WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Not gonna happen. You quote people in stories to give arguments authority (again, not to toot my own horn, but I was a journalist for two decades). The only thing Jack is good for going forward is as an example of how the people who think videogames make children commit murder are themselves crazy. How hard is it to get disbarred? John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the opinion saying it was fine for the United States for disregard 100 years of treaties, international law, and the Geneva Convention and torture people, *he* hasn't been disbarred. Getting disbarred is really highly unusual, absent some kind of criminal conviction (like President Clinton's perjury charges). Jack's credibility is gone forever. I predict a new standard bearer against video game violence will arise: Female, mother with young children, probably calling herself doctor but with a PhD in education. You heard it here first...
Nah, without the "officer of the court" background, Jack is just another rabid loon. Television appearances are based on credentials, and Jack just got his yanked. As a former producer for CNN, I can state with some certainty that Jack's days as a talking -- OK, ranting -- head are over. He'll make a nice living on the lecture circuit though. Maybe start up his own church...
But now who will the teevee morons bring on to rant about how children who play videogames grow up to kill people? Well, maybe with the economy collapsing, they'll spend more time talking about stuff that matters...
I don't generally say this about people -- OK, Bill Gates -- but back when I was a journalist, I had occasion to interview Peter a number of times when he was with Sega. I'm sorry to say that he's an extraordinarily skillful liar. He has absolutely no compunction whatsoever about looking you right in the eye and flatly declaring something you both know is true is in fact false. It's quite a talent, but you've got to be a bit of a sociopath to pull it off properly.
Twenty years ago, if you repeatedly lied to a journalist (I mean really lied, not dodged or fuzzed or dissembled) reporters would just stop quoting you. We called it the death penalty. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, do a Google search for Larry Speakes, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, and you'll learn why you thought Marlin Fitzwater was Ronald Reagan's press secretary.
These days there's really no downside to lying to a reporter. Peter is a great example. You can probably think of a few others.
Gosh, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) disagrees with you: "There is now strong scientific evidence that the agent responsible for the outbreak of prion disease in cows, BSE, is the same agent responsible for the outbreak of vCJD in humans."
I would argue that it's hardly negligent to offer consumers the opportunity to purchase tested products, even if those tested products cost more (this is the same argument used with regard to "organic" products). For people like you, who are happy to assume an admittedly small risk in return for cheaper meat, feel free. For people like me, who would gladly pay a little extra for products that have been tested, why shouldn't I have the opportunity?
You can call this marketing if you wish; having seen the results of human infection with BSE I would gladly pay an extra nickel for my hamburger...
It was just this same sound mathematical policy that led to the deaths of 107 people in Britain from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Since the disease is extremely rare to begin with, testing samples don't really help you prevent the rare outbreak. Now, you might argue that there are cost benefit issues here, that a couple of hundred people who go mad and die in an agonizing fashion over several years doesn't justify testing every product sold, but others might disagree. I wonder if the US would block import of beef labelled as "tested for mad cow disease" as a threat to the market?
While individuals that make up a bureaucracy and even small insular beureaucratic groups sometimes engage in arbitrary and capricious uses of power, it's actually quite rare for an agency of the United States government to flex its muscles without some sort of clear objective beyond proving that they can.
This is clearly an attempt to protect the industry from being compelled to institute 100 per cent testing for all material due to competitive pressure. Not only is this repugnant from a purely "what kind of inhuman bastard would allow people to become infected with a horrible disease" perspective, it's also in direct violation of the free market mentra these soulless creatures swear by. Truly loathsome behavior.
Hmm. Would this include upload as well? I'm thinking that if you happened to have a number of highly desirable files in your P2P folder, other people grabbing a copy of your content might kick you up. Might this actually be the objective of such "reasonable" caps, to make people think twice before hosting such content?
Isn't the real issue here our continued reliance on passwords that can be used more than once? When are we going to move wholeheartedly into a single-use password environment?
Incidentally, when is somebody going to throw the fact that US banks have completely ignored the two-factor authentication requirement (part of the Patriot Act, I believe; maybe we should start sending *bankers* to Gitmo and see if *that* gets their attention) back at the finance industry when they start to squeal?
