Amtrak property. actually he temporarily banned the TSA VIPR teams from Amtrak property.
so yeah. if you read the web forums about this, people are invariably outraged. i mean you have to dig for a while before you find anyone who has posted on the web that this was a good idea.
the head of the Amtrak police is named John O'Connor.
you can read about VIPR by checking wikipedia, i uhm just wrote an article and it could use some help from the public!
is about like linking saddam hussein to bin ladin.
there is absolutely zero, not one shred of evidence that those two events are linked.
there is not a single credible economist in the entire world who would link 9/11 to the financial crisis of 2008.
the only way they are even tangentially connected is that 1. the country was preoccupieid with iraq and afghanistan so that 2. they stopped paying attention to the financial markets for a few years, the crucial ones being 2005, 2006, and 2007 when most of the synthetic CDOs were pumped out. some would also argue that Greenspan made interest rates too low in the early 2000s.. but he did that not only because of 9/11 but because of the dotcom bubble crash.
i dont think that even fringe economists would link 9/11 to the crash of 2008. hell i dont even think 9/11 truthers link 9/11 to the financial crash of 2008.
This has been described over and over, perhaps best in Alan Greenspan's book "The Age of Turbulence".
The dot-com crash of circa 2000 and the 9/11 attacks led to a minor recession. Unemployment did not rocket up, the stock market did not crash that badly, and it recovered, and so did the bond markets. Many attribute this partly to Greenspan lowering interest rates on treasury funds so everyone could borrow cheaply for a while. There is absolutely, positively no economists who would tell you that 9/11 caused "trillions of dollars" of damage to the economy.
the crash of 2008 had nothing, whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form to do with al qaeda. and that crash is what cost trillions of dollars. the crash of 2008 was related to the Synthetic CDO market, the fraudulent mortgage market, the CLO / private equity market, and a bunch of other stuff. but it had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
articles in numerous magazines, journals, books, and court case records?
people used to say 'its there, just go to the library and its there'.
now they say the internet.
sometimes i get tired of doing other people's research for them. especially when i know they aren't really interested in reality and are arguing in bad faith.
microsoft is very soon going to sue every single linux company claiming that they have stolen patents from microsoft.
meanwhile, every major microsoft product was based on "stealing" the intellectual property of others.
the main difference was that in the 80s and early 90s nobody, including microsoft, cared about patent litigation in software.
--
i could also go into the various other things microsoft did, like
its relationship with the BSA,
what it did to Dr DOS
the way it forced Dell (and other OEMs) to not sell competing operating systems
the way it double bills universities for licenses (they buy computers from Dell with a Windows license, but the university already has a 10000 seat license)
the way it bribed teachers to use microsoft products in the classroom
the way it used prison labor to package its products
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
'fair competition' thing is one thing. what Microsoft did is pretty far off from what normal people would consider fair.
if it hadn't been for this anti-trust case, Microsoft would have crushed Apple like a bug, just like it did all it's other competitors before it. Anyone remember Wordperfect? Do you remember the guys who invented the spreadsheet? Anyone remember the company who invented visual programming? Anyone remember the company that put out the first commercial web browser? Anyone remember GEOS? BeOS??
Instead, Microsoft had to actively support Apple, including the massive investment in porting Office to Mac, release after release, even through Apple's transition to a BSD-like subsystem. Why? Because Microsoft didn't want to get sued again. That's the only reason it has allowed Linux to live; SCO was just a test fire to see if Linux would blink. Now comes the Patent Wars, which will crush Linux into the dirt.
No hedge fund shareholder of Microsoft is going to put up with this open source hippie bullshit. They are, instead, going to scream out and pound the podium: "Law and fucking order!". And that is who controls Microsoft and other public IT companies - shareholders, banks, hedge funds, funds of funds, etc. None of them understand open source, they barely understand copyright law. What they do understand is the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed. And all of this Linux shit is getting in the way of their profit margins.
i mean, technically, im breaking the law RIGHT NOW telling it to you.
and unless you 'deliver' that information to a government agent 'entitled to receive it', you are breaking the law just by having this information in your computer memory.
i cannot get a foreign service job because of my discussing this fact with you... should i also be in prison?
as Obama's DOJ staff has repeatedly lectured the people supporting Drake, Kim, and Sterling (the bogus espionage act cases), and even in the Manning case, the "rule of law" is important and government actors cannot decide for themselves when to follow it and when not to.
