the kind of wisdom that only prior service or affiliation gains you.
You are correct about OPR/EPRs... I was frankly embarassed when I read my first one. I went to my supervisor and told him "none of this stuff is true. I did my job... I'm pretty good at my job... but don't make it into something it's not." It's ridiculous that you have to go to such lengths, the flowery language, the embellishment, just to get promoted. That whole corrupt "look at me!!" self-promotion thing in the military drove me crazy. What the hell ever happened to doing your job humbly, quietly, being "steady eddie," and being promoted on your merits?
You are also correct that the reality is MUCH different than the recruiting spiel. Anyone joining the military better do their homework... or they have no excuse when they land in a place that sucks. I'm talking serious homework... talk to people, visit bases, AVOID commanders and such. In fact, talk to the peons, preferably the night and swing-shifts... they are often hiding from the admin types, and will be happy to give you the real scoop. Listen to such people, and THEN decide if the military is for you.
The US military kills people in industrial-sized lots better than anyone in the world, but it takes an enormous support system to make it happen. Particularly in the AF, if you're not killing people, you're support, and you'd better like that role, because 95% of the organization doesn't kill people... it supports people who kill people.
There was an underground version of the Cannonball run for a few years... not sure what ever became of it. It was set up by Car-and-Driver's Brock Yates as a speed limit protest event (for you old enough to remember the 55mph debacle).
These guys would drive cross-country, carry a bunch of cash (in case they did get pulled over and nailed with a hefty ticket), and it was all for fun and protest.
One of my relatives was an auto broker for years and years... hooked a guy up with a vehicle (Porsche, Lambo, something like that) he was planning on using for this very event. It was the only time I ever heard anyone mention it outside the context of the movie.
Motorcyclists have that size/maneuverability advantage, and have to play it to the hilt to survive. I don't know how many bikers are on/., but it's dangerous out there, folks.
My bike is also a performance machine... zero to 100 and back FAR faster than most any automobile, and it's saved my life. I used to ride cruiser bikes (always liked them, and they are more comfortable for a long ride), but switched over to a performace sport bike after coming to the conclusion that speed is sometimes your only defense. It sucks to dig into that throttle and find nothing there, particularly when you NEED IT to get out of trouble.
Hear me out... I know it seems counter-intuitive.
When you are on a bike, your only hope of survival is to avoid contact with other vehicles. A tap to them can be death for you. Airbags, seatbelts, don't exist for bikes... all you have is a helmet (hopefully... I'm a fan, not everyone is), some leather, a good pair of boots, and some gloves. If you have a car that starts to come into your lane (usually because he/she didn't see you, or didn't look), you have three choices: swerve off the road, panic-braking, or accelerate out of the way. Swerving off the road doesn't work if there's a curb there, and any dirt/gravel you swerve into may make you dump the bike. Panic-braking may work, but then you get run over by the vehicle behind you. Acceleration is often your best choice... and the faster you can do so, the better. I've laid a few bikes down... it's no fun, and I'm in no hurry to do it again. Speed also helps you outrun the occasional drunk or tailgating idiot, and I'm convinced some people out there just hate bikers, and will kill one given the opportunity. Think it doesn't happen? You haven't talked to enough bikers... I know a few who have been run off the road intentionally.
Now, you have to ride smart; I'm not a big proponent of going 100mph on a residential street... that kind of foolishness can get you dead in a hurry. Working in emergency services, I've unsuccessfully tried to piece back together waaaay too many young speed demons. Riding like a maniac will catch up with you, it's just a question of when.
That said, speed, properly applied, can save lives. If you take all comers (including the rampaging, speeding drunks) It probably kills more than it saves, but I'd say that's more of a reflection on the rider than their chosen velocity.
OpenGL does support X, via the GLX API. I'm not sure how well it works, but it'd be pretty sexy to play OpenGL games (like Quake, CS, etc) over your X-terminals.
A multimedia gateway and mail/file server for the home, running linux, piping its output to four or five thin client terminals scattered around the house.
If one person wants to play doom on one... fine. He can do it while another person checks their email, and yet another writes a paper. Set up a large RAID for all the.oggs and divx movies you would rip from your own CD/DVDs.
Who could ask for more than that? I've looked into a similar setup with a dual-proc main server, but I was planning on simply using laptops as the thin clients... screen, keyboard, etc, etc all included, quiet, no fuss. Now, getting the average laptop to netboot from a PCMCIA card is an problem... but you could simply boot from flash and get the rest from the central server.
for the use of thermal imaging cameras, previously used to detect indoor cultivation of Marijuana.
IIRC, the decision came down from the SCOTUS a year or so ago, split 5/4; Scalia wrote the majority decision. It involved a case where police used a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera.
Many cultivators of marijuana use enormous grow lights inside their homes. Despite the fact that they cover the inside of the home with aluminum foil (ostensibly to maximize their grow lights), such operations are easily detectable from the street with a simple thermal imaging device. The SCOTUS ruled this was an invasion of privacy.
At technology increases the ability to spy, the court seems to have kept pace... Bravo.
I wouldn't put Bruce Perens in the same category as ESR and Stallman... Bruce doesn't have nearly the same wide-eyed factor as the latter two (both of whom I respect, BTW, not only for their respective intellects, but for standing up and saying what many of us are thinking).
