com/2015/01/le...
the gist of it:
Q: These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.
A: [Laughs.] No, they can’t.

Truly, public housing solved poverty to exactly the same degree that free broadband will "solve" the digital divide. I'm sure that the upstanding U.S. citizens who live in public housing will take it upon themselves to learn how to code and contribute Open Source software to the world in complete gratitude for this benevolent entitlement.

The geek's own sense of upper middle class entitlement, his being part a privileged class, is the first thing you discover when reading Slashdot. It doesn't matter whether he is really making that kind of money or would know how to manage it properly if he did.

Alms for the Upper Middle Class: Subsidized Apartments Aim at $200K Earners

Alexa offers a reminder that the Slashdot reader is most likely still in school. Who visits slashdot.org? The prospect of facing long-term unemployment, crushing debt, aging and ill health are not quite real to him yet.

I don't need their gratitude --- and I don't give a damn whether the poor learn to code or have any desire to contribute to Open Source. What I do give a damn about is breaking through the social and physical isolation which has been the lot of the poor in every generation.

Oh for fuck's sake, what does liberal have to do with communism?

Modern American Illiberals advocate bigger government role in the citizenry's every day lives. The bigger government needs higher taxes to support it, so, of course, taxes go up and up. Socialism/Communism aren't a binary (yes or no), they are gradual and can be measured — the measure is the percentage of GDP, that comes from spending by the government. Between Federal, State, and local governments nation-wide today, our percentage already exceeds 50%. Which means, the fate of over half of the monies spent by Americans is decided not by themselves, but by the politicians they elect.

That is Socialism creeping up, which I refer to as Communism-lite and its proponents, who defile the proud name of Liberals by their invalid claims to the name — commies-lite. But the differences between Socialism and Communism are slight — indeed, per Karl Marx himself, the former leads to the latter — they are both Collectivist regimes, emphasizing the (Glorious) Collective over a (greedy) Individual. "It takes a village" — right?

Are you trying to convince anyone that Stalin was a liberal?

Oh, it all changes, once the "liberal" gets to actual power. As Lenin was explaining in his writing, for example, "we use bourgeois's freedom of press to further our cause, but, once we prevail, the freedom should be curtailed". Look at Obama — NSA's roles expanding, TSA ever more obnoxious, IRS is used to suppress opposition, while Capitalism is being sabotaged by regulations and politically-motivated prosecutions. That he is not using the outright violence of Stalin, is because his country — and its traditions — aren't Russia-like...

But let's not get hung-up on Stalin, who (along with Hitler — another Collectivist), got so much negative press, that speaking fondly of them arouses nothing by (well-deserved) ridicule. How about Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez? Both are idols to American Illiberals — even though they turned their respective countries into shitholes. And Che Guevara — every Illiberal has a T-shirt with his likeness in their closet.

Here is a quiz for you — can your recognize the person behind each quote?

Or you can just rig the system, like Obama's advisers do, apparently.

All the President’s Muses: Obama and Prosecutorial Misconduct

The system, it seems, is connected via Wi-Fi and that connection keeps failing.

So I suppose if that DOESN'T fix it, they'll remove the sign and allow active cellphones again? (Hmm, I thought metal objects mostly wouldn't be allowed in the building. Is that only Federal stuff?) That being said, I could certainly understand a judge not wanting to hear ringtones in their active courtroom.

I listen to shows with captioning turned on for almost everything. I presume having this is the courtroom allows the judge to easily review testimony earlier in the trial? (Or are they listening to music on earbuds and only start to pay attention when the transcriptionist STARTS WRITING IN UPPER CASE? :-) )

Lastly, bring in a laptop and sit in the audience, and intercept or change the written record. "I didn't do it!" becomes "What's your problem, you slutty judge?" Or then again there's this guy...

Meanwhile in Brooklyn someone waits four hours for an ambulance. I suppose four hours is better than eight, although the reason he stopped waiting appears to be that he had died.

This isn't a feature of one health system or another - every system has problems like that; it's a result of living in the real world, without limitless resources. A system that had enough resources to avoid disruption at peak demand would be ludicrously over-provisioned 99% of the time. The perfect is the enemy of the good - try to build a system that never has capacity problems and you won't be able to afford even basic care.

Icahn cares about making as much money as possible, as do the big institutional shareholder and Silver Lake, but what about Mr. Michael Dell? At least one pundit thinks he's after exactly the same thing and nothing but.