personally i dont want to see the photos. but if the FOIA says they have to be released then they have to be released; the president does not have a choice. . . nobody is above the law.
besides, the things i mentiond could be used to develop countermeasures to Seal assault teams; especially the details about the courier cellphone, the NSA involvement, the stealth helicopters, etcetera.
every other damn detail about the damn mission including
1. the fact that a courier led them to his house 2. the CIA ahd been watching him 3. the helicopters are specially modified 4. they use hyperspectral imagers 5. the seal team was navy seal team six 6. they have given away the identities of some of the team member 7. they gave away the identity of the dog that was involved????? 8. they gave away details about NSA involvement in SIGINT
etc etc etc
Obama's staff is the "senior officials on condition of anonymity".
none of them gave a shit about national security when it made their man look good on TV.
but Obama has several whistleblowers &c. under prosecution right now for violation Espionage law (Drake, Sterling, Kim) for information far less important.
it makes no goddamn sense, at all. Obama needs to comply with FOIA law and stop pretending he is the fucking emperor who can decide willy nilly about state security
do you think there should be no regulation? there is a reason the FDA was created; people were dying from bad products being sold. in China there's no FDA - instead they take the guy pointing out the baby-milk scandal and put him in prison for several years. (Zhao Lianhai).
Slashdot Mirror
that whole turing machine thing?
number two: get your hands off my kid
number three: get your hands off my balls
number four: you are under arrest.
and rummage through your computer and your bathroom then, you know, that only teaches the terrorists that they can make bombs inside of their houses.
Amtrak property. actually he temporarily banned the TSA VIPR teams from Amtrak property.
so yeah. if you read the web forums about this, people are invariably outraged. i mean you have to dig for a while before you find anyone who has posted on the web that this was a good idea.
the head of the Amtrak police is named John O'Connor.
you can read about VIPR by checking wikipedia, i uhm just wrote an article and it could use some help from the public!
just curious as to what the point of all this stuff is.
jesus im sick of these fucking tigers attacking me.
is about like linking saddam hussein to bin ladin.
there is absolutely zero, not one shred of evidence that those two events are linked.
there is not a single credible economist in the entire world who would link 9/11 to the financial crisis of 2008.
the only way they are even tangentially connected is that 1. the country was preoccupieid with iraq and afghanistan so that 2. they stopped paying attention to the financial markets for a few years, the crucial ones being 2005, 2006, and 2007 when most of the synthetic CDOs were pumped out. some would also argue that Greenspan made interest rates too low in the early 2000s.. but he did that not only because of 9/11 but because of the dotcom bubble crash.
i dont think that even fringe economists would link 9/11 to the crash of 2008. hell i dont even think 9/11 truthers link 9/11 to the financial crash of 2008.
This has been described over and over, perhaps best in Alan Greenspan's book "The Age of Turbulence".
The dot-com crash of circa 2000 and the 9/11 attacks led to a minor recession. Unemployment did not rocket up, the stock market did not crash that badly, and it recovered, and so did the bond markets. Many attribute this partly to Greenspan lowering interest rates on treasury funds so everyone could borrow cheaply for a while. There is absolutely, positively no economists who would tell you that 9/11 caused "trillions of dollars" of damage to the economy.
the crash of 2008 had nothing, whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form to do with al qaeda. and that crash is what cost trillions of dollars. the crash of 2008 was related to the Synthetic CDO market, the fraudulent mortgage market, the CLO / private equity market, and a bunch of other stuff. but it had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
i invite you go read the article on wikipedia about VIPR teams (which i may have uhm,, written.. )
articles in numerous magazines, journals, books, and court case records?
people used to say 'its there, just go to the library and its there'.
now they say the internet.
sometimes i get tired of doing other people's research for them. especially when i know they aren't really interested in reality and are arguing in bad faith.
apple would have died on the vine.
this is not me making shit up, its all over the internet if you choose to dig there i welcome it.
you realize that 99.999% of normal people are going to read those emails from bill gates and decide that what he did was morally wrong?
microsoft is very soon going to sue every single linux company claiming that they have stolen patents from microsoft.
meanwhile, every major microsoft product was based on "stealing" the intellectual property of others.
the main difference was that in the 80s and early 90s nobody, including microsoft, cared about patent litigation in software.