There's room for the strong, silent type (Linus), as well as the vocal type. Who's to say which is better, or more valuable? I'd say it depends on the situation.
Linus is a man of few words, and when he does speak he generally makes them count... but sometimes that's not what's required.
of Mens rea has to do with culpable mental states (I am not a lawyer). Knowingly, recklessly, negligently, etc, etc (depending on the state's law) could be a couple of examples. You are exactly correct that he must meet the elements of the offense... and the corresponding culpable mental state must also be met, assuming that is one of the elements.
I haven't read the particular statute they are charging him under, since the FBI won't release any information... but depending on the elements required, including culpable mental state, he may or may not meet them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is all a bluff on the FBI's part. I've known them to bring people into a room for questioning, with walls stacked with boxes, maps/pictures of the subject's home, work, etc... a virtual room full of "evidence" that really makes it look like they've got the goods on you. Know what? I've known of cases where those boxes were totally EMPTY... the FBI are masters at playing mind games to get you to spill your guts. It helps a great deal if you have an attorney who knows the game; I hope Adrian's attorney is sufficiently well-versed.
I'm curious to see how they handle this... otherwise, we are in total agreement about the lack of media accountability. They wield an incredible amount of power... but are really only answerable to their editorial boards.
and that's ethical vs not, whether it's hacking, or journalism.
Journalists are supposed to operate by an ethical code, and the vast majority do so. Journalistic ethics would say that you cannot break the law in order to get a story... though that's not say it hasn't been done. Check out this link. It would seem that ethical standards in journalism are quite flexible, and that there is no set rulebook. Instead, as in ethical dilemmas in many disciplines, one must weigh competing evils. The evil of impersonating someone, or operating under a false identity, veruse letting a politician go on with corrupt, harmful actions... which weighs more, and who decides?
By the same token, one might make the same argument for Adrian's actions. He intended no harm (as an investigative reporter might intend no harm in impersonating someone else to get a story), so the Mens Rea AKA "guilty mind" did not exist. Reporters often argue, when investigating and digging into the lives of public figures and officials, that those officials have less of an expectation of privacy than regular citizens... and to some extent they're right. Yet, how does the watchdog presume to waive the privacy of others in the pursuit of a story, while immediately running to the FBI? The media also argue that they have the right to dig, based on the fact that they are defending the public's "right to know." (how many times have we heard that?) The media assumes that power as society's watchdog... but who's watching them? Apparently, Adrian was, and they are NOT happy about it.
It's doubly ironic that an organization dedicated to exposing the truth (ostensibly in a transparent, above-board, and for-the-greater-good fashion), is getting their panties in a bunch over someone showing them some truth in a like manner. Apparently the old grey lady doesn't have a problem airing the dirty laundry of others, but is awfully sensitive about her own problems... and from an ethical standpoint, Adrian's actions are probably arguable either way.
I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing incredibly funny.
Heheh... when the agents wanted to come into her home, she told them to get stuffed and come back with a warrant...
That's love, folks.
It would be ironic if this was set up by the NYtimes. I thought investigative/secret camera/sting operation reporting was supposed to be agressive journalism... couldn't his "hack" be considered the same sort of thing? "Unsporting" doesn't begin to describe it, particularly if he was up-front and honest about helping them out. If the NYtimes can investigate, blow the whistle on others, and embarass them into action, I'd say the same card can be played against the Times. "Sour Grapes" anyone?
Yes, he was likely technically in the wrong, no doubt about it, particularly if you adhere to the letter of the rule, rather than the spirit of the rule... even so, this seems a bit heavy-handed.
it's truly a matter of providing a deterrent... "target-hardening" as we used to call it in the military. Make a task too difficult, and the perp will move on to easier pickings, it's human nature.
Many home burglaries are done by youths, or people looking for easily-fencable goods (typically to support a drug habit of some kind)... few are done by pros. Some burglars will simply go around a neighborhood, trying doors until they find one that's unlocked. A simple deadbolt would go a long way toward deterring this kind of casual thief.
The professional is a VERY different animal, whether he's a car thief, or a home burglar. The determined car thief will bring along wheel dollies and a panel truck/trailer if he really wants your car... he might even line that trailer with metal screen if he's out to defeat your LoJack transmitter. Bottom line: it's very difficult to guard against a calculating, intelligent, and determined thief.
That said, simple measures will go a long way... to not even take simple measures to secure your home might even open you up to legal liability. If you have a pool, you must provide a secured enclosure or gate, lest a neighborhood kid drown (and you would be sued, likely successfully, for not having taken such a "reasonable" measure). If you own guns, it might be argued that you had the obligation to lock your doors... I certainly wouldn't want to be sued because a gun I owned wound up on the floor of a neighborhood Stop-N-Rob, next to a dead clerk, simply because some crystal-meth user was able to simply wander into my home and steal said gun... I can think of more than a few plaintiffs' attorneys that might argue that angle in a wrongful death suit.
Bruce talks a great deal about security tradeoffs. Despite the fact that he's a big security guy, he states that he doesn't lock his back door, because I know the risk of burglary is slight. A security expert who cannot be bothered to turn a knob on his door... eh, what?
