Sounds like a good idea for most healthy twenty year old web surfers but the elderly and people with touchpads are not going to be able to perform as well.
The court that issued the decision right before the Presidential changeover is the FISA court, which is the secret chamber of trial judges that issues secret warrants. They have a vested interest in upholding the legality of their actions. The FISA court is not an appellate court, either.
Ripping down the firewall between the federal agencies means that the "anti-terror" wiretaps end up being used in criminal prosecution of non-terrorists. What ends up happening is that the NSA/CIA wiretaps all data flowing the United States and gets some information on a drug deal. That information ends up going to the FBI for prosecution. This widens the abrogation of Constitutional rights.
You mean Monica Goodling? She graduated from the Regent University Law School, which was very low tier compared to what the Department of Justice normally hires. The school's sole distinction seems to be its founding by Pat Robertson, and it identifies itself as "America's Pre-eminent Christian University."
Goodling had blue drapes put over a nude statute of lady Justice. She was then assigned the task of screening candidates, and she made employment recommendations based on political affiliation, and amongst other things, refused to hire a candidate because she thought he was a liberal Democrat. Goodling also denied a woman a job due to rumors about her sexual orientation. It turns out that the DOJ is not allowed to run partisan hiring schemes. She was forced to resign in 2007.
The problem was that there was a lot of evidence suggesting that President Bush and Cheney was conducting official business on his personal account, and these communications will not be archived according to law. Hopefully, Obama will avoid this problem but I do not have high hopes.
Sprint was terrible. The bills were always wrong and I wasted hours each month getting my bill fixed. They would always add unrequested features like phone insurance or international calling. They would extend my contract for bizarre reasons such as buying a replacement phone without getting any rebates or discounts. This is a great chance to get out of an artificially-extended Sprint contract.
Career advancement, especially in this right-sizing economy, is zero sum. There can only be one promotion. There are layoffs so only one person can keep their job. Only one person can be assigned a great project. If one person gets the prize, the other contenders will not. And the failed contenders will be bitter regardless of how nice the winner is.
In this environment, the atmosphere will always be unpleasant. You can try to be nice but you have to stand up for yourself and therefore piss other people off. A co-worker is the sole breadwinner of his family. You are a single guy who has tons of savings. Are you an asshole for fighting to keep your job even if he gets fired?
That is the reason why psychopaths get ahead. They do not care about others; they only care about advancing themselves. I do not think this is the best outcome but it makes sense that those who would do anything to get ahead end up getting ahead. Those who make "moral" sacrifices do not.
That is the point I was getting at. Not all "nice guys" are actually nice. They would like to be jerks but do not dare to do so. My roomie believes that a lot of the self-professed nice guys are cowards and losers.
These lawsuits are ridiculous. Windows also ships with a firewall, disk defragmenting tool, notepad, calculator, freecell, solitaire, and a file browser. I guess those are all illegally bundled.
Name one major operating system that does not ship with a browser. Ubuntu and the Mac OS both ship with browsers. You can select other browsers, as you can with Microsoft Windows. This lawsuit is ridiculous.
Nice guys finish last in all times. The "nice guy" who finishes last is very likely diffident, afraid to take risks, refuses to stand up for himself, shies from taking credit for their work, and avoids confrontation. These guys finish last. The "jerks" and "assholes" who succeed stand up for themselves, take credit for themselves, and are not shy about confronting those in their paths. The nice guys get run over by these assholes and then post on the Internet how how unfair life is.
I got this insight from my female roommate. Men would complain about how they are nice guys but girls always go for assholes. But these nice guys either never asked girls out, or even worse, wanted to be bad guys but just did not have the guts to do it. She related the story about a self-professed nice guy who got drunk, and started to feel her up even though she made it clear she was not interested.
So you can try to get everyone to like you or you can try to get what you think you deserve. It is very rare to be able to get what you want without stepping on any toes. You can be nice and polite, but if you are competing with someone for a job, the loser is not going to like you at all.
The government has information that many parties would like to get their hands on, and these parties are well-funded and dedicated. In this environment, destroying data has to be permanent. The cost of running a few more wipes is small compared to the potential for losing sensitive data. If the government lost information because it did not spend an extra hour wiping the drives, then you would all be pissed that they were negligently disposing of their information.