I bought two...that's how rich I am. But they killed the app before I could buy more. How can I prop up the economy through conspicuous consumption if they take all the insanely overpriced goods off the market?
In truth, this is the same concept as a $20,000.00 watch. If such a watch, you know, *controlled* time, that would be a great way to spend your money. Otherwise, you're just letting people know you can afford a $20,000.00 watch....
Failure to use a write blocker in the scenario you're describing could conceivably leave evidence that someone has been rummaging around the drive. I'd go ahead and remove it just to be safe...but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy.
Hmm. Standard internal investigation procedure: Wait until suspected bad actor has gone home, go into his office, remove hard drive from computer, use Ghost to create reasonably accurate copy of existing drive on another drive, replace duplicate drive in computer. Take your original drive back to your forensics lab, use your forensics software to make a forensically sound image of the original drive, lock the original drive in your safe in case a judge ever wants to see it, drill down through your forensic image at your leisure.
If you weren't especially interested in creating chain of custody documents, you'd just make a forensic image of the original drive and replace the original drive in the box. Then, absent tool marks or other evidence that the box had been opened, even a qualified forensic technician could swear under oath that there was no evidence that anybody had accessed the data on the box. And it wouldn't matter how many passwords you had on the box if it weren't encrypted...
A non-replaceable battery on your phone is a critical issue for those of us who use our cellphones frequently for business reasons. With my current phone, if I find myself on calls for four hours during during the day, and I'm worried about the battery running out of juice later in the afternoon, I can just slap in the spare, charged battery I lug around in my bag. I guess there are external chargers you can carry around and plug your iPhone into if you needed to, but then your phone rings and you're trying to do stuff with your cell plugged in to an external battery pack and whatnot.
A non-replaceable battery is just a poor design choice for a phone. It makes it much less functional for a lot of people.
The real deal killer for me is ATT. Not with a gun to my head. I need my telephone to ring when somebody calls me, not go into voice mail. I do carry an iPod touch, which I love, but if ATT offered a data only plan for people who weren't disabled, I'd grab an iPhone and sign up for that plan right away...
Except, in my opinion, it doesn't work. Or, to be more precise as a pocket computer, it's amazing. As a phone, however, it's craptacular. Phone calls on it are unbelievably bad. Like Eighties analog cell coverage in the mid-West bad. It's inexcusable.
Courts have held that a physical intrusion can be legally valid. In 1999, the FBI was granted a covert search warrant by a judge to install a physical key logger on a computer belonging to the son of mafia chieftain Little Nicky Scarfo after a search warrant revealed the computer had encrypted files. The feds came back in two months, pulled the encryption key off the key logger, and used that to crack the encrypted files. At trial in 2002, federal judges denied Scarfo's junior's claims that the intrusion violated his rights.
Not so common (few law enforcement agencies have the sorts of resources to make this a common occurence), but yes, that sort of thing is allowed if a judge authorizes it. The idea here is that the judge is supposed to be a neutral party who will evaluate whether law enforcement has enough evidence to justify this sort of thing. (One could do this without a judge's approval, but any data collected in such a fashion could not be used in court; plus you'd risk jail time yourself or at least you'd have your badge pulled).
That's the big reason that people in the US have become so enraged by the revelations about routine monitoring of telephone conversations of US citizens by US agencies with no oversight (we won't even discuss the fact that it was being done by the National Security Agency, which is actually forbidden by law to collect information within the United States...that's the FBI's job...)
Um, "forensic" software is typically designed to *prevent* the alteration of data. Otherwise you can't reliably go into court and prove that you haven't planted the evidence. Last I heard, Germany still embraced the concept of due process...
Not sure whether this is a crazy law passed by some locals that will be struck down by German courts, a bad write up, or a bad translation...