Well, how would he know the risk of burglary? The risk of burglary is so multifactorial, does he just go on the statistics in his city as a whole? Does he consider taking into account that maybe there's been a rash of burglaries in his neighborhood, and he just hasn't heard about it yet?
He also states that he does not think about terrorism while traveling, and that he's generally trusting of people (what about social engineering?).
That said, he makes some great points... a lot of the "security" we've put in place post-911 is truly window-dressing. He's right about reinforcing cockpit doors and training passengers to fight back (that's a MAJOR paradigm shift from what we used to tell people... "just give them what they want and let the hostage negotiators handle it." Yeah... that worked great). I can't wait until the next set of hijackers gets beaten to death by the passengers.
So you support the politics of extortion and appeasement?
Carter needs to stay out of North Korea... if I'm not mistaken, he had a hand in the 1994 Agreement (which gave us a false sense of security, and North Korea totally ignored).
OF COURSE we should be concerned about North Korea... they are a poor country that spends an extrememly disproportionate percentage of their GDP on the military. Their leaders are insular, and act, quite literally, like madmen. WE did not set north Korea on this course... THEY invaded South Korea (and were beaten back by US and South Korean forces at enormous cost), THEY have ignored the international community, THEY have exported military and missile tech to ANY country willing to pay, THEY have ignored and dishonored their international agreements... and what's worse, we're probably too late to undertake a military solution against them, since they already have nukes.
What would you like Carter to do? Craft another treaty like the 1994 one? One that we couldn't trust N. Korea to follow in any event? What if we find out years afterward that N. Korea has exported nuclear tech to the Sudan, Iran, and Bosnia? The N. Koreans cannot be trusted...they've proven that. They can only be guarded against.
Various peacemakers patted themselves on the back for the 1994 agreement, trusting that a communist dictatorship with madmen for leaders would follow it... now N. Korea has nukes, and the problem is infinitely more difficult. They have even stated the intention to test their nukes, and export nukes to any country who will pay for them... what do we do when they start that little bit of insanity? Appease them even more? Let their little game of nuclear blackmail go on indefinitely? Let other countries get in on the game?
My fear is that hundreds of thousands of people will have to die to fix this situation, because we waited too long. China is perhaps the only country that can fix this mess... and they have little reason to intervene... they're not at risk; it's all the US, S. Korea, Japan, etc...
What a mess... this should have been taken care of long ago. Now, GW Bush has all the chickens come home to roost under his watch. Whether it's Al Queda, the tech bubble, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea... GW has really had a nasty go of it so far. That's one man I don't envy.
Keep reading this thread, and you might learn even more. You might even learn that we are not talking about his right to free speech... we are talking about his penchant for monkeying around with international affairs, exacerbated by ignorance and zero accountability.
How many times do I have to say it... he was relieved of his position as president by his employers (the voters). The american public didn't want him representing their interests any longer, so they turned him out of office after one term. Presumably, if they wanted his input, they'd ask for it by reelecting him. His constant intervention is NOT helpful, and may in fact be harmful. It also shows a total lack of regard for his successors judgements, and violates a long-standing presidential tradition. That tradition is there, BTW, to keep foreign govts. from getting mixed messages, and to avoid complicating diplomatic negotiations (some ex-presidents are ASKED to assist in negotiations, but that's very different... nobody is asking for Jimmy's "help") Jimmy needs to get over himself and give it a rest.
Haven't you ever known anyone like this? Somebody at work who's always speaking up at meetings, presuming to speak for everyone? Somebody in your neighborhood association who is a busybody, who is not a member of the board, but acts like he is? Don't you remember that kid in class who tried to act like he was speaking for everyone in trying to get a test question thrown out (even though he's the only one who missed it)? Carter is a pretender to the position... he's trying to be a power broker, but he's out of the loop. He was not elected, is not accountable, and should NOT be screwing around in things he doesn't fully understand.
I'm sorry, but people like this should not be encouraged. I'm inspired by his work with Habitat for Humanity.... I'm less impressed with his diplomatic efforts. Those efforts are not inspiring, they're not brave, they're dangerous and foolish. The stakes in dollars and lives are too high to have Jimmy muddying the waters, simply on the basis that he's a nice guy, and was president 20 years ago.
Ex-presidents have about as good a set of credentials for International Troubleshooter as anyone on the planet does
And those credentials would be what, exactly? That they know some of the people involved? Have a good personality? Are nice guys?
I am of the humble opinion that in order to negotiate from a position of strength, you MUST know as much as you can about the situation, and THAT means up-to-the-minute intel (no doubt freshly lifted from the diplomat's laptop computer he left in his hotel room). As an ex-president, they get NONE of the intel, CIA, State, or other briefings that the president, NSA, or Sec. of State get. Situations on the international stage change quickly... it would be nice to know if a particular nation is bluffing about its capabilities, or has an ulterior motive for a stance that I can take advantage of... Jimmy has NO way of knowing any of that with any reliability.
I personally LIKE the fact that our leaders have to play the reelection game. If they are bunglers, then they are accountable to ME, and I (and my fellow citizens) can throw the bums out. Ex-presidents can do anything they damned well please, right or wrong, and I as "joe citizen" have no recourse against them. I don't want their help... if I did, I'd damned well reelect them.