--
i could also go into the various other things microsoft did, like
its relationship with the BSA,
what it did to Dr DOS
the way it forced Dell (and other OEMs) to not sell competing operating systems
the way it double bills universities for licenses (they buy computers from Dell with a Windows license, but the university already has a 10000 seat license)
the way it bribed teachers to use microsoft products in the classroom
the way it used prison labor to package its products
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
'fair competition' thing is one thing. what Microsoft did is pretty far off from what normal people would consider fair.
i meant, they use illegal means to destroy competitors, and not vague 'monopoly' stuff. really illegal stuff like paying off the BSA
but i know there are people who dont believe any business activity is ever illegal. so whatever.
what are you saying dude?
and vote the story down?
no?
why not?
how much time a day do you spend reading slashdot?
now how much time to do you spend in the recent queue voting down crap stories?
now, how about if i asked you to pay me to do this? would you pay? no?
that's what i thought.
they promote the culture of greed and corruption that is at the center of the financial crisis.
in fact, if you dig through old files on the CIA FOIA website, you will find precisely this.
there are photographs on that site where portions of the photograph have been redacted.
the government secrecy thing has gone way, way, way beyond where Congress ever intended it to go.
if it hadn't been for this anti-trust case, Microsoft would have crushed Apple like a bug, just like it did all it's other competitors before it. Anyone remember Wordperfect? Do you remember the guys who invented the spreadsheet? Anyone remember the company who invented visual programming? Anyone remember the company that put out the first commercial web browser? Anyone remember GEOS? BeOS??
Instead, Microsoft had to actively support Apple, including the massive investment in porting Office to Mac, release after release, even through Apple's transition to a BSD-like subsystem. Why? Because Microsoft didn't want to get sued again. That's the only reason it has allowed Linux to live; SCO was just a test fire to see if Linux would blink. Now comes the Patent Wars, which will crush Linux into the dirt.
No hedge fund shareholder of Microsoft is going to put up with this open source hippie bullshit. They are, instead, going to scream out and pound the podium: "Law and fucking order!". And that is who controls Microsoft and other public IT companies - shareholders, banks, hedge funds, funds of funds, etc. None of them understand open source, they barely understand copyright law. What they do understand is the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed. And all of this Linux shit is getting in the way of their profit margins.
would that be treason?
because that information is classified.
i mean, technically, im breaking the law RIGHT NOW telling it to you.
and unless you 'deliver' that information to a government agent 'entitled to receive it', you are breaking the law just by having this information in your computer memory.
i cannot get a foreign service job because of my discussing this fact with you... should i also be in prison?
as Obama's DOJ staff has repeatedly lectured the people supporting Drake, Kim, and Sterling (the bogus espionage act cases), and even in the Manning case, the "rule of law" is important and government actors cannot decide for themselves when to follow it and when not to.
personally i dont want to see the photos. but if the FOIA says they have to be released then they have to be released; the president does not have a choice. . . nobody is above the law.
besides, the things i mentiond could be used to develop countermeasures to Seal assault teams; especially the details about the courier cellphone, the NSA involvement, the stealth helicopters, etcetera.
every other damn detail about the damn mission including
1. the fact that a courier led them to his house
2. the CIA ahd been watching him
3. the helicopters are specially modified
4. they use hyperspectral imagers
5. the seal team was navy seal team six
6. they have given away the identities of some of the team member
7. they gave away the identity of the dog that was involved?????
8. they gave away details about NSA involvement in SIGINT
etc etc etc
Obama's staff is the "senior officials on condition of anonymity".
none of them gave a shit about national security when it made their man look good on TV.
but Obama has several whistleblowers &c. under prosecution right now for violation Espionage law (Drake, Sterling, Kim) for information far less important.
it makes no goddamn sense, at all. Obama needs to comply with FOIA law and stop pretending he is the fucking emperor who can decide willy nilly about state security
do you think there should be no regulation? there is a reason the FDA was created; people were dying from bad products being sold.
in China there's no FDA - instead they take the guy pointing out the baby-milk scandal and put him in prison for several years.
(Zhao Lianhai).
oh, actually bribery is already illegal.
too bad the 'rule of law' doesnt apply to the friends of the powerful.
provides for execution for 'breaching confidentiality'.
my impression is that there are only a few things that get you executed, including
Aiding the enemy
Treason
Misprison of treason
bradley manning isnt even charged with treason, he is only charged with aiding the enemy.
every other charge against him about giving out information only provides for jail or fines. not death.