I am not liking Capaldi or the new writing though, it just tries too hard to be deep and avant garde anymore.
Have to disagree about Capaldi. Tennant got the right balance of dark and light, but I thought Smith was just all fluff, so I like that Capaldi's Doctor is rougher, grizzly even. But then I was a huge fan of The Thick of It.
The writing, yeah I miss Russell T. Davies. Moffat is clearly a talented writer (I love what he did with Sherlock) but the best episodes of the Who reboot, for me, are basically all Russell. And Torchwood doesn't look like coming back either, I'd probably rate seasons 3 and 4 over all of Who.
Sorry for being thick I suppose... But bringing it to earth presupposes ownership, to me anyway. And by saying it is all right to go get it, congress is making rules about stuff it does not own. No more than anybody else at least.
But they are saying something about ownership by allowing (US) companies to "bring it here" with no regard for other interested parties. Substitute something like Antarctica in the bit you quoted earlier, maybe you'll see what I mean.
A couple of billionaires are exploring that issue right now. The quantities of precious and heavy metals contained in some asteroids is valued in the trillions.
The preciousness of those materials is in its rarity. If the amount of gold on earth suddenly triples, it'll presumably affect its value. Well, unless we make some arbitrary distinction like the one that attaches different value to artificial vs natural diamond, which everybody accepts for romantic reasons (and to keep De Beers filthy rich).
Other space-faring nations are unlikely to challenge America on this issue, because they have an interest in staking their own claims. (...) Space is big, and there is plenty of stuff out there.
I'm not sure they wouldn't challenge this. While it may only apply to companies in its jurisdiction, what gives US congress the authority to decide about ownership of stuff in space?
The existing UK laws assume guilty if you do not hand over your key when law enforcement ask for it. It's been like this since the late 1980s.
I was wondering about that... Doesn't this kind of prove that this latest offensive against privacy is not aimed at individual investigations, for which cases as you point out they have long had options? So this is about mass-surveillance.
Oh dear. An obvious question, but not one we're supposed to ask out loud. Next thing you know someone might get to wondering what it is, exactly, that Elsevier et.al. are adding here, in terms of actual value.
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
but it [Gitmo] is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
Except that it did. Victoria Nuland admitted to $5B : http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY
the fact you used the word "unconstitutional" is what gives you away as a Russian shill
There was regime change without elections. You and I might consider this "just", given that the previous bunch were pretty corrupt, but it certainly wasn't "constitutional".
NATO doesn't make anyone join by force
That's right, and I don't think anonymous GP was arguing they do. But they do accept or deny membership bids, and accepting Poland and various other former East Bloc nations was a violation of the promises made when the cold war ended.
Now, we use Diffie-Hellman every day to do exactly that, as part of https. We thought it was impossible to share a secret on a public forum (or network) without everyone else on the forum being able to read the secret, but we were wrong. Diffie and Hellman invented a way.
Just thought I'd mention Ralph Merkle, the guy gets nowhere near fair credit for having co-invented public key cryptography. In fact, Hellman argues we should talk about Diffie-Hellman-Merkle key exchange.
And there were some guys at GCHQ who independently did pretty much the same. But I credit them less because it was all kept secret and they work for, you know, evil.
True enough. Still, I wasn't aware of any major change of heart in their part. I haven't been following them too closely, but I would expect to have heard about something that significant. Would love to be wrong, actually.
Oh wait, I just read it again and guess I misunderstood the first time.. This browser written in HTML/CSS/JS is the sample, demonstrating the awesomeness this EdgeHTML engine.
Anyway, I'm not going to be able to check it out due to my Unamerican OS.
Wait, are you suggesting the Confederate flag be repurposed as a symbol for freedom-loving people? I mean that in the true sense of the word, which implies opposing these secret spy programs, not the security theater perversion.
Yeah, it's not actually that clear in this case: the Saudi regime for instance, most evil theocracy on the planet and great friends of the U.S., do not get a pass from these guys, as your theory would predict.