The government may also know more than we do, and may also be insuring against future hacks. It may be the case that as far as you and the rest of the Slashdotters know, there is no way to recover from a single wipe. But the KGB/NSA/CIA may have figured out how to recover from a single wipe and has structured their security accordingly. Or the government is concerned that there is a break-through in ten years and some intelligence agency is buying massive amounts of used federal drives and storing them for this eventuality.
Reaper and the F-22 are designed for different missions. The F-22 is designed for air domination. Reaper is meant to loiter over combat zones for extended periods to keep a watch for insurgents or follow them around and blow them up when they return to enemy base. Later generations of UAVs will be able to carry more weight and fly faster. Without a pilot, the airframe can be flown harder to its full capacity and sent on riskier missions. It can also be more aerodynamic and stealthier without the human bump in the middle.
I'm just stating the law. When you introduce illegally-seized evidence, you are not searching or seizing; by definition, that part was already done. There is no constitutional interest in excluding evidence.
Also, when you exclude evidence, the defense wants to do so because the evidence is true and incriminates t heir clients. In this case, they charged the guy for carrying a gun and methamphetamines, which he was carrying. It's not like the cops planted those things on him. Their seizure was mistaken but he actually was breaking the law by carrying the meth and the gun.
You're making shit up. The exclusionary rule applies to real evidence that was obtained illegally. The cops are not making up evidence, just the rational for getting evidence. In these instances, the excluded evidence really is valid.
IBM scientists were also responsible for the excimer laser that is used for LASIK eye surgery. They were also the dudes who wrote out "IBM" with atoms. IBM gets a lot of patents but they also do a lot of basic scientific research to earn those patents. So it's not that they "win" a lot of patents, they "earn" a lot of patents.
No. It means a bunch of drunk drivers will be on the streets free to run whoever they want over. Even if the prosecutors move to blood test, the defendants will require a medical doctor or lab technician to testify as to the nature of the exam and how the test works, and perhaps the manufacturer of the reagents used in the tests have to verify that they are what they are. Tons of money have to be spent by the DA's office, which means higher taxes. Meanwhile, prosecution of drunk driving will go down, and more drunk drivers will be on the streets.
Everyone wins!
But ask yourself: if a judge dismissed exculpatory DNA evidence because the defense didn't procure a geneticist/scientist to testify on the stand, what would you say?
It's easy to say in the abstract. But if the murderer of your seven-year old daughter was let free on technical grounds, you might rethink your position.
The exclusionary rule is an artificial judicial construct that is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). The Fourth Amendment only guarantees freedom from illegal search and seizure. Introducing illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case is neither. Excluding illegally-obtained evidence is meant to deter police misconduct but the public pays the cost in freed criminals. If the official misconduct was TRULY not intentional (setting aside your cynicism) then there is no deterrent purpose.
The exclusionary rule can have potentially horrible effects when applied. In Williams v. Nix, the suspect in the murder of a little girl was transported by a police officer who promised the defense attorney that there would be no questioning during the trip. (The suspect was seen carrying a rolled-up rug with little legs sticking out of one end, but when apprehended, there was no body or rug.) Instead, the officer started a soliloquy that about how he was just going to speak, and was not asking the suspect to say anything. The officer then pointed out that it was Christmas, and that the victim's family will now never be able to celebrate Christmas as it was now the anniversary of their child's death and not Christ's birth. He then elaborated that even if the suspect later told where the body was, the spring melt might wash the body away from the hiding place. The suspect then led the cop to the body, which was tossed into a culvert.
The trial court ruled that this constituted an interrogation even though there was no physical coercion. Thus, it was an illegal search in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the body and the suspect's confession had to be excluded, and remanded to the trial court. The trial court then held that the discovery of the body would have been inevitable because search parties were assigned to the area where the body was hidden, and the officials in charge of the search swore up and down on a stack of holy books and all that was dear that he had specifically instructed the search parties to look at culverts.
On the second appeal, in Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that evidence derived in derogation of Fourth Amendment rights could be used where the discovery would have been inevitable despite the interrogation. It took at face value the trial court's evidentiary finding that the discovery would have been inevitable. The conviction was affirmed.