Jimmy Carter is in a postion where he's ignorant of the big picture, and is able to do substantial harm, yet he insists on intervening anyway... I don't know whether it's arrogance, stupidity, or unbridled idealism... but I'll be charitable and say he's simply misguided, and needs to rethink his constant, counterproductive interventions.
Carter is NOT an elected official anymore (see my post above)... he just acts like one, and worse, he's one with NO accountability. He's not president now, and he needs to start acting like the regular citizen he is, instead of screwing with things he's uninformed on.
Whenever he places himself in the midst of a negotiation or international crisis, he runs the risk of sending mixed messages to the parties involved. If you get terrorist/thug/dictator/third-world-strongman listening to Carter instead of Bush, one might get the idea that the US isn't serious about backing up their positions... that's a BAD, BAD thing, especially for the parties that will actually have to answer to the voters. Carter only has to answer to Rosalyn.
Carter needs to stay out of situations where he doesn't have the intel, hasn't heard the briefings, has no clout, and isn't accountable.
There's plenty of good reasons why ex-presidents are encouraged to be cautious about what they say. I get the impression that some people think ex-presidents are circumspect about their remarks just to be nice...
If you're trying to argue free speech, bravo. I agree that free speech and free thought are (or should be) universal rights... but that's not what we are talking about here. We're talking about meddling in affairs one has no business meddling in, and making other people's jobs harder. I think it takes a lot of hubris on Jimmy's part (though he may be well-meaning) to think that only by JIMMY CARTER stepping in can the problem be properly solved.
When Carter speaks, it's always "former President Jimmy Carter," not "Joe Citizen Jimmy Carter." As a former president, his remarks could be misinterpreted as coming from the Government (he presumably still has contacts) or from a significant chunk of the American people. He may undermine or complicate a delicate negotiation, particularly when he hasn't been briefed, doesn't know the inside scoop, and doesn't know what the ultimate goals of the negotiation are.
Jimmy sticks to a pretty pacifist philosophy, one NOT shared by the majority of americans these days... that Jimmy holds that philosophy is well-known. If he undermines a negotiation or worsens an international crisis by making a country think the american people are divided, or that america is bluffing, he becomes a problem. I'm sure the State department pulls their hair out ever time he holds a press conference, or writes an editorial.
In that sense, I have NO problem telling Mr. Carter to pipe down. He's not an elected official anymore, and he's not accountable if a situation goes wrong because he screwed it up... he's not risking his own neck, but he is risking a lot of other peoples' necks.
Jimmy Carter is not a "joe citizen"... his opinions can affect world events, and not necessarily for the better. In that sense, he should have the wisdom and insight to voluntarily curtail his own "free speech."
One of the Nobel Prize folks said that the prize was given to Carter as a "kick in the leg" to President Bush... I'm not sure I'd want a prize delivered partially as a "protest vote" against somebody else.
Don't misunderstand me... Carter has done some very good, altruistic, humanitarian things, primarily with building housing for the very poor. Carter, however, is NOT president any more, and really needs to keep his opinions to himself when it comes to the things that subsequent presidents have done.
It's always been customary that when you leave the presidency, and no longer have access to the briefings, information, and intel that the current president has, you go build your library, do some sort of philanthropy, give the current president some breathing room to do the job as HE sees fit, and STFU. Apart from the rare public statement, Reagan understood it, Bush I understood it, even Clinton mostly understood it... everyone gets it but Carter.
I like what he's done for others (I remember his presidency, and others have already commented on it, so I won't), but he really needs to get off the world stage and get on with being a private citizen.
If I see one more news clip with Carter injecting himself into some international crisis, editorializing and publicly second-guessing everyone and everything that's been done, I'll vomit.
With Wifi capability, you could give this thing commands from some distance (with the appropriate yagi or waveguide antenna).
Or you could give commands to your neighbor's AIBO... Imagine the potential for invasion of privacy: AIBO wanders into your bathroom (or the bathroom of the girl next door), takes a picture, wanders out, emails it to somebody...
A ready-made remote-controllable robot spy in your house? Yikes.
You will find that a set of scrubs, a lab coat, and the trademark surgery-resident scowl will set you in far better stead (particularly if you're too young to be an attending). Also, if you carry a stethoscope, you'll need a very well-worn stethoscope... nobody but a med student carries a brand new Cardiology II (many attendings, particularly surgeons, don't carry one at all... they just borrow one)
Just cultivate the I'm-so-tired-I-could-kill-you-gut-you-and-sleep-li ke-a-baby look...
If you're in resident disguise, avoid the nurses... some of them delight in giving residents a hard time. Ironically, they forget that residents remember those slights when they actually become staff... and some nurses have the gall to wonder why the attending surgeon is such a curmudgeon to the nurses. As the saying goes, paybacks are a bitch).
Slashdot Mirror
the kind of wisdom that only prior service or affiliation gains you.
You are correct about OPR/EPRs... I was frankly embarassed when I read my first one. I went to my supervisor and told him "none of this stuff is true. I did my job... I'm pretty good at my job... but don't make it into something it's not." It's ridiculous that you have to go to such lengths, the flowery language, the embellishment, just to get promoted. That whole corrupt "look at me!!" self-promotion thing in the military drove me crazy. What the hell ever happened to doing your job humbly, quietly, being "steady eddie," and being promoted on your merits?