And the U.S. themselves only rank around #30 on their Press Freedom Index, last time I checked. But that is compiled from reports by actual journalists in the field, IIRC, so might be more difficult for them to doctor.
Because Reporters Without Borders is an organization of considerably more dubious repute than the similarly named Doctors Without Borders. For one thing Otto Reich was involved, and besides State Dept there are very persistent accusations of ties with Western intelligence outfits. They were active in propaganda campaigns all over South America, Cuba in particular.
I guess this AC is just one of the many folks, on both sides, caught up in black/white thinking: my criticism of Clinton is therefore a sure indicator I must support the other side.
None at all, actually, other than some choice bits courtesy of Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.
By the way, it just occurred to me: wasn't a young Hilary part of the legal team advising the articles of impeachment back when Nixon was caught erasing tapes? The irony.
Seems to me the reasons for her decision to use a private server for government business are pretty simple. It means that she (and her staff) get to decide which documents should be forked over in response to FOIA requests.
In a just world this server would now at an independent expert for thorough inspection.
Same thing for congressional oversight. Case in point: Benghazi.
Also, it keeps all of her correspondence out of the official protocols. She wants to delete some stuff? No problem. That would be more complicated if she had used her government-issued means of communication.
I seem to remember from earlier incidents (like the hack of Sarah Palin's personal mail) that this is *not legal*. For good reasons.
Finally, it is basically a given that some of her correspondence contains sensitive, if not outright secret, information. If someone like Thomas Drake gets threatened with ridiculous punishment for having *un*classified information on his home PC, surely this here should land Mrs Clinton in a whole lot of trouble. But, well, who am I kidding, right?
Slashdot Mirror
There are countless avenues within U.S. gov't that he could have followed
Really? Name one whistleblower who followed one of those "countless avenues" to any effect, while not having G-men systematically wreck their lives.
Thomas Drake and friends tried, and suffered for it.
I am not liking Capaldi or the new writing though, it just tries too hard to be deep and avant garde anymore.
Have to disagree about Capaldi. Tennant got the right balance of dark and light, but I thought Smith was just all fluff, so I like that Capaldi's Doctor is rougher, grizzly even. But then I was a huge fan of The Thick of It.
The writing, yeah I miss Russell T. Davies. Moffat is clearly a talented writer (I love what he did with Sherlock) but the best episodes of the Who reboot, for me, are basically all Russell. And Torchwood doesn't look like coming back either, I'd probably rate seasons 3 and 4 over all of Who.
Shame Neil Gaiman didn't do more.
Sorry for being thick I suppose... But bringing it to earth presupposes ownership, to me anyway. And by saying it is all right to go get it, congress is making rules about stuff it does not own. No more than anybody else at least.
But they are saying something about ownership by allowing (US) companies to "bring it here" with no regard for other interested parties. Substitute something like Antarctica in the bit you quoted earlier, maybe you'll see what I mean.
I think you may have missed my point; by what right should the US get to allocate ownership of stuff it doesn't own?
A couple of billionaires are exploring that issue right now. The quantities of precious and heavy metals contained in some asteroids is valued in the trillions.
The preciousness of those materials is in its rarity. If the amount of gold on earth suddenly triples, it'll presumably affect its value. Well, unless we make some arbitrary distinction like the one that attaches different value to artificial vs natural diamond, which everybody accepts for romantic reasons (and to keep De Beers filthy rich).
Other space-faring nations are unlikely to challenge America on this issue, because they have an interest in staking their own claims. (...) Space is big, and there is plenty of stuff out there.
I'm not sure they wouldn't challenge this. While it may only apply to companies in its jurisdiction, what gives US congress the authority to decide about ownership of stuff in space?
The existing UK laws assume guilty if you do not hand over your key when law enforcement ask for it. It's been like this since the late 1980s.
I was wondering about that... Doesn't this kind of prove that this latest offensive against privacy is not aimed at individual investigations, for which cases as you point out they have long had options? So this is about mass-surveillance.
Bad form to reply to self, but I forgot to quote the question I was referring to:
So why, he asked, should access to such research be blocked?
