Senator and Candidate Obama railed against "warrantless wiretapping" and pledged he'd end such activities were he elected.
"Wiretapping" - Definition: Listening to the actual conversation being made, not looking up who called who and when, which has always been subject to judicial subpoenas without the need for a warrant. Hell, in that old 1995 movie "Clueless", Alicia Silverstone's character is shown helping her lawyer dad go through call sheets of who called who in a civil lawsuit. This sort of stuff always has been so common that it was put in a rom-com.
Here's the thing. Law is very much like coding. The specifics matter.
Post something about the NSA spying, and the article attracts screaming spittle-flecked screeds declaring it THE WORST EVER!! NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI!!!1!!!1!.
Something about France's SIGINT services doing the exact same thing? A bunch of "surrender" jokes.
This proves that all the whining about the NSA has little to do with actual worries (as if anyone in the government actually cares about their porn viewing habits), and more to do with overwrought anti-Americanism.
Possible, but on the optimistic side. As I said, if there is anything wrong with the requested fee, it is too low.
You are clearly confusing the "new" Slashdot's uninformed and not particularly bright libertarian-esque hivemind with things it doesn't like: facts and cogent analysis. May god have mercy on your soul.
Snowden did nothing whatsoever to "damage" the USA; the NSA did all the damage itself. Snowden is a hero, period.
That said, the government should not "grant clemency" to Snowden because doing so still implies that he did something wrong and the government is merely being "merciful." Instead, what the government should do is exonerate Snowden and go after the real criminals, i.e., the treasonous fuckwads at the NSA.
A few notes on the vote whoring:
All in all, coming out vociferously in favor of the echo chamber of the site you're posting to was a good start
Simply love the use of the word "fascist" right off the bat, love the understated Godwin
The quotes around "damage", as if the word is somehow unknown, or being used in a inappropriate context, is a nice "touch"
That your entire statement is an argument by assertion is also a big plus
The use of the words "treasonous fuckwads", simply screams insightful commentary
It hits every bullet point, so all in all, I'm sue you'll get that covered +5 from the lovers of slashtrash. We all know this site is turning into Reddit, where a well-sourced nuanced explanation that certain issues are not entirely black and white, will get half a dozen downvotes... a the same time "Dat Ass Though" comments will get +3415. Maybe you should try that next.
Carry on trooper. You assertion that America's signal intelligence organization should be criminally prosecuted for doing what Congress explicitly authorizes, directs, and pays it to do, is precious beyond words. I'm also sure you think that the United States is the only nation on the planet with such an operation.
I was once on a contract helping to develop automotive Tizen. This was about a year and a half ago. We were never able to build it without error from the officially released Intel sources. Never once. The build was a completely broken mess, with Intel basically saying that no one should really need to build from the source.
Even discounting all the obvious market problems that people mention - like Samsung obviously trying to attract customers while simultaneously competing with them - the whole thing is a listless mess. This is kind of like saying "Is [some obscure, broken, Linux binary distro] going to be then next RedHat, or maybe take over the Windows desktop?"
Indeed, Hooray! (I'm glad you get it - so few kneejerk anti-American morons do.) The US is at its best when it is saving innocent people, like Libyans and Yhazdis, from genocide. It returns us to what is best about this country.
Yes indeed! Your quote IS bullshit! I'm glad you noticed! You can't claim a policy failed by arbitrarily changing the yardstick. We've never measured by U6. No time to start now.
Hooray though, we added 300,000 jobs in the last quarter. The economy did that in most years of the 1960s, when the population of the United States was significantly less than today. Success!
Yet again, you are completely correct! This is an amazing Success! The economy in the 1960s was aided by the fact that most of the rest of the world was still recovering from WW2, and half of it was under the ideological sway of Communist regimes fundamentally opposed to economic reality. Further, the U.S. had many more controls in place in those days to reduce economic inequality, since people still had a long memory of what Republicans did to cause the Great Depression. Tax rates on corporations in the 1960s reached as high as 90%, with fewer loopholes. This allowed many states to give a free college education to anyone who had the grades to get accepted, no matter what their economic background. All which provided massive demand for U.S. employment.