You are also correct that the reality is MUCH different than the recruiting spiel. Anyone joining the military better do their homework... or they have no excuse when they land in a place that sucks. I'm talking serious homework... talk to people, visit bases, AVOID commanders and such. In fact, talk to the peons, preferably the night and swing-shifts... they are often hiding from the admin types, and will be happy to give you the real scoop. Listen to such people, and THEN decide if the military is for you.
The US military kills people in industrial-sized lots better than anyone in the world, but it takes an enormous support system to make it happen. Particularly in the AF, if you're not killing people, you're support, and you'd better like that role, because 95% of the organization doesn't kill people... it supports people who kill people.
There was an underground version of the Cannonball run for a few years... not sure what ever became of it. It was set up by Car-and-Driver's Brock Yates as a speed limit protest event (for you old enough to remember the 55mph debacle).
These guys would drive cross-country, carry a bunch of cash (in case they did get pulled over and nailed with a hefty ticket), and it was all for fun and protest.
One of my relatives was an auto broker for years and years... hooked a guy up with a vehicle (Porsche, Lambo, something like that) he was planning on using for this very event. It was the only time I ever heard anyone mention it outside the context of the movie.
Mr. Yates wrote a book about it... and it can be found right here.
Motorcyclists have that size/maneuverability advantage, and have to play it to the hilt to survive. I don't know how many bikers are on /., but it's dangerous out there, folks.
My bike is also a performance machine... zero to 100 and back FAR faster than most any automobile, and it's saved my life. I used to ride cruiser bikes (always liked them, and they are more comfortable for a long ride), but switched over to a performace sport bike after coming to the conclusion that speed is sometimes your only defense. It sucks to dig into that throttle and find nothing there, particularly when you NEED IT to get out of trouble.
Hear me out... I know it seems counter-intuitive.
When you are on a bike, your only hope of survival is to avoid contact with other vehicles. A tap to them can be death for you. Airbags, seatbelts, don't exist for bikes... all you have is a helmet (hopefully... I'm a fan, not everyone is), some leather, a good pair of boots, and some gloves. If you have a car that starts to come into your lane (usually because he/she didn't see you, or didn't look), you have three choices: swerve off the road, panic-braking, or accelerate out of the way. Swerving off the road doesn't work if there's a curb there, and any dirt/gravel you swerve into may make you dump the bike. Panic-braking may work, but then you get run over by the vehicle behind you. Acceleration is often your best choice... and the faster you can do so, the better. I've laid a few bikes down... it's no fun, and I'm in no hurry to do it again. Speed also helps you outrun the occasional drunk or tailgating idiot, and I'm convinced some people out there just hate bikers, and will kill one given the opportunity. Think it doesn't happen? You haven't talked to enough bikers... I know a few who have been run off the road intentionally.
Now, you have to ride smart; I'm not a big proponent of going 100mph on a residential street... that kind of foolishness can get you dead in a hurry. Working in emergency services, I've unsuccessfully tried to piece back together waaaay too many young speed demons. Riding like a maniac will catch up with you, it's just a question of when.
That said, speed, properly applied, can save lives. If you take all comers (including the rampaging, speeding drunks) It probably kills more than it saves, but I'd say that's more of a reflection on the rider than their chosen velocity.
OpenGL does support X, via the GLX API. I'm not sure how well it works, but it'd be pretty sexy to play OpenGL games (like Quake, CS, etc) over your X-terminals.
pretty damn cool indeed.
A multimedia gateway and mail/file server for the home, running linux, piping its output to four or five thin client terminals scattered around the house.
.oggs and divx movies you would rip from your own CD/DVDs.
If one person wants to play doom on one... fine. He can do it while another person checks their email, and yet another writes a paper. Set up a large RAID for all the
Who could ask for more than that? I've looked into a similar setup with a dual-proc main server, but I was planning on simply using laptops as the thin clients... screen, keyboard, etc, etc all included, quiet, no fuss. Now, getting the average laptop to netboot from a PCMCIA card is an problem... but you could simply boot from flash and get the rest from the central server.
Build it, and they will come.
about something like that... some guy named Bloodninja trying to get a girl to talk like a pirate.
Apart from being pretty twisted, it was hilarious... I don't recall the details, other than the fact that she kept having to say "HAAARRRRR!"
Maybe Bloodninja is Dave Barry's online alter-ego...
for the use of thermal imaging cameras, previously used to detect indoor cultivation of Marijuana.
IIRC, the decision came down from the SCOTUS a year or so ago, split 5/4; Scalia wrote the majority decision. It involved a case where police used a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera.
Many cultivators of marijuana use enormous grow lights inside their homes. Despite the fact that they cover the inside of the home with aluminum foil (ostensibly to maximize their grow lights), such operations are easily detectable from the street with a simple thermal imaging device. The SCOTUS ruled this was an invasion of privacy.
At technology increases the ability to spy, the court seems to have kept pace... Bravo.
As opposed to being jewish in your responses?
Uhhhh, yeah.
I wouldn't put Bruce Perens in the same category as ESR and Stallman... Bruce doesn't have nearly the same wide-eyed factor as the latter two (both of whom I respect, BTW, not only for their respective intellects, but for standing up and saying what many of us are thinking).