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court
By Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Not gonna happen. You quote people in stories to give arguments authority (again, not to toot my own horn, but I was a journalist for two decades). The only thing Jack is good for going forward is as an example of how the people who think videogames make children commit murder are themselves crazy. How hard is it to get disbarred? John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the opinion saying it was fine for the United States for disregard 100 years of treaties, international law, and the Geneva Convention and torture people, *he* hasn't been disbarred. Getting disbarred is really highly unusual, absent some kind of criminal conviction (like President Clinton's perjury charges). Jack's credibility is gone forever. I predict a new standard bearer against video game violence will arise: Female, mother with young children, probably calling herself doctor but with a PhD in education. You heard it here first...
Nah, without the "officer of the court" background, Jack is just another rabid loon. Television appearances are based on credentials, and Jack just got his yanked. As a former producer for CNN, I can state with some certainty that Jack's days as a talking -- OK, ranting -- head are over. He'll make a nice living on the lecture circuit though. Maybe start up his own church...
But now who will the teevee morons bring on to rant about how children who play videogames grow up to kill people? Well, maybe with the economy collapsing, they'll spend more time talking about stuff that matters...
I don't generally say this about people -- OK, Bill Gates -- but back when I was a journalist, I had occasion to interview Peter a number of times when he was with Sega. I'm sorry to say that he's an extraordinarily skillful liar. He has absolutely no compunction whatsoever about looking you right in the eye and flatly declaring something you both know is true is in fact false. It's quite a talent, but you've got to be a bit of a sociopath to pull it off properly.
Twenty years ago, if you repeatedly lied to a journalist (I mean really lied, not dodged or fuzzed or dissembled) reporters would just stop quoting you. We called it the death penalty. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, do a Google search for Larry Speakes, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, and you'll learn why you thought Marlin Fitzwater was Ronald Reagan's press secretary.
These days there's really no downside to lying to a reporter. Peter is a great example. You can probably think of a few others.
In the very old days, you had to build an object to get a patent. That requirement hasn't existed for a long time.
Gosh, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) disagrees with you:
"There is now strong scientific evidence that the agent responsible for the outbreak of prion disease in cows, BSE, is the same agent responsible for the outbreak of vCJD in humans."
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/vcjd/index.htm
I would argue that it's hardly negligent to offer consumers the opportunity to purchase tested products, even if those tested products cost more (this is the same argument used with regard to "organic" products). For people like you, who are happy to assume an admittedly small risk in return for cheaper meat, feel free. For people like me, who would gladly pay a little extra for products that have been tested, why shouldn't I have the opportunity?
You can call this marketing if you wish; having seen the results of human infection with BSE I would gladly pay an extra nickel for my hamburger...
It was just this same sound mathematical policy that led to the deaths of 107 people in Britain from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Since the disease is extremely rare to begin with, testing samples don't really help you prevent the rare outbreak. Now, you might argue that there are cost benefit issues here, that a couple of hundred people who go mad and die in an agonizing fashion over several years doesn't justify testing every product sold, but others might disagree. I wonder if the US would block import of beef labelled as "tested for mad cow disease" as a threat to the market?
While individuals that make up a bureaucracy and even small insular beureaucratic groups sometimes engage in arbitrary and capricious uses of power, it's actually quite rare for an agency of the United States government to flex its muscles without some sort of clear objective beyond proving that they can.
sigh. Mantra, not "mentra"...
This is clearly an attempt to protect the industry from being compelled to institute 100 per cent testing for all material due to competitive pressure. Not only is this repugnant from a purely "what kind of inhuman bastard would allow people to become infected with a horrible disease" perspective, it's also in direct violation of the free market mentra these soulless creatures swear by. Truly loathsome behavior.
Had to be a mistake. Who could possibly want to kill arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Hmm. Would this include upload as well? I'm thinking that if you happened to have a number of highly desirable files in your P2P folder, other people grabbing a copy of your content might kick you up. Might this actually be the objective of such "reasonable" caps, to make people think twice before hosting such content?
Isn't the real issue here our continued reliance on passwords that can be used more than once? When are we going to move wholeheartedly into a single-use password environment?
Incidentally, when is somebody going to throw the fact that US banks have completely ignored the two-factor authentication requirement (part of the Patriot Act, I believe; maybe we should start sending *bankers* to Gitmo and see if *that* gets their attention) back at the finance industry when they start to squeal?