Alas, we ended all that. Self-defeating "trickle-down" is now more or less a religion (except Jesus and his miracles can't be actually disproven, like all these bullshit Republican economic theories have), so now we're stuck with people voting in Republicans on grandiose promises that this-time-it'll-work-for-sure, the inevitable economic crash, Democrats voted in to fix it, and then Republicans again to punish the Democrats for fixing the Republican mess, because this-time-it'll-work-for-sure.
I find it very amusing to hear from all these one-man Supreme Courts, constitutional scholars all, willing to declare in internet chat-rooms that the President has violated some part of the law, at least in their own mind.
But please, here's your chance. Quote the relevant case law that makes you think you know more than judges who have spent their lives studying this stuff.
Have you ever tried to get science fiction published these days? I have. I've learned that publishers don't want science fiction. They want fantasy childhood adventure stories, with a veneer of unscientific "sci-fi". You can't make it unless good and evil are delineated in clear, bright, lines, and your tv-tropes run thick and hackneyed.
These days, I write only for myself. But everyone I do a reading for says "Boy, that's interesting! Why don't you publish?". Then I explain.
In addition to there being witnesses (black males and females) who contradicted that statement, the autopsy of Michael Brown clearly contradicted it as well.
You are so completely wrong, it's laughable. First, the forensic evidence said nothing of the sort that you describe. Second, here is a link to video of the instant reaction of two bystanders seeing the event as it happened live. What do they say? "He had his F@^&#ING HANDS UP!"
I read the article you referenced. It's not as you describe it.
Installing secret compartments in vehicles when you know that its purpose is for doing something illegal, is itself illegal. Engaging in a criminal conspiracy to move drugs around the country is also illegal. Basically any time a drug dealer says to you "I need help to deliver this kilo of cocaine", and you say "Sure, as long as you pay me, I'll be happy to help", you're in some rather serious trouble if you get caught. The prosecutors were able to get one of the drug dealers to testify that he knew exactly what he was doing (in exchange for a reduced sentence). And the jury chose to believe the drug dealer.
You make this out as if the DEA somehow can throw people in prison for "doing nothing illegal". But the truth is that this fellow had a trial, a lawyer to defend himself, a judge to ensure that the law was followed, before a jury of his peers, and the jury chose to convict him.
I'm well aware that juries can make mistakes, but this doesn't seem at all like a miscarriage of justice. Not with the facts presented.
Suddenly this is the new thing. You could simply say "the thief" or "the bad guy" or "the spy", but then you wouldn't sound all Matrix.
Lighten up, Slashdot.
That term is commonly used in the security industry, specifically because it is more generic than "virus writer", "thief", "foreign intelligence service", or "disgruntled worker".
Attkisson's 'Hack'
In a nutshell, Attkisson claims the government hacked her computers in December, 2012 and she reported it to CBS at the time. She claims a PC and her personal Mac were hacked, and the media has accepted this claim with no skepticism. Mediaite went with the assumption that she shot it in December, 2012.
But a sharp-eyed commenter over at Media Matters observed that Attkisson's video was shot during the Valerie Harper debut on Dancing With the Stars in September, 2013. Here's what WiscoJoe observes:
Attkisson shot this video on or sometime after September 16, 2013. The episode of "Dancing with the Stars" that is playing in the background features Valerie Harper dancing a Foxtrot to "Some Kind of Wonderful" and first aired live on the evening of that date.
According to Attkisson's own timeline her computer was 'hacked' in October 2012, she came forward with this allegation in May 2013, but then waited until September 2013 to take video 'evidence.'