As I read the posts, one of the sub texts is that there are a bunch of career opportunities for you.

The opportunities are geographically spotty and some of the opportunities might be within the company you work for now.

One way of looking at the problem is first is one of your underlying assumptions that you are going to stay in your present home? OK yes. So how many companies within a reasonable drive are there and why not make a sorted list of the nearest and most desirable. Out of that list pick a few companies to use for practice. Research the companies and slowly do one informational interview. Solve the problem of being well dressed, driving up in a presentable car, knowing all kinds of stuff about the company, and developing a model of what kind of automation strategy they are following, what equipment and software they have used, and how strong they feel about their success in automating. Then, having researched the kind of stuff the company ought to be doing or having determined how the implementation process is going, seek an informational interview with an internal affairs executive.

When you have the small things working, like having some printouts and flow charts in a briefcase. Do an informational interview with a high value candidate for your next career move. There are two reciprocal motions taking place, you are solving the problem of presenting yourself as a plausible high and equal status problem solving player on a specific field of activity. Yes I said 'status'. See the last quarter NY Review of Books article reviewing Tom Wolfe's books for a discussion of status. Or this article http://observer.com/2012/10/tom-wolfe-has-blood-on-his-hands-back-to-blood-reviewed/ The second problem is having well tuned and thought provoking questions for your interviewee.

I am 65 and I transitioned out of a lacklustre computer career and I am holding a low pay school aide job for at least 4 more years and probably as long as I can keep working. Well money isn't going to be my legacy for the kids so I have compromised for a dual strategy: I am going to be an aide of excellence and then to give my kids something to be proud of, I am running for a minor elected position in my community. The HR departments can take their age bias and eat it. Changing your status and acquiring the competence to support work at that level you can do.

There is always the z axis if you want to change your plane of operation.

"According to New York State and municipal legislation, electric bikes are 100 percent illegal to ride. The good news for e-bike proponents? The laws regarding the bikes are so contradictory and confusing that you’d be hard-pressed to find a police officer who would give you a ticket."
http://observer.com/2012/08/hell-on-wheels-environmentally-friendly-electric-bikes-poses-city-menace-or-do-they/

The New York Times gets a lot of (often well-deserved) criticism for its science reporting—but in this case, this isn't science reporting at all. It's written by Mark Bittman, and according to his website, Wikipedia, and various other sources, the author is a food writer and editor with a degree in psychology whose background mainly consists of writing and editing cookbooks and cooking magazines (and driving a cab).

Yes, pedigree doesn't mean everything and good science can come from people who aren't scientists. But still, consider the source and take it with whatever size grain of salt you feel is warranted.

Didn't I see the main actor, Woody Harrelson, using Propenso Calc(tm) during the engaging feature-film, RAMPART ?? I believe I did...

Apple camp followers have little respect for the law

Replying to self with links:

Lawsuit in 2008 over NYPD denying press passes to online publications -- http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/nypd-is-sued-over-denial-of-press-credentials/

Recent spat over arresting journalists in OWS sweep -- http://www.observer.com/2011/11/bloomberg-spokesperson-admits-arresting-credentialed-reporters-reading-the-awl/

Except it's a private park. Good work though.

The relevant laws apply to both public and private parks open to the public. The owners, Brookfield, requested that the city enforce the law.

The Mayor: "We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park."
The Owners: "In our view, these risks were unacceptable and it would have been irresponsible to not request that the City take action,"
http://www.observer.com/term/brookfield-properties/

I had to look at similar options. I might take 50,000 pictures in a year, all raw, and I needed to find a good solution. Losing images means I could be sued (and I actually carry malpractice insurance for photography).

My conclusion: using only local storage or only remote storage is dangerous. Use both.

Using only local storage, no matter how many backups you have and how often you refresh them, is vulnerable to your house burning down or burglary. Even ignoring refreshing the data, storage media are vulnerable to obsolescence. Try reading a 9-track tape nowadays -- even if the tape is good, it'll be tough to get the data.

Using only remote storage is highly vulnerable to sites simply going out of business or deleting your images. And if a site goes down, they don't care if you sue them -- you still lost your images. Flickr has, in the past, simply deleted someone's archives and was unable to restore them.