You might uphold the exclusionary rule as a valuable protection of a constitutional right, but make no mistake that it carries a very heavy price. And it has no constitutional basis, and has no democratic support. I think we watch too much Law & Order and think the rule was set in stone, but it was actually a relatively new invention, having been enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio in the fifties.
Court jurisdiction is territorial. Texas judges regulate Texas. It would be bizarre if Texas judges could regulate Soviet citizens, no?
Re:Among insiders this is a well-known phenomenon.
on
The Unmanned Air Force
·
· Score: 1
* The remote pilot does not need to equal or exceed that of an in-the-air pilot. His airplane can outperform any manned aircraft, which allows him to recover from slower reaction times and still be more lethal than normal. Moreover, a plane that does not need a hump for the pilot, his ejection seat, and life support system can be designed to a much thinner and unobservable shape. If the remotely-controlled plane can sneak right up to a bad guy and pop him, reaction time is a useless metric.
* Most of the information fed to an in-the-air pilot comes from electronic sensors on his plane or an AWACS. The only important data would be visual acuity but high-zoom cameras slaved to radar systems could probably see better than a human being.
* The remote pilot will always be in charge of his aircraft. I don't understand this objection.
Stock Blackberries used with the Enterprise product ship with a remote self-destruct feature. The whole path message path is also encrypted but I am not sure if it's tough enough for the President. An application that encrypted all messages on the device before pushing it over the server could be implemented as well. Hopefully Obama has a non-trivial password in his device. A Blackberry addict will know very quickly if he has left his device somewhere, and either find it or have it remotely destroyed.
Matroska also has less overhead, plays damaged files better than AVI, has better audio/video sync, streams better, supports more codecs, and you can skip to points better.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft always gets lots of beta testers for its software. I mean, every pre-SP1 operating system has been great beta programs.
Sounds like a good idea for most healthy twenty year old web surfers but the elderly and people with touchpads are not going to be able to perform as well.
Wrongo.
The court that issued the decision right before the Presidential changeover is the FISA court, which is the secret chamber of trial judges that issues secret warrants. They have a vested interest in upholding the legality of their actions. The FISA court is not an appellate court, either.
Ripping down the firewall between the federal agencies means that the "anti-terror" wiretaps end up being used in criminal prosecution of non-terrorists. What ends up happening is that the NSA/CIA wiretaps all data flowing the United States and gets some information on a drug deal. That information ends up going to the FBI for prosecution. This widens the abrogation of Constitutional rights.
You mean Monica Goodling? She graduated from the Regent University Law School, which was very low tier compared to what the Department of Justice normally hires. The school's sole distinction seems to be its founding by Pat Robertson, and it identifies itself as "America's Pre-eminent Christian University."
Goodling had blue drapes put over a nude statute of lady Justice. She was then assigned the task of screening candidates, and she made employment recommendations based on political affiliation, and amongst other things, refused to hire a candidate because she thought he was a liberal Democrat. Goodling also denied a woman a job due to rumors about her sexual orientation. It turns out that the DOJ is not allowed to run partisan hiring schemes. She was forced to resign in 2007.
You put Abobe. In the title bar? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?
The problem was that there was a lot of evidence suggesting that President Bush and Cheney was conducting official business on his personal account, and these communications will not be archived according to law. Hopefully, Obama will avoid this problem but I do not have high hopes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7266629.stm
Oh, how quickly these zealots forget. It seems that you have no idea what you are talking about but are quite content to accuse others of ignorance.
Dolt.
Not only is this Sprint early termination fee waiver old news, the article gets all the information wrong. The Administrative Charge is being increased from $0.75 to $0.99 beginning on January 1, 2009. You have thirty days after the change in fees to ask for the ETF waiver, and you have to specifically mention that you are termination due to the change in fees. I canceled my Sprint account back in December and moved to T-Mobile.
Sprint was terrible. The bills were always wrong and I wasted hours each month getting my bill fixed. They would always add unrequested features like phone insurance or international calling. They would extend my contract for bizarre reasons such as buying a replacement phone without getting any rebates or discounts. This is a great chance to get out of an artificially-extended Sprint contract.