Has Ms. Attkisson provided an explanation of when this video was taken or why she waited for a year, and until after she went forward with public allegations, to take video documentation of her computer being 'hacked'? Is this the standard of investigative journalism that she was doing while at CBS? If that's the case it may explain why she no longer works there.
Where are they? Here on Slashdot. That's what I was saying.
Yes, slashdotters aren't typical Republicans Unlike most Republicans, their hatred of the word "government" isn't just a euphemism for racial bias.They actually believe it.
I would still argue that they're wrong. As organized power is the most effective form of power. you're going to get a government one way or the other. So it might as well be one that is beneficent. But their positions are at least understandable.
But I agree, there is really no substance to this post. Hell, in many countries, Australia for instance, voting is mandatory. It's a crime not to. (You don't have to vote for anyone, but you must turn your ballot in.)
But heaven forfend that anyone be asked why they didn't vote in an election, that's so.. so... so! A first-world problem to be truly outraged about.
Bawk. Bawk. Bawk.
The sky is burning. Bawk. Bawk. Bawk.
Oh noes. Oh noes Anything more need to be said?
Yes, there is one more thing that needs to be said: If the scientists who have studied this are even remotely correct, your great grandchildren will look upon your memory in a manner somewhat akin to the way that people speak of southern slave owners, and the way Germans remember the NAZIs
(I remember the days when Slashdot still had intelligent, intellectual, technically minded, conversations. And even when people disagreed, they brought facts to the table, not childishness.)
No matter how "unlimited" a data cap supposedly is, if the bandwidth is limited, then there is only a limited amount of data you will ever be able to pull through it over a monthly period. So therefore it's limited, QED.
To posit an absurd example to prove the point, if AT&T advertised an "unlimited bandwidth" connection that could only download one byte per minute, your effectively monthly data cap would be: 60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 31 (days) = 2.67 Mb per month.
Artificially throttling bandwidth is imposing a lower data cap, period.
Let me leave a part of the remarks of Senator Ron Wyden (D), Oregon here:
Vote by Mail offers additional advantages that may not be readily apparent. For example, on Election Day in 2006, Tillamook County, Oregon, experienced a deluge of 13 inches of rain. Roads were closed, parts of the county became unreachable, and a State of emergency was declared. Even so, 70 percent of the voters in Tillamook County cast their ballots. Vote by Mail ensured that lack of access to polling places because of a natural disaster on Election Day was no impediment to voting.
In vote by mail, you sign your ballot. This is checked against a database of your legal registration by people trained to recognize signatures. The County Clerk will call you up if there is any discrepancy (sometimes people just change the way they sign, sometimes it happens due to strokes). So there is no possibility of voter fraud either.
This is the big question. Because, to riff off the 14 years old discussion, wireless has progressed leaps and bounds since then. So simply putting the PC inside a waterproof chest and using a combination of WiFi, Bluetooth, and a few wireless display technologies. This is what is presently on Intel's product roadmap anyway.
Your biggest problem is likely to be the monitor. Every means we have to produce significant amount of light (especially required for outdoor viewing), requires dissipation of heat. That means venting. Which means air holes. Which can get spray in it.
So really the question can't be answered unless you explain the purpose of the PC. Is it there to do things like take measurements? Can it be controlled from a mobile phone? (they're much easier to seal) This is what is needed to know how to give further advice.
Assange has a meeting with a few government officials and Schmidt from google; the meeting is boring from Assange's point of view, and he looks down on Schmidt.