Oh dear. An obvious question, but not one we're supposed to ask out loud. Next thing you know someone might get to wondering what it is, exactly, that Elsevier et.al. are adding here, in terms of actual value.
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
but it [Gitmo] is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
So anything short of that is acceptable?
This is simply the dark side of marketing departments.
You make it sound like there is a light side.
Yeah, except that didn't really happen.
Except that it did. Victoria Nuland admitted to $5B :
http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY
the fact you used the word "unconstitutional" is what gives you away as a Russian shill
There was regime change without elections. You and I might consider this "just", given that the previous bunch were pretty corrupt, but it certainly wasn't "constitutional".
NATO doesn't make anyone join by force
That's right, and I don't think anonymous GP was arguing they do. But they do accept or deny membership bids, and accepting Poland and various other former East Bloc nations was a violation of the promises made when the cold war ended.
Now, we use Diffie-Hellman every day to do exactly that, as part of https. We thought it was impossible to share a secret on a public forum (or network) without everyone else on the forum being able to read the secret, but we were wrong. Diffie and Hellman invented a way.
Just thought I'd mention Ralph Merkle, the guy gets nowhere near fair credit for having co-invented public key cryptography. In fact, Hellman argues we should talk about Diffie-Hellman-Merkle key exchange.
And there were some guys at GCHQ who independently did pretty much the same. But I credit them less because it was all kept secret and they work for, you know, evil.
True enough. Still, I wasn't aware of any major change of heart in their part. I haven't been following them too closely, but I would expect to have heard about something that significant. Would love to be wrong, actually.
Oh wait, I just read it again and guess I misunderstood the first time.. This browser written in HTML/CSS/JS is the sample, demonstrating the awesomeness this EdgeHTML engine.
Anyway, I'm not going to be able to check it out due to my Unamerican OS.
So fork it. It's open source. Or is it? The title suggests it is but TFS mentions "sample code" on GH. Which is it?
Also I thought open source was Unamerican according to MS?
Wait, are you suggesting the Confederate flag be repurposed as a symbol for freedom-loving people? I mean that in the true sense of the word, which implies opposing these secret spy programs, not the security theater perversion.
Yeah, somehow I don't think that will fly.
Looks like U.S. Now rank #46 out of 180... source.
Yeah, it's not actually that clear in this case: the Saudi regime for instance, most evil theocracy on the planet and great friends of the U.S., do not get a pass from these guys, as your theory would predict.
And the U.S. themselves only rank around #30 on their Press Freedom Index, last time I checked. But that is compiled from reports by actual journalists in the field, IIRC, so might be more difficult for them to doctor.
Because Reporters Without Borders is an organization of considerably more dubious repute than the similarly named Doctors Without Borders. For one thing Otto Reich was involved, and besides State Dept there are very persistent accusations of ties with Western intelligence outfits. They were active in propaganda campaigns all over South America, Cuba in particular.
I guess this AC is just one of the many folks, on both sides, caught up in black/white thinking: my criticism of Clinton is therefore a sure indicator I must support the other side.
None at all, actually, other than some choice bits courtesy of Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.
By the way, it just occurred to me: wasn't a young Hilary part of the legal team advising the articles of impeachment back when Nixon was caught erasing tapes? The irony.
Seems to me the reasons for her decision to use a private server for government business are pretty simple. It means that she (and her staff) get to decide which documents should be forked over in response to FOIA requests.
In a just world this server would now at an independent expert for thorough inspection.
Same thing for congressional oversight. Case in point: Benghazi.
Also, it keeps all of her correspondence out of the official protocols. She wants to delete some stuff? No problem. That would be more complicated if she had used her government-issued means of communication.
I seem to remember from earlier incidents (like the hack of Sarah Palin's personal mail) that this is *not legal*. For good reasons.
Finally, it is basically a given that some of her correspondence contains sensitive, if not outright secret, information. If someone like Thomas Drake gets threatened with ridiculous punishment for having *un*classified information on his home PC, surely this here should land Mrs Clinton in a whole lot of trouble. But, well, who am I kidding, right?