Financially, despite the suspicions of some here, "jack-booted thugs" are not cheap. They require a constant upkeep--not just when they're first used, but on a continuing basis. Can you imagine the damage that one of your enforcers could do to you if you stopped paying him?
However, there is one form of cost that may outweigh finances--operational secrecy. If the aforementioned jack-booted thugs come to somebody's house (or several somebody's houses) in the middle of the night and people just start "disappearing," rumors are going to get out, and those with something to hide will take steps. But are you going to get suspicious if a telco truck parks down the street for a half hour, never to be seen again?
If you're that worried about rubber hose decryption, then perhaps you should stop using the computer at all. After all, tempest gear is cheaper than that particular form of brute force.
Affect something? Most likely, though that is a complete and total guess, not knowledge--without evidence we do not know what it affects, or how. Without knowing what and how it affects, we cannot know if said effect is good or bad.
I'm not saying it's "automatically good" or even "automatically OK." I'm saying it's a complete and total unknown until it is investigated.
That always seemed like such a lame ending to that particular episode. "Sleep"--what the hell kind of "Destroy the Borg" command is that? "Drop defenses" I can see. "Power down weapons" makes sense. Hell, "Shut down the garbage compactors on the detention level" had more class!
The energy is one part of an ecosystem. I find it disconcerting that people would question if it is "harmful".
I take the view that everything is open to question until the evidence is in. Indeed, it is from these questions that we can develop a plan to assess potential impact.
One important factor there is whether or not energy at the coastline is beneficial, harmful, or neutral to the coastline (and the marine life there). If a reduction in energy has a neutral effect on marine life and reduces erosion, a reduction of energy may actually be a good thing.
It would appear that Congress passing the bill in question (and I think we both agree that calling the legislation "questionable" is a rather large understatement of the tragic miscarriage of justice it represents) does, in fact, render the federal judge's rulings irrelevant, thus stripping the judiciary of the power to act as a proper interpreter of existing law [at the time the crimes were committed by the telcos] (catching my breath now).
Dude, breathe!:D
Seriously, I can now see why it looks that way to you (and it puzzled me how someone could equate making a case moot with "stripping" a judge of power). It's... well, now that I understand it, it's not so much that I disagree as I see it differently. But I can also dig (and completely respect) different points of view.
[insert something about corn cobs and fecal exit portals here]
Ouch. I grew up on a midwestern corn farm. Just... ouch.:D
I didn't see anything in TFA, but one wonders if they've considered sediment buildup around the device. Do they have some way to keep sand/sediment from burying the machine?
I think you've either been trolling throughout this thread
No, trolling would be accusing you of being a shill for Politician N because of your statement. (N, of course, can be replaced by Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Paul, RuPaul, or even Hitler if we want to tread into Godwin territory.) Well, that would at least be one example... I'm sure we can both think of others.
I read the article summary. I read TFA before i made my first post in this thread. And I still--vehemently--disagree.
If the bill passes (which looks unavoidable at this point), that does not affect the judge's power one whit. It makes the upcoming case moot, which is a specific legal term.
If demanding accuracy (and honesty, if that is an issue) is a lack of having something intelligent to say, then may I say, from the bottom of my "unintelligent" heart, that you may keep your inaccurate and dishonest article summaries and sodomize yourself with them. Vigorously and repeatedly.
Bush is not going to be impeached. Even as much as I disapprove of many of his actions, I honestly do not know if they qualify under the "High crimes and misdemeanors" clause.
But then again, getting a blowjob and lying about it was enough to get Slick Willy impeached. One wonders if the law means anything when it stands between a politician and what that politician wants.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. No wonder you posted as an AC--you're spouting shit to the point where AHole is more apropos.
Bush will be out next January. He may honestly believe that he helped America, or he may realize that he's fucked a lot of things up. But he will go to his grand retirement, content to speak at the occasional big-ticket event, and do his best to spin his actions into a positive legacy.
Crapulous remarks like those from AC above (no doubt inspired by metal toxins from the tin foil he's wrapped his head in) can be ignored like the lying bullshit that they are.
Someone else has already pointed out that the Slashdot headline was virtually identical to the one Wired put above the article.
And as I said to that someone else, whatever the article title (usually written by a copy editor, not by the journalist who wrote the article) says, the actual article itself (written by the journalist who did the research) says nothing of the sort.