Career advancement, especially in this right-sizing economy, is zero sum. There can only be one promotion. There are layoffs so only one person can keep their job. Only one person can be assigned a great project. If one person gets the prize, the other contenders will not. And the failed contenders will be bitter regardless of how nice the winner is.
In this environment, the atmosphere will always be unpleasant. You can try to be nice but you have to stand up for yourself and therefore piss other people off. A co-worker is the sole breadwinner of his family. You are a single guy who has tons of savings. Are you an asshole for fighting to keep your job even if he gets fired?
That is the reason why psychopaths get ahead. They do not care about others; they only care about advancing themselves. I do not think this is the best outcome but it makes sense that those who would do anything to get ahead end up getting ahead. Those who make "moral" sacrifices do not.
That is the point I was getting at. Not all "nice guys" are actually nice. They would like to be jerks but do not dare to do so. My roomie believes that a lot of the self-professed nice guys are cowards and losers.
These lawsuits are ridiculous. Windows also ships with a firewall, disk defragmenting tool, notepad, calculator, freecell, solitaire, and a file browser. I guess those are all illegally bundled.
Name one major operating system that does not ship with a browser. Ubuntu and the Mac OS both ship with browsers. You can select other browsers, as you can with Microsoft Windows. This lawsuit is ridiculous.
Nice guys finish last in all times. The "nice guy" who finishes last is very likely diffident, afraid to take risks, refuses to stand up for himself, shies from taking credit for their work, and avoids confrontation. These guys finish last. The "jerks" and "assholes" who succeed stand up for themselves, take credit for themselves, and are not shy about confronting those in their paths. The nice guys get run over by these assholes and then post on the Internet how how unfair life is.
I got this insight from my female roommate. Men would complain about how they are nice guys but girls always go for assholes. But these nice guys either never asked girls out, or even worse, wanted to be bad guys but just did not have the guts to do it. She related the story about a self-professed nice guy who got drunk, and started to feel her up even though she made it clear she was not interested.
So you can try to get everyone to like you or you can try to get what you think you deserve. It is very rare to be able to get what you want without stepping on any toes. You can be nice and polite, but if you are competing with someone for a job, the loser is not going to like you at all.
Hope this helps.
The government has information that many parties would like to get their hands on, and these parties are well-funded and dedicated. In this environment, destroying data has to be permanent. The cost of running a few more wipes is small compared to the potential for losing sensitive data. If the government lost information because it did not spend an extra hour wiping the drives, then you would all be pissed that they were negligently disposing of their information.
The government may also know more than we do, and may also be insuring against future hacks. It may be the case that as far as you and the rest of the Slashdotters know, there is no way to recover from a single wipe. But the KGB/NSA/CIA may have figured out how to recover from a single wipe and has structured their security accordingly. Or the government is concerned that there is a break-through in ten years and some intelligence agency is buying massive amounts of used federal drives and storing them for this eventuality.
Note that this is why the NSA reported
No. It's a shift to new technologies used to enable these big drives. The whole perpendicular thing seems to be unreliable.
Reaper and the F-22 are designed for different missions. The F-22 is designed for air domination. Reaper is meant to loiter over combat zones for extended periods to keep a watch for insurgents or follow them around and blow them up when they return to enemy base. Later generations of UAVs will be able to carry more weight and fly faster. Without a pilot, the airframe can be flown harder to its full capacity and sent on riskier missions. It can also be more aerodynamic and stealthier without the human bump in the middle.
I'm just stating the law. When you introduce illegally-seized evidence, you are not searching or seizing; by definition, that part was already done. There is no constitutional interest in excluding evidence.
Also, when you exclude evidence, the defense wants to do so because the evidence is true and incriminates t heir clients. In this case, they charged the guy for carrying a gun and methamphetamines, which he was carrying. It's not like the cops planted those things on him. Their seizure was mistaken but he actually was breaking the law by carrying the meth and the gun.
You see?
You're making shit up. The exclusionary rule applies to real evidence that was obtained illegally. The cops are not making up evidence, just the rational for getting evidence. In these instances, the excluded evidence really is valid.