There's room for the strong, silent type (Linus), as well as the vocal type. Who's to say which is better, or more valuable? I'd say it depends on the situation.
Linus is a man of few words, and when he does speak he generally makes them count... but sometimes that's not what's required.
Big tent, plenty of room for everyone.
that his name is pronounced "swin-DELL"
But yes, I was thinking the same thing... delighfully named indeed!
The "mute" button.
Once you hit that, their videos were pretty groovy... I felt a little like Bob Dole in that Britney Spears Pepsi commercial.
of Mens rea has to do with culpable mental states (I am not a lawyer). Knowingly, recklessly, negligently, etc, etc (depending on the state's law) could be a couple of examples. You are exactly correct that he must meet the elements of the offense... and the corresponding culpable mental state must also be met, assuming that is one of the elements.
I haven't read the particular statute they are charging him under, since the FBI won't release any information... but depending on the elements required, including culpable mental state, he may or may not meet them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is all a bluff on the FBI's part. I've known them to bring people into a room for questioning, with walls stacked with boxes, maps/pictures of the subject's home, work, etc... a virtual room full of "evidence" that really makes it look like they've got the goods on you. Know what? I've known of cases where those boxes were totally EMPTY... the FBI are masters at playing mind games to get you to spill your guts. It helps a great deal if you have an attorney who knows the game; I hope Adrian's attorney is sufficiently well-versed.
I'm curious to see how they handle this... otherwise, we are in total agreement about the lack of media accountability. They wield an incredible amount of power... but are really only answerable to their editorial boards.
and that's ethical vs not, whether it's hacking, or journalism.
Journalists are supposed to operate by an ethical code, and the vast majority do so. Journalistic ethics would say that you cannot break the law in order to get a story... though that's not say it hasn't been done. Check out this link. It would seem that ethical standards in journalism are quite flexible, and that there is no set rulebook. Instead, as in ethical dilemmas in many disciplines, one must weigh competing evils. The evil of impersonating someone, or operating under a false identity, veruse letting a politician go on with corrupt, harmful actions... which weighs more, and who decides?
By the same token, one might make the same argument for Adrian's actions. He intended no harm (as an investigative reporter might intend no harm in impersonating someone else to get a story), so the Mens Rea AKA "guilty mind" did not exist. Reporters often argue, when investigating and digging into the lives of public figures and officials, that those officials have less of an expectation of privacy than regular citizens... and to some extent they're right. Yet, how does the watchdog presume to waive the privacy of others in the pursuit of a story, while immediately running to the FBI? The media also argue that they have the right to dig, based on the fact that they are defending the public's "right to know." (how many times have we heard that?) The media assumes that power as society's watchdog... but who's watching them? Apparently, Adrian was, and they are NOT happy about it.
It's doubly ironic that an organization dedicated to exposing the truth (ostensibly in a transparent, above-board, and for-the-greater-good fashion), is getting their panties in a bunch over someone showing them some truth in a like manner. Apparently the old grey lady doesn't have a problem airing the dirty laundry of others, but is awfully sensitive about her own problems... and from an ethical standpoint, Adrian's actions are probably arguable either way.
I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing incredibly funny.
Heheh... when the agents wanted to come into her home, she told them to get stuffed and come back with a warrant...
That's love, folks.
It would be ironic if this was set up by the NYtimes. I thought investigative/secret camera/sting operation reporting was supposed to be agressive journalism... couldn't his "hack" be considered the same sort of thing? "Unsporting" doesn't begin to describe it, particularly if he was up-front and honest about helping them out. If the NYtimes can investigate, blow the whistle on others, and embarass them into action, I'd say the same card can be played against the Times. "Sour Grapes" anyone?
Yes, he was likely technically in the wrong, no doubt about it, particularly if you adhere to the letter of the rule, rather than the spirit of the rule... even so, this seems a bit heavy-handed.
it's truly a matter of providing a deterrent... "target-hardening" as we used to call it in the military. Make a task too difficult, and the perp will move on to easier pickings, it's human nature.
Many home burglaries are done by youths, or people looking for easily-fencable goods (typically to support a drug habit of some kind)... few are done by pros. Some burglars will simply go around a neighborhood, trying doors until they find one that's unlocked. A simple deadbolt would go a long way toward deterring this kind of casual thief.
The professional is a VERY different animal, whether he's a car thief, or a home burglar. The determined car thief will bring along wheel dollies and a panel truck/trailer if he really wants your car... he might even line that trailer with metal screen if he's out to defeat your LoJack transmitter. Bottom line: it's very difficult to guard against a calculating, intelligent, and determined thief.
That said, simple measures will go a long way... to not even take simple measures to secure your home might even open you up to legal liability. If you have a pool, you must provide a secured enclosure or gate, lest a neighborhood kid drown (and you would be sued, likely successfully, for not having taken such a "reasonable" measure). If you own guns, it might be argued that you had the obligation to lock your doors... I certainly wouldn't want to be sued because a gun I owned wound up on the floor of a neighborhood Stop-N-Rob, next to a dead clerk, simply because some crystal-meth user was able to simply wander into my home and steal said gun... I can think of more than a few plaintiffs' attorneys that might argue that angle in a wrongful death suit.