Unless you also wish to take an unconscionable "They did it first" policy to inaccuracy and/or dishonesty in article summaries, I see no point to your statement.
nb: If someone with mod points chooses to take me to task for my brusque tone, I'm willing to take the bad karma. As I've said before in this discussion, accuracy and honesty are far more important than karma.
Then, as a lawyer, you are aware of the importance of context. If you wish to object to my statements, then perhaps you should object to them in the context in which they are presented, rather than picking out the particular sound-bites that can be spun into arguable statements.
Picking out isolated phrases from an argument and stripping them from their context is a dishonest way to summarize an argument. But then again, I'm not a lawyer...accuracy and honesty are far more important than simply "winning the argument."
2. It wouldn't matter if the judge could re-arrange his schedule. The Telcos would ask for a continuance (based on the disruption of schedule), and if the judge refused to allow it, any decision handed down would immediately be slapped silly on procedural grounds.
3. Bush supports Telco immunity. If nothing else, he'd probably just pardon those convicted.
So, are you arguing that Soulskill and Palegray are too stupid to see that the article made no such assertion? Or that their attempt at an attention-grabbing headline is OK because "Wired did it first"?
In what I am given to understand is a grand, old Slashdot tradition, the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article. Neither Congress nor the Executive branch is attempting to "strip power" from this or any other judge. They are (foolishly, IMO) retroactively legalizing a series of illegal acts, and making moot a case or series of cases currently pending on said judge's schedule, but the judge's authority is not one whit affected by the proposed law.
Shame on Soulskill and Palegray for this false-faced spin-doctoring.
And yes, reading TFA and actually expecting the summary to at least remotely resemble the article is evidently proof that I'm new here.
Slashdot Mirror
Taiwan culture is not US culture, of course. I imagine that even Geek culture is different between the two cultures.
Financially, despite the suspicions of some here, "jack-booted thugs" are not cheap. They require a constant upkeep--not just when they're first used, but on a continuing basis. Can you imagine the damage that one of your enforcers could do to you if you stopped paying him?
However, there is one form of cost that may outweigh finances--operational secrecy. If the aforementioned jack-booted thugs come to somebody's house (or several somebody's houses) in the middle of the night and people just start "disappearing," rumors are going to get out, and those with something to hide will take steps. But are you going to get suspicious if a telco truck parks down the street for a half hour, never to be seen again?
So my proposal makes the most sense.
New Ubuntu packages:
1: TrueCrypt (regular install)
2: Truecrypt Super-sekrit *depends: tin-foil-hat
If you're that worried about rubber hose decryption, then perhaps you should stop using the computer at all. After all, tempest gear is cheaper than that particular form of brute force.
Affect something? Most likely, though that is a complete and total guess, not knowledge--without evidence we do not know what it affects, or how. Without knowing what and how it affects, we cannot know if said effect is good or bad.
I'm not saying it's "automatically good" or even "automatically OK." I'm saying it's a complete and total unknown until it is investigated.
That always seemed like such a lame ending to that particular episode. "Sleep"--what the hell kind of "Destroy the Borg" command is that? "Drop defenses" I can see. "Power down weapons" makes sense. Hell, "Shut down the garbage compactors on the detention level" had more class!
The energy is one part of an ecosystem. I find it disconcerting that people would question if it is "harmful".
I take the view that everything is open to question until the evidence is in. Indeed, it is from these questions that we can develop a plan to assess potential impact.
Don't forget the "petty revenge" factor. Instead of WinCE, it'll probably run "Windows Me."
Poor Jerry.
Core assets = $30 billion USD. I guess that money's burning a hole in Ballmer's pocket.
Somehow, I don't think Jeri Ryan works for Microsoft. Come to think of it, I don't think the word "soft" applies anywhere near Ryan. :D
...adapt to their defenses and continue assimilation.
One important factor there is whether or not energy at the coastline is beneficial, harmful, or neutral to the coastline (and the marine life there). If a reduction in energy has a neutral effect on marine life and reduces erosion, a reduction of energy may actually be a good thing.
It would appear that Congress passing the bill in question (and I think we both agree that calling the legislation "questionable" is a rather large understatement of the tragic miscarriage of justice it represents) does, in fact, render the federal judge's rulings irrelevant, thus stripping the judiciary of the power to act as a proper interpreter of existing law [at the time the crimes were committed by the telcos] (catching my breath now).