IBM scientists were also responsible for the excimer laser that is used for LASIK eye surgery. They were also the dudes who wrote out "IBM" with atoms. IBM gets a lot of patents but they also do a lot of basic scientific research to earn those patents. So it's not that they "win" a lot of patents, they "earn" a lot of patents.
No. It means a bunch of drunk drivers will be on the streets free to run whoever they want over. Even if the prosecutors move to blood test, the defendants will require a medical doctor or lab technician to testify as to the nature of the exam and how the test works, and perhaps the manufacturer of the reagents used in the tests have to verify that they are what they are. Tons of money have to be spent by the DA's office, which means higher taxes. Meanwhile, prosecution of drunk driving will go down, and more drunk drivers will be on the streets.
Everyone wins!
But ask yourself: if a judge dismissed exculpatory DNA evidence because the defense didn't procure a geneticist/scientist to testify on the stand, what would you say?
It's easy to say in the abstract. But if the murderer of your seven-year old daughter was let free on technical grounds, you might rethink your position.
The exclusionary rule is an artificial judicial construct that is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). The Fourth Amendment only guarantees freedom from illegal search and seizure. Introducing illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case is neither. Excluding illegally-obtained evidence is meant to deter police misconduct but the public pays the cost in freed criminals. If the official misconduct was TRULY not intentional (setting aside your cynicism) then there is no deterrent purpose.
The exclusionary rule can have potentially horrible effects when applied. In Williams v. Nix, the suspect in the murder of a little girl was transported by a police officer who promised the defense attorney that there would be no questioning during the trip. (The suspect was seen carrying a rolled-up rug with little legs sticking out of one end, but when apprehended, there was no body or rug.) Instead, the officer started a soliloquy that about how he was just going to speak, and was not asking the suspect to say anything. The officer then pointed out that it was Christmas, and that the victim's family will now never be able to celebrate Christmas as it was now the anniversary of their child's death and not Christ's birth. He then elaborated that even if the suspect later told where the body was, the spring melt might wash the body away from the hiding place. The suspect then led the cop to the body, which was tossed into a culvert.
The trial court ruled that this constituted an interrogation even though there was no physical coercion. Thus, it was an illegal search in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the body and the suspect's confession had to be excluded, and remanded to the trial court. The trial court then held that the discovery of the body would have been inevitable because search parties were assigned to the area where the body was hidden, and the officials in charge of the search swore up and down on a stack of holy books and all that was dear that he had specifically instructed the search parties to look at culverts.
On the second appeal, in Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that evidence derived in derogation of Fourth Amendment rights could be used where the discovery would have been inevitable despite the interrogation. It took at face value the trial court's evidentiary finding that the discovery would have been inevitable. The conviction was affirmed.
You might uphold the exclusionary rule as a valuable protection of a constitutional right, but make no mistake that it carries a very heavy price. And it has no constitutional basis, and has no democratic support. I think we watch too much Law & Order and think the rule was set in stone, but it was actually a relatively new invention, having been enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio in the fifties.
Court jurisdiction is territorial. Texas judges regulate Texas. It would be bizarre if Texas judges could regulate Soviet citizens, no?
* The remote pilot does not need to equal or exceed that of an in-the-air pilot. His airplane can outperform any manned aircraft, which allows him to recover from slower reaction times and still be more lethal than normal. Moreover, a plane that does not need a hump for the pilot, his ejection seat, and life support system can be designed to a much thinner and unobservable shape. If the remotely-controlled plane can sneak right up to a bad guy and pop him, reaction time is a useless metric.
* Most of the information fed to an in-the-air pilot comes from electronic sensors on his plane or an AWACS. The only important data would be visual acuity but high-zoom cameras slaved to radar systems could probably see better than a human being.
* The remote pilot will always be in charge of his aircraft. I don't understand this objection.
Stock Blackberries used with the Enterprise product ship with a remote self-destruct feature. The whole path message path is also encrypted but I am not sure if it's tough enough for the President. An application that encrypted all messages on the device before pushing it over the server could be implemented as well. Hopefully Obama has a non-trivial password in his device. A Blackberry addict will know very quickly if he has left his device somewhere, and either find it or have it remotely destroyed.
Matroska also has less overhead, plays damaged files better than AVI, has better audio/video sync, streams better, supports more codecs, and you can skip to points better.