Later, he's publishing a leaks book and tries to give the White House a courtesy call about it. He gets a call back from one of the arrangers of the original meeting, calling to verify that it was actually him, and not someone pulling a hoax. Assange suddenly realizes that the government officials that Schmidt was coming along with might mean he "had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, D.C"
Later, in processing some leaked/hacked emails from a Texas company named Stratfor, he find out that a google employee, Julian Cohen, travels to various governments in turmoil. He went to Egypt, to meet Wael Ghonim, the Google employee who was arrested and imprisoned on political charges. He was also planning to talk to people in Iran. And talk to moderate opposition to Hezbollah. And tried to get Bollywood (Indian) movie producers to put in "anti-extremist content" in their movies. Then went to Ireland for a summit with ex-gang members to try to addresses the causes of extremism. Assange thinks this is a terrible idea: "What could go wrong"? He asks sarcastically
Assange then launches into a screed that could be more or less summarized as "lame-stream media and sheeple are being subjugated". He says he thought Schmidt was a dupe in all this.
Now he concludes that Schmidt is an evil authoritarian, associating himself with prominent "imperialist" politicans like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and other terrible conservative groups like the Bono's ONE Foundation, George Soros, and the Rockefeller foundation.
He doesn't like google talking to high ranking officials in foreign governments, and decries US soft power
He ends with: A “don’t be evil” empire is still an empire.
Slashdot Mirror
Senator and Candidate Obama railed against "warrantless wiretapping" and pledged he'd end such activities were he elected.
"Wiretapping" - Definition: Listening to the actual conversation being made, not looking up who called who and when, which has always been subject to judicial subpoenas without the need for a warrant. Hell, in that old 1995 movie "Clueless", Alicia Silverstone's character is shown helping her lawyer dad go through call sheets of who called who in a civil lawsuit. This sort of stuff always has been so common that it was put in a rom-com.
Here's the thing. Law is very much like coding. The specifics matter.
Post something about the NSA spying, and the article attracts screaming spittle-flecked screeds declaring it THE WORST EVER!! NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI!!!1!!!1!.
Something about France's SIGINT services doing the exact same thing? A bunch of "surrender" jokes.
This proves that all the whining about the NSA has little to do with actual worries (as if anyone in the government actually cares about their porn viewing habits), and more to do with overwrought anti-Americanism.
yes, I do, and the word does NOT apply to firearms. EVER.
You are clearly confusing the word "negligent" with "intentional". However those two words are not the same.
Possible, but on the optimistic side. As I said, if there is anything wrong with the requested fee, it is too low.
You are clearly confusing the "new" Slashdot's uninformed and not particularly bright libertarian-esque hivemind with things it doesn't like: facts and cogent analysis. May god have mercy on your soul.
Speak for yourself, fascist!
Snowden did nothing whatsoever to "damage" the USA; the NSA did all the damage itself. Snowden is a hero, period.
That said, the government should not "grant clemency" to Snowden because doing so still implies that he did something wrong and the government is merely being "merciful." Instead, what the government should do is exonerate Snowden and go after the real criminals, i.e., the treasonous fuckwads at the NSA.
A few notes on the vote whoring:
It hits every bullet point, so all in all, I'm sue you'll get that covered +5 from the lovers of slashtrash. We all know this site is turning into Reddit, where a well-sourced nuanced explanation that certain issues are not entirely black and white, will get half a dozen downvotes... a the same time "Dat Ass Though" comments will get +3415. Maybe you should try that next.
Carry on trooper. You assertion that America's signal intelligence organization should be criminally prosecuted for doing what Congress explicitly authorizes, directs, and pays it to do, is precious beyond words. I'm also sure you think that the United States is the only nation on the planet with such an operation.
I usually browse at a score of "0" because sometimes Anonymous Cowards say interesting things. You two are making me regret that.
I was once on a contract helping to develop automotive Tizen. This was about a year and a half ago. We were never able to build it without error from the officially released Intel sources. Never once. The build was a completely broken mess, with Intel basically saying that no one should really need to build from the source.
Even discounting all the obvious market problems that people mention - like Samsung obviously trying to attract customers while simultaneously competing with them - the whole thing is a listless mess. This is kind of like saying "Is [some obscure, broken, Linux binary distro] going to be then next RedHat, or maybe take over the Windows desktop?"
Um, no. Never ever ever.