Bruce talks a great deal about security tradeoffs. Despite the fact that he's a big security guy, he states that he doesn't lock his back door, because I know the risk of burglary is slight. A security expert who cannot be bothered to turn a knob on his door... eh, what?
Well, how would he know the risk of burglary? The risk of burglary is so multifactorial, does he just go on the statistics in his city as a whole? Does he consider taking into account that maybe there's been a rash of burglaries in his neighborhood, and he just hasn't heard about it yet?
He also states that he does not think about terrorism while traveling, and that he's generally trusting of people (what about social engineering?).
That said, he makes some great points... a lot of the "security" we've put in place post-911 is truly window-dressing. He's right about reinforcing cockpit doors and training passengers to fight back (that's a MAJOR paradigm shift from what we used to tell people... "just give them what they want and let the hostage negotiators handle it." Yeah... that worked great). I can't wait until the next set of hijackers gets beaten to death by the passengers.
So you support the politics of extortion and appeasement?
Carter needs to stay out of North Korea... if I'm not mistaken, he had a hand in the 1994 Agreement (which gave us a false sense of security, and North Korea totally ignored).
OF COURSE we should be concerned about North Korea... they are a poor country that spends an extrememly disproportionate percentage of their GDP on the military. Their leaders are insular, and act, quite literally, like madmen. WE did not set north Korea on this course... THEY invaded South Korea (and were beaten back by US and South Korean forces at enormous cost), THEY have ignored the international community, THEY have exported military and missile tech to ANY country willing to pay, THEY have ignored and dishonored their international agreements... and what's worse, we're probably too late to undertake a military solution against them, since they already have nukes.
What would you like Carter to do? Craft another treaty like the 1994 one? One that we couldn't trust N. Korea to follow in any event? What if we find out years afterward that N. Korea has exported nuclear tech to the Sudan, Iran, and Bosnia? The N. Koreans cannot be trusted...they've proven that. They can only be guarded against.
Various peacemakers patted themselves on the back for the 1994 agreement, trusting that a communist dictatorship with madmen for leaders would follow it... now N. Korea has nukes, and the problem is infinitely more difficult. They have even stated the intention to test their nukes, and export nukes to any country who will pay for them... what do we do when they start that little bit of insanity? Appease them even more? Let their little game of nuclear blackmail go on indefinitely? Let other countries get in on the game?
My fear is that hundreds of thousands of people will have to die to fix this situation, because we waited too long. China is perhaps the only country that can fix this mess... and they have little reason to intervene... they're not at risk; it's all the US, S. Korea, Japan, etc...
What a mess... this should have been taken care of long ago. Now, GW Bush has all the chickens come home to roost under his watch. Whether it's Al Queda, the tech bubble, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea... GW has really had a nasty go of it so far. That's one man I don't envy.
Learn something new every day
Keep reading this thread, and you might learn even more. You might even learn that we are not talking about his right to free speech... we are talking about his penchant for monkeying around with international affairs, exacerbated by ignorance and zero accountability.
How many times do I have to say it... he was relieved of his position as president by his employers (the voters). The american public didn't want him representing their interests any longer, so they turned him out of office after one term. Presumably, if they wanted his input, they'd ask for it by reelecting him. His constant intervention is NOT helpful, and may in fact be harmful. It also shows a total lack of regard for his successors judgements, and violates a long-standing presidential tradition. That tradition is there, BTW, to keep foreign govts. from getting mixed messages, and to avoid complicating diplomatic negotiations (some ex-presidents are ASKED to assist in negotiations, but that's very different... nobody is asking for Jimmy's "help") Jimmy needs to get over himself and give it a rest.
Haven't you ever known anyone like this? Somebody at work who's always speaking up at meetings, presuming to speak for everyone? Somebody in your neighborhood association who is a busybody, who is not a member of the board, but acts like he is? Don't you remember that kid in class who tried to act like he was speaking for everyone in trying to get a test question thrown out (even though he's the only one who missed it)? Carter is a pretender to the position... he's trying to be a power broker, but he's out of the loop. He was not elected, is not accountable, and should NOT be screwing around in things he doesn't fully understand.
I'm sorry, but people like this should not be encouraged. I'm inspired by his work with Habitat for Humanity.... I'm less impressed with his diplomatic efforts. Those efforts are not inspiring, they're not brave, they're dangerous and foolish. The stakes in dollars and lives are too high to have Jimmy muddying the waters, simply on the basis that he's a nice guy, and was president 20 years ago.
Sheesh.
Ex-presidents have about as good a set of credentials for International Troubleshooter as anyone on the planet does
And those credentials would be what, exactly? That they know some of the people involved? Have a good personality? Are nice guys?
I am of the humble opinion that in order to negotiate from a position of strength, you MUST know as much as you can about the situation, and THAT means up-to-the-minute intel (no doubt freshly lifted from the diplomat's laptop computer he left in his hotel room). As an ex-president, they get NONE of the intel, CIA, State, or other briefings that the president, NSA, or Sec. of State get. Situations on the international stage change quickly... it would be nice to know if a particular nation is bluffing about its capabilities, or has an ulterior motive for a stance that I can take advantage of... Jimmy has NO way of knowing any of that with any reliability.