I bought two...that's how rich I am. But they killed the app before I could buy more. How can I prop up the economy through conspicuous consumption if they take all the insanely overpriced goods off the market?
In truth, this is the same concept as a $20,000.00 watch. If such a watch, you know, *controlled* time, that would be a great way to spend your money. Otherwise, you're just letting people know you can afford a $20,000.00 watch....
Failure to use a write blocker in the scenario you're describing could conceivably leave evidence that someone has been rummaging around the drive. I'd go ahead and remove it just to be safe...but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy.
Maybe FAT32 sted of NTFS? The two gig limit is suggestive...
Hmm. Standard internal investigation procedure: Wait until suspected bad actor has gone home, go into his office, remove hard drive from computer, use Ghost to create reasonably accurate copy of existing drive on another drive, replace duplicate drive in computer. Take your original drive back to your forensics lab, use your forensics software to make a forensically sound image of the original drive, lock the original drive in your safe in case a judge ever wants to see it, drill down through your forensic image at your leisure.
If you weren't especially interested in creating chain of custody documents, you'd just make a forensic image of the original drive and replace the original drive in the box. Then, absent tool marks or other evidence that the box had been opened, even a qualified forensic technician could swear under oath that there was no evidence that anybody had accessed the data on the box. And it wouldn't matter how many passwords you had on the box if it weren't encrypted...
"As you yourself state, though, the iPhone - any cell phone, really - is not a mission critical device."
Actually, what he said was that an iPod is not a critical device for him, but his cell phone is. Same for me.
A non-replaceable battery on your phone is a critical issue for those of us who use our cellphones frequently for business reasons. With my current phone, if I find myself on calls for four hours during during the day, and I'm worried about the battery running out of juice later in the afternoon, I can just slap in the spare, charged battery I lug around in my bag. I guess there are external chargers you can carry around and plug your iPhone into if you needed to, but then your phone rings and you're trying to do stuff with your cell plugged in to an external battery pack and whatnot.
A non-replaceable battery is just a poor design choice for a phone. It makes it much less functional for a lot of people.
The real deal killer for me is ATT. Not with a gun to my head. I need my telephone to ring when somebody calls me, not go into voice mail. I do carry an iPod touch, which I love, but if ATT offered a data only plan for people who weren't disabled, I'd grab an iPhone and sign up for that plan right away...
Except, in my opinion, it doesn't work. Or, to be more precise as a pocket computer, it's amazing. As a phone, however, it's craptacular. Phone calls on it are unbelievably bad. Like Eighties analog cell coverage in the mid-West bad. It's inexcusable.
Courts have held that a physical intrusion can be legally valid. In 1999, the FBI was granted a covert search warrant by a judge to install a physical key logger on a computer belonging to the son of mafia chieftain Little Nicky Scarfo after a search warrant revealed the computer had encrypted files. The feds came back in two months, pulled the encryption key off the key logger, and used that to crack the encrypted files. At trial in 2002, federal judges denied Scarfo's junior's claims that the intrusion violated his rights.
Not so common (few law enforcement agencies have the sorts of resources to make this a common occurence), but yes, that sort of thing is allowed if a judge authorizes it. The idea here is that the judge is supposed to be a neutral party who will evaluate whether law enforcement has enough evidence to justify this sort of thing. (One could do this without a judge's approval, but any data collected in such a fashion could not be used in court; plus you'd risk jail time yourself or at least you'd have your badge pulled).
That's the big reason that people in the US have become so enraged by the revelations about routine monitoring of telephone conversations of US citizens by US agencies with no oversight (we won't even discuss the fact that it was being done by the National Security Agency, which is actually forbidden by law to collect information within the United States...that's the FBI's job...)
Um, "forensic" software is typically designed to *prevent* the alteration of data. Otherwise you can't reliably go into court and prove that you haven't planted the evidence. Last I heard, Germany still embraced the concept of due process...
Not sure whether this is a crazy law passed by some locals that will be struck down by German courts, a bad write up, or a bad translation...