While starting completely new ones. Hooray!
Indeed, Hooray! (I'm glad you get it - so few kneejerk anti-American morons do.) The US is at its best when it is saving innocent people, like Libyans and Yhazdis, from genocide. It returns us to what is best about this country.
*cough* bullshit *cough*
Yes indeed! Your quote IS bullshit! I'm glad you noticed! You can't claim a policy failed by arbitrarily changing the yardstick. We've never measured by U6. No time to start now.
Hooray though, we added 300,000 jobs in the last quarter. The economy did that in most years of the 1960s, when the population of the United States was significantly less than today. Success!
Yet again, you are completely correct! This is an amazing Success! The economy in the 1960s was aided by the fact that most of the rest of the world was still recovering from WW2, and half of it was under the ideological sway of Communist regimes fundamentally opposed to economic reality. Further, the U.S. had many more controls in place in those days to reduce economic inequality, since people still had a long memory of what Republicans did to cause the Great Depression. Tax rates on corporations in the 1960s reached as high as 90%, with fewer loopholes. This allowed many states to give a free college education to anyone who had the grades to get accepted, no matter what their economic background. All which provided massive demand for U.S. employment.
Alas, we ended all that. Self-defeating "trickle-down" is now more or less a religion (except Jesus and his miracles can't be actually disproven, like all these bullshit Republican economic theories have), so now we're stuck with people voting in Republicans on grandiose promises that this-time-it'll-work-for-sure, the inevitable economic crash, Democrats voted in to fix it, and then Republicans again to punish the Democrats for fixing the Republican mess, because this-time-it'll-work-for-sure.
I find it very amusing to hear from all these one-man Supreme Courts, constitutional scholars all, willing to declare in internet chat-rooms that the President has violated some part of the law, at least in their own mind.
But please, here's your chance. Quote the relevant case law that makes you think you know more than judges who have spent their lives studying this stuff.
If it was intended as some sort of partisan football, it would have been released BEFORE the election, not after.
The Flamebait mod was quite appropriate
I believe this refers to "metadata", i.e. who is calling who, rather than the strawman you just constructed to knock down.
There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this. But you should work harder at actually making them
Have you ever tried to get science fiction published these days? I have. I've learned that publishers don't want science fiction. They want fantasy childhood adventure stories, with a veneer of unscientific "sci-fi". You can't make it unless good and evil are delineated in clear, bright, lines, and your tv-tropes run thick and hackneyed.
These days, I write only for myself. But everyone I do a reading for says "Boy, that's interesting! Why don't you publish?". Then I explain.
In addition to there being witnesses (black males and females) who contradicted that statement, the autopsy of Michael Brown clearly contradicted it as well.
You are so completely wrong, it's laughable. First, the forensic evidence said nothing of the sort that you describe. Second, here is a link to video of the instant reaction of two bystanders seeing the event as it happened live. What do they say? "He had his F@^&#ING HANDS UP!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is a perfect example of cognitive bias in action. You want Wilson to be innocent, so you choose to believe rumors that are flat out untrue.
I read the article you referenced. It's not as you describe it.
Installing secret compartments in vehicles when you know that its purpose is for doing something illegal, is itself illegal. Engaging in a criminal conspiracy to move drugs around the country is also illegal. Basically any time a drug dealer says to you "I need help to deliver this kilo of cocaine", and you say "Sure, as long as you pay me, I'll be happy to help", you're in some rather serious trouble if you get caught. The prosecutors were able to get one of the drug dealers to testify that he knew exactly what he was doing (in exchange for a reduced sentence). And the jury chose to believe the drug dealer.
You make this out as if the DEA somehow can throw people in prison for "doing nothing illegal". But the truth is that this fellow had a trial, a lawyer to defend himself, a judge to ensure that the law was followed, before a jury of his peers, and the jury chose to convict him.
I'm well aware that juries can make mistakes, but this doesn't seem at all like a miscarriage of justice. Not with the facts presented.