Dude, breathe! :D
Seriously, I can now see why it looks that way to you (and it puzzled me how someone could equate making a case moot with "stripping" a judge of power). It's ... well, now that I understand it, it's not so much that I disagree as I see it differently. But I can also dig (and completely respect) different points of view.
[insert something about corn cobs and fecal exit portals here]
Ouch. I grew up on a midwestern corn farm. Just ... ouch. :D
Sweet! That not only answers my question, but looks like a hella good plan.
I didn't see anything in TFA, but one wonders if they've considered sediment buildup around the device. Do they have some way to keep sand/sediment from burying the machine?
Oh, and just in case there is any doubt, yes--the last paragraph is trolling. HTH. HAND.
I think you've either been trolling throughout this thread
No, trolling would be accusing you of being a shill for Politician N because of your statement. (N, of course, can be replaced by Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Paul, RuPaul, or even Hitler if we want to tread into Godwin territory.) Well, that would at least be one example ... I'm sure we can both think of others.
Reference my earlier comment regarding the article summary....
I read the article summary. I read TFA before i made my first post in this thread. And I still--vehemently--disagree.
If the bill passes (which looks unavoidable at this point), that does not affect the judge's power one whit. It makes the upcoming case moot, which is a specific legal term.
If demanding accuracy (and honesty, if that is an issue) is a lack of having something intelligent to say, then may I say, from the bottom of my "unintelligent" heart, that you may keep your inaccurate and dishonest article summaries and sodomize yourself with them. Vigorously and repeatedly.
Bush is not going to be impeached. Even as much as I disapprove of many of his actions, I honestly do not know if they qualify under the "High crimes and misdemeanors" clause.
But then again, getting a blowjob and lying about it was enough to get Slick Willy impeached. One wonders if the law means anything when it stands between a politician and what that politician wants.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. No wonder you posted as an AC--you're spouting shit to the point where AHole is more apropos.
Bush will be out next January. He may honestly believe that he helped America, or he may realize that he's fucked a lot of things up. But he will go to his grand retirement, content to speak at the occasional big-ticket event, and do his best to spin his actions into a positive legacy.
Crapulous remarks like those from AC above (no doubt inspired by metal toxins from the tin foil he's wrapped his head in) can be ignored like the lying bullshit that they are.
That's par for the course--even Washington pardoned people on his last day in office.
Someone else has already pointed out that the Slashdot headline was virtually identical to the one Wired put above the article.
And as I said to that someone else, whatever the article title (usually written by a copy editor, not by the journalist who wrote the article) says, the actual article itself (written by the journalist who did the research) says nothing of the sort.
Unless you also wish to take an unconscionable "They did it first" policy to inaccuracy and/or dishonesty in article summaries, I see no point to your statement.
nb: If someone with mod points chooses to take me to task for my brusque tone, I'm willing to take the bad karma. As I've said before in this discussion, accuracy and honesty are far more important than karma.
...speaking as a lawyer....
Then, as a lawyer, you are aware of the importance of context. If you wish to object to my statements, then perhaps you should object to them in the context in which they are presented, rather than picking out the particular sound-bites that can be spun into arguable statements.
Picking out isolated phrases from an argument and stripping them from their context is a dishonest way to summarize an argument. But then again, I'm not a lawyer...accuracy and honesty are far more important than simply "winning the argument."
No, probably not, and probably, respectively.
1. Judges cannot arbitrarily re-arrange court dates.
2. It wouldn't matter if the judge could re-arrange his schedule. The Telcos would ask for a continuance (based on the disruption of schedule), and if the judge refused to allow it, any decision handed down would immediately be slapped silly on procedural grounds.
3. Bush supports Telco immunity. If nothing else, he'd probably just pardon those convicted.
Karma (to me) matters not one whit. Accuracy matters. Truthfulness matters even more.
So, are you arguing that Soulskill and Palegray are too stupid to see that the article made no such assertion? Or that their attempt at an attention-grabbing headline is OK because "Wired did it first"?
In what I am given to understand is a grand, old Slashdot tradition, the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article. Neither Congress nor the Executive branch is attempting to "strip power" from this or any other judge. They are (foolishly, IMO) retroactively legalizing a series of illegal acts, and making moot a case or series of cases currently pending on said judge's schedule, but the judge's authority is not one whit affected by the proposed law.
Shame on Soulskill and Palegray for this false-faced spin-doctoring.
And yes, reading TFA and actually expecting the summary to at least remotely resemble the article is evidently proof that I'm new here.