Unless your computer is hacked and the master database stolen, it's a pretty decent way to use unique passwords.
If you use something like LastPass, this isn't an issue because your file is encrypted with your master password. LastPass also supports several mult-factor authentication methods.
I'm no fan of Reason, but can you elaborate on your claim that they produce and distribute highly questionable material? And what 'base' are you referring to? They are a Libertarian (beltarian, really) rag, and there isn't anything more to Libertarians than the base.
I agree with much that you state on people's not understanding history, but I cannot make sense of your use of the word 'libertarian'. While a high percentage of libertarians are young, most young are far from being libertarian as they usually have strong beliefs in government entitlements (education, health care, etc) and regulations (banks, food, drugs, etc).
It is important to understand that there cannot be a 'War on Terror'. Terror is a tactic, thus not something that can be defeated. The terrorists are the ones to be defeated, and they will not be defeated if we approach this as a traditional war, such as a 'police action' would require. The way to fight terrorists is with Letters of Marque and Reprisal (which Congress is authorized to grant) and ending of policies that invite such hatred toward, such as military bases in foreign nations (and drone strikes).
That is correct. The subject of declaring war was one of the most debated subjects in the Constitutional Convention and in the states' ratifying conventions. The evidence is quite clear the the President cannot engage in acts of war without a declaration of war from Congress.
You're missing the point: the party you are referring to was never part the antiwar crowd. They just postured to have something for their members to attack Bush with. The real antiwar crowd is tiny and irrelevant.
You are responding to an A.C. troll. I don't know where anyone would get the idea that Jefferson had anything to do with the Constitution. He was an ambassador to France at the time. Also not involved was John Adams (who, by the way, was not a slave owner).
Just so we're clear on a couple of things: the states with larger slave populations wanted slaves to be counted as whole persons in the census and vice versa for states with smaller slave populations. This is because the original Constitution required taxes to be apportioned (paid out based on a state's population). So the 3/5 clause actually worked to reduce the amount of money a state received in federal tax dollars for its slave population.
The Constitution, fondly remembered as the document that allowed slavery, also allowed abolishing of slavery because the Constitution was actually completely neutral on slavery. When Vermont, the 14th state, joined the union, it had already abolished slavery and it was not required to reverse that position in order to join. Also, the final, complete abolishing of slavery was done with, you guessed it, the Constitution!
"BlackBerry subscribers in the Americas may be experiencing intermittent service delays this morning..."
Also not clear is whether BIS or BES customers were affected. I'm a BIS customer, and I'm pretty sure my wireless Internet access comes from AT&T, not BlackBerry. Can't say the same for BES customers. I can also say that my phone will connect to the Internet through WiFi not only without a BlackBerry subscription, but even without a SIM card.
I never experienced a RIM outage that affected Internet, apps, the phone, etc, either, so what are YOU talking about? RIM outages that I've experienced have been loss of email services.
I've had a BlackBerry since 2005 and I don't recall any 4-day outages. In fact, on the 2 or 3 occasions that it was out for a day or so I was only down for an hour or two, and if you read their press releases this makes sense as the outages rarely affect everyone. Similar things have happened with Apple, as I recall. However, when my phone was swiped from my pocket, I felt good knowing that all of sensitive data was safe. Just like with Carrier IQ was found installed on so many phones, it was not installed on BlackBerry. From my perspective, it is the iPhones and Android phones that are riddled with issues.
It irritates me that the TrueCrypt Forums don't allow free email addresses. It ends up being a method to lock out average users from asking for help, as several of my friends have told me. From my perspective, it makes the project look like it's run by a bunch of assholes.
Annoying because I use it regularly to communicate with customers and vendors in China and Skype isn't available for BlackBerry. I guess Yahoo! Messenger ugh.
I took the same oath when I joined the Navy, and part of that oath is to swear to uphold the Constitution. Manning had information on activities that are clearly unconstitutional. Your argument is what the establishment wants to hear: we must protect secret, illegal government activities that harm millions, if not billions, to protect a few people involved with these programs, even though no evidence can be provided that anyone has directly come to harm from these activities. It seems likely that any harm, even speculatively, that would have come from these disclosures would have been presented by top officials and featured on front page of the Washington Post. But there has been no evidence to support the claims. Lamo made a poor decision.
He also could not know that there would be fallout from the release. What he did was purely speculative. It seems like the prudent thing to do for someone who has genuine concerns about taking an action that would get someone locked up for the rest of the person's life, Lamo could have reviewed the documents himself or inquired about what precautions were being taken. Instead, he seems to have based his decision on what he reads in the newspapers and without contacting any of the parties involved.
Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article.
Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.
On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.
Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the U.S. was no longer first to file?
Unless your computer is hacked and the master database stolen, it's a pretty decent way to use unique passwords.
If you use something like LastPass, this isn't an issue because your file is encrypted with your master password. LastPass also supports several mult-factor authentication methods.
I'm not ready to go that far. The Pre was garbage hardware, and the BlackBerry hardware, according to reviews, is competitive.
I'm no fan of Reason, but can you elaborate on your claim that they produce and distribute highly questionable material? And what 'base' are you referring to? They are a Libertarian (beltarian, really) rag, and there isn't anything more to Libertarians than the base.