Suddenly this is the new thing. You could simply say "the thief" or "the bad guy" or "the spy", but then you wouldn't sound all Matrix.
Lighten up, Slashdot.
That term is commonly used in the security industry, specifically because it is more generic than "virus writer", "thief", "foreign intelligence service", or "disgruntled worker".
Attkisson's 'Hack' In a nutshell, Attkisson claims the government hacked her computers in December, 2012 and she reported it to CBS at the time. She claims a PC and her personal Mac were hacked, and the media has accepted this claim with no skepticism. Mediaite went with the assumption that she shot it in December, 2012.
But a sharp-eyed commenter over at Media Matters observed that Attkisson's video was shot during the Valerie Harper debut on Dancing With the Stars in September, 2013. Here's what WiscoJoe observes:
Has Ms. Attkisson provided an explanation of when this video was taken or why she waited for a year, and until after she went forward with public allegations, to take video documentation of her computer being 'hacked'? Is this the standard of investigative journalism that she was doing while at CBS? If that's the case it may explain why she no longer works there.
Where are they? Here on Slashdot. That's what I was saying.
Yes, slashdotters aren't typical Republicans Unlike most Republicans, their hatred of the word "government" isn't just a euphemism for racial bias.They actually believe it.
I would still argue that they're wrong. As organized power is the most effective form of power. you're going to get a government one way or the other. So it might as well be one that is beneficent. But their positions are at least understandable.
But I agree, there is really no substance to this post. Hell, in many countries, Australia for instance, voting is mandatory. It's a crime not to. (You don't have to vote for anyone, but you must turn your ballot in.)
But heaven forfend that anyone be asked why they didn't vote in an election, that's so.. so... so! A first-world problem to be truly outraged about.
Bawk. Bawk. Bawk.
The sky is burning.
Bawk. Bawk. Bawk.
Oh noes. Oh noes
Anything more need to be said?
Yes, there is one more thing that needs to be said: If the scientists who have studied this are even remotely correct, your great grandchildren will look upon your memory in a manner somewhat akin to the way that people speak of southern slave owners, and the way Germans remember the NAZIs
(I remember the days when Slashdot still had intelligent, intellectual, technically minded, conversations. And even when people disagreed, they brought facts to the table, not childishness.)
You're looking for a solution "the political, economic, and technological realities of today"?
Let me quote Albert Einstein for you:
This XKCD comic comes to mind...
No matter how "unlimited" a data cap supposedly is, if the bandwidth is limited, then there is only a limited amount of data you will ever be able to pull through it over a monthly period. So therefore it's limited, QED.
To posit an absurd example to prove the point, if AT&T advertised an "unlimited bandwidth" connection that could only download one byte per minute, your effectively monthly data cap would be: 60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 31 (days) = 2.67 Mb per month.
Artificially throttling bandwidth is imposing a lower data cap, period.
Let me leave a part of the remarks of Senator Ron Wyden (D), Oregon here:
In vote by mail, you sign your ballot. This is checked against a database of your legal registration by people trained to recognize signatures. The County Clerk will call you up if there is any discrepancy (sometimes people just change the way they sign, sometimes it happens due to strokes). So there is no possibility of voter fraud either.
This is the big question. Because, to riff off the 14 years old discussion, wireless has progressed leaps and bounds since then. So simply putting the PC inside a waterproof chest and using a combination of WiFi, Bluetooth, and a few wireless display technologies. This is what is presently on Intel's product roadmap anyway.
Your biggest problem is likely to be the monitor. Every means we have to produce significant amount of light (especially required for outdoor viewing), requires dissipation of heat. That means venting. Which means air holes. Which can get spray in it.
So really the question can't be answered unless you explain the purpose of the PC. Is it there to do things like take measurements? Can it be controlled from a mobile phone? (they're much easier to seal) This is what is needed to know how to give further advice.