I personally LIKE the fact that our leaders have to play the reelection game. If they are bunglers, then they are accountable to ME, and I (and my fellow citizens) can throw the bums out. Ex-presidents can do anything they damned well please, right or wrong, and I as "joe citizen" have no recourse against them. I don't want their help... if I did, I'd damned well reelect them.
Jimmy Carter is in a postion where he's ignorant of the big picture, and is able to do substantial harm, yet he insists on intervening anyway... I don't know whether it's arrogance, stupidity, or unbridled idealism... but I'll be charitable and say he's simply misguided, and needs to rethink his constant, counterproductive interventions.
Because he can, he should Oh come on...
Carter is NOT an elected official anymore (see my post above)... he just acts like one, and worse, he's one with NO accountability. He's not president now, and he needs to start acting like the regular citizen he is, instead of screwing with things he's uninformed on.
Whenever he places himself in the midst of a negotiation or international crisis, he runs the risk of sending mixed messages to the parties involved. If you get terrorist/thug/dictator/third-world-strongman listening to Carter instead of Bush, one might get the idea that the US isn't serious about backing up their positions... that's a BAD, BAD thing, especially for the parties that will actually have to answer to the voters. Carter only has to answer to Rosalyn.
Carter needs to stay out of situations where he doesn't have the intel, hasn't heard the briefings, has no clout, and isn't accountable.
There's plenty of good reasons why ex-presidents are encouraged to be cautious about what they say. I get the impression that some people think ex-presidents are circumspect about their remarks just to be nice...
If you're trying to argue free speech, bravo. I agree that free speech and free thought are (or should be) universal rights... but that's not what we are talking about here. We're talking about meddling in affairs one has no business meddling in, and making other people's jobs harder. I think it takes a lot of hubris on Jimmy's part (though he may be well-meaning) to think that only by JIMMY CARTER stepping in can the problem be properly solved.
When Carter speaks, it's always "former President Jimmy Carter," not "Joe Citizen Jimmy Carter." As a former president, his remarks could be misinterpreted as coming from the Government (he presumably still has contacts) or from a significant chunk of the American people. He may undermine or complicate a delicate negotiation, particularly when he hasn't been briefed, doesn't know the inside scoop, and doesn't know what the ultimate goals of the negotiation are.
Jimmy sticks to a pretty pacifist philosophy, one NOT shared by the majority of americans these days... that Jimmy holds that philosophy is well-known. If he undermines a negotiation or worsens an international crisis by making a country think the american people are divided, or that america is bluffing, he becomes a problem. I'm sure the State department pulls their hair out ever time he holds a press conference, or writes an editorial.
In that sense, I have NO problem telling Mr. Carter to pipe down. He's not an elected official anymore, and he's not accountable if a situation goes wrong because he screwed it up... he's not risking his own neck, but he is risking a lot of other peoples' necks.
Jimmy Carter is not a "joe citizen"... his opinions can affect world events, and not necessarily for the better. In that sense, he should have the wisdom and insight to voluntarily curtail his own "free speech."
Just because he can, doesn't mean he should.
One of the Nobel Prize folks said that the prize was given to Carter as a "kick in the leg" to President Bush... I'm not sure I'd want a prize delivered partially as a "protest vote" against somebody else.
Don't misunderstand me... Carter has done some very good, altruistic, humanitarian things, primarily with building housing for the very poor. Carter, however, is NOT president any more, and really needs to keep his opinions to himself when it comes to the things that subsequent presidents have done.
It's always been customary that when you leave the presidency, and no longer have access to the briefings, information, and intel that the current president has, you go build your library, do some sort of philanthropy, give the current president some breathing room to do the job as HE sees fit, and STFU. Apart from the rare public statement, Reagan understood it, Bush I understood it, even Clinton mostly understood it... everyone gets it but Carter.
I like what he's done for others (I remember his presidency, and others have already commented on it, so I won't), but he really needs to get off the world stage and get on with being a private citizen.
If I see one more news clip with Carter injecting himself into some international crisis, editorializing and publicly second-guessing everyone and everything that's been done, I'll vomit.
With Wifi capability, you could give this thing commands from some distance (with the appropriate yagi or waveguide antenna).
Or you could give commands to your neighbor's AIBO... Imagine the potential for invasion of privacy: AIBO wanders into your bathroom (or the bathroom of the girl next door), takes a picture, wanders out, emails it to somebody...
A ready-made remote-controllable robot spy in your house? Yikes.
Yes, I did miss the smilie... touche`
As for my axe... I like to keep it dull... hurts more.
You will find that a set of scrubs, a lab coat, and the trademark surgery-resident scowl will set you in far better stead (particularly if you're too young to be an attending). Also, if you carry a stethoscope, you'll need a very well-worn stethoscope... nobody but a med student carries a brand new Cardiology II (many attendings, particularly surgeons, don't carry one at all... they just borrow one)
i ke-a-baby look...
Just cultivate the I'm-so-tired-I-could-kill-you-gut-you-and-sleep-l
If you're in resident disguise, avoid the nurses... some of them delight in giving residents a hard time. Ironically, they forget that residents remember those slights when they actually become staff... and some nurses have the gall to wonder why the attending surgeon is such a curmudgeon to the nurses. As the saying goes, paybacks are a bitch).
You will learn all of this in time.