I agree with much that you state on people's not understanding history, but I cannot make sense of your use of the word 'libertarian'. While a high percentage of libertarians are young, most young are far from being libertarian as they usually have strong beliefs in government entitlements (education, health care, etc) and regulations (banks, food, drugs, etc).
It is important to understand that there cannot be a 'War on Terror'. Terror is a tactic, thus not something that can be defeated. The terrorists are the ones to be defeated, and they will not be defeated if we approach this as a traditional war, such as a 'police action' would require. The way to fight terrorists is with Letters of Marque and Reprisal (which Congress is authorized to grant) and ending of policies that invite such hatred toward, such as military bases in foreign nations (and drone strikes).
That is correct. The subject of declaring war was one of the most debated subjects in the Constitutional Convention and in the states' ratifying conventions. The evidence is quite clear the the President cannot engage in acts of war without a declaration of war from Congress.
You're missing the point: the party you are referring to was never part the antiwar crowd. They just postured to have something for their members to attack Bush with. The real antiwar crowd is tiny and irrelevant.
You are responding to an A.C. troll. I don't know where anyone would get the idea that Jefferson had anything to do with the Constitution. He was an ambassador to France at the time. Also not involved was John Adams (who, by the way, was not a slave owner).
Just so we're clear on a couple of things: the states with larger slave populations wanted slaves to be counted as whole persons in the census and vice versa for states with smaller slave populations. This is because the original Constitution required taxes to be apportioned (paid out based on a state's population). So the 3/5 clause actually worked to reduce the amount of money a state received in federal tax dollars for its slave population.
The Constitution, fondly remembered as the document that allowed slavery, also allowed abolishing of slavery because the Constitution was actually completely neutral on slavery. When Vermont, the 14th state, joined the union, it had already abolished slavery and it was not required to reverse that position in order to join. Also, the final, complete abolishing of slavery was done with, you guessed it, the Constitution!
I will repeat myself: All things not a part of Tor are not a part of Tor.
Anything passed the exit node is not part of Tor. I have observed the exit node to change sometimes with every click.
Tor is encrypted.
Did all those YouTube views, interviews, awards, and features result in increased profits?
From the unlinked article (emphasis mine):
"BlackBerry subscribers in the Americas may be experiencing intermittent service delays this morning..."
Also not clear is whether BIS or BES customers were affected. I'm a BIS customer, and I'm pretty sure my wireless Internet access comes from AT&T, not BlackBerry. Can't say the same for BES customers. I can also say that my phone will connect to the Internet through WiFi not only without a BlackBerry subscription, but even without a SIM card.
I never experienced a RIM outage that affected Internet, apps, the phone, etc, either, so what are YOU talking about? RIM outages that I've experienced have been loss of email services.
I've had a BlackBerry since 2005 and I don't recall any 4-day outages. In fact, on the 2 or 3 occasions that it was out for a day or so I was only down for an hour or two, and if you read their press releases this makes sense as the outages rarely affect everyone. Similar things have happened with Apple, as I recall. However, when my phone was swiped from my pocket, I felt good knowing that all of sensitive data was safe. Just like with Carrier IQ was found installed on so many phones, it was not installed on BlackBerry. From my perspective, it is the iPhones and Android phones that are riddled with issues.
It irritates me that the TrueCrypt Forums don't allow free email addresses. It ends up being a method to lock out average users from asking for help, as several of my friends have told me. From my perspective, it makes the project look like it's run by a bunch of assholes.
I have been able to correct the issue locally by going to osmbugs.org.
Only available on Verizon phones.
Annoying because I use it regularly to communicate with customers and vendors in China and Skype isn't available for BlackBerry. I guess Yahoo! Messenger ugh.
I took the same oath when I joined the Navy, and part of that oath is to swear to uphold the Constitution. Manning had information on activities that are clearly unconstitutional. Your argument is what the establishment wants to hear: we must protect secret, illegal government activities that harm millions, if not billions, to protect a few people involved with these programs, even though no evidence can be provided that anyone has directly come to harm from these activities. It seems likely that any harm, even speculatively, that would have come from these disclosures would have been presented by top officials and featured on front page of the Washington Post. But there has been no evidence to support the claims. Lamo made a poor decision.
You need to the read the Wikipedia article and then provide an intelligent response. What you have typed is pure speculation.
He also could not know that there would be fallout from the release. What he did was purely speculative. It seems like the prudent thing to do for someone who has genuine concerns about taking an action that would get someone locked up for the rest of the person's life, Lamo could have reviewed the documents himself or inquired about what precautions were being taken. Instead, he seems to have based his decision on what he reads in the newspapers and without contacting any of the parties involved.
Lamo's concerns regarding disclosure of Afgahan informants from Wikileaks are thus far unfounded, and his claim that "WikiLeaks has a history of hand-waving away the consequences of their disclosures" doesn't seem to jive with the facts in this case. Below is a quote from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article.
Informants named
Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives. Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks. However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.
On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents", although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.
Yes, I know I'm threadjacking an FP, but the issue that is often made of this so far non-issue I find annoying, particularly because it tends to overshadow the facts that were revealed.