Initially, my backups consisted of a USB HD stored in a fire safe. Nowadays, I use a combination of both local and remote storage. I purchased a "pro" account on an image hosting service (smugmug, in this case) which has unlimited image storage (and the option for backups of any file types), and I also have a 10TB NAS. The local NAS holds the raw image backups, and after they're processed, I upload them to hidden galleries on my pro account as JPGs. If my house burns, I might need to do a reshoot of the past week, but everything processed is backed up offsite in some usable format.

I highly recommend Synology NAS solutions for local storage, which are open source and actively encourage ports and enhancements to their systems, and they have an excellent admin panel. This is unlike Drobo, who has their system fairly locked down...

Sure, it has the word "drone" in its name, but a Parrot AR.Drone is not a drone. The "Daily Drone" is a Parrot AR.Drone, a remote-controlled quadricopter that has no drone capability. It has to be flown by a real person from an iThingy.

Published: September 1, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.

  As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.

The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne

The ones in charge, Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, have known about this for years and approved of it. They are the ones who should be charged, not the pianists, i.e. the reporters. They did what they were told to do.

Read more at http://www.observer.com/2010/media/new-york-times-goes-after-murdoch-and-news-world-phone-hacking-scandal

"When The Times reporters asked one veteran News of the World reporter how many people in the offices knew about the hacks, the reporter said “Everyone knew The office cat knew."

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12hacking.html?_r=1&ref=world
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/world/europe/11britain.html?ref=world

The evidence is there, and everywhere, Murdoch and Brooks are scum.

Paywalls fail.

Angy Birds, for example, collects a heck of a lot of personal information on the iPhone. Why? Because the user isn't warned about it. Their Android application has so far been much cleaner, mostly because Android asks the user to give the app permission to access certain data.

Link: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/angry-birds-and-other-must-have-apps-collect-more-personal-data-you-think

Not much of a distinction because if you don't agree you don't get to play.

Angy Birds, for example, collects a heck of a lot of personal information on the iPhone. Why? Because the user isn't warned about it. Their Android application has so far been much cleaner, mostly because Android asks the user to give the app permission to access certain data.

Link: http://www.observer.com/2010/media/angry-birds-and-other-must-have-apps-collect-more-personal-data-you-think

West Side Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D - NY) led an effort by House Democrats yesterday to end the war in Afghanistan by stripping funding for military operations there.

The current budget earmarks $100 billion for the war there, despite the fact, as Nadler notes, there are believed to be fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives. Nadler proposed cutting the budget figure to $10 billion, which is believed to be the amount necessary to safely withdraw troops there.

Right?

.

A Drupal site doesn't have to look like anything in particular (especially a stock Drupal site with a blue theme and "Drupal devil" icon).

Here's

a newspaper: http://observer.com/
a magazine site: http://www.economist.com/
a discussion site: http://dailypaul.com/
a parody site: http://www.theonion.com/

And some more: 45 Drupal Sites Which You May Not Have Known Were Drupal Based

http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/look-what-web-dragged-google-terrifies-public-mysterious-balls has a video. All I could find.

A lot of critics liked it, but quite a few, including Rex Reed and David Edelstein destroyed it. I'm with them, personally. It seems to be fairly polarizing.

Here's one newspaper who tried it.
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

It cost them $4m dollars to set up the paywall. They got 35 subscribers at $5 per week, so it would take 440 years just to recover the cost of setting up the paywall, assuming no transaction charges.

Because humans are horribly bad at assessing actual risk. That's why people are afraid of flying, but more people are killed per passenger mile when driving. A plane crash is much more dramatic, and hence, takes hold of people's fears and makes them go WAY out of their way to avoid it, even at the expense of actual safety. Same with the markets, terrorism, and thinking of the children with all our various "war on X" movements.

If by miracle my post is not drowned down into depths of oblivion, note that Dubya was depicted tens of times with very unflattering altered photos, and so was Cheney, while the W. administration was in power - and nobody complained.
See this or this, for example.

Also, while Mc Cain was campaigning, this rather shocking picture was publicized by The Atlantic - who later recanted and apologized - but the point is, nobody in the McCain camp complained, let alone did you have public and officers making a fuss about it.

But with Obama, the thought police is up in arms bigtime.

And they are right to be: Obama is sacred and he farts rainbows, and his words are words of wisdom, and he poops gold nuggets. And Obama won't speak up: it is the Will of the People that is against any criticism of the Beloved President.