Mexico would be much wealthier country if we hadn't taken half of their territory. Not to mention the constant meddling of the United States in Mexican affairs.
As Mexican President Porfirio Diaz said: "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!"
The implication here is that the USA improperly took this territory from Mexico, which is NOT true. This is also a rewriting of history that makes the USA into a bad actor by distorting the actual happenings.
The problem for your view is that the USA had taken ALL of Mexico and *could* have easily just absorbed it. Mexico had been basically bordering on anarchy in the decade before the war and really had no effective government at the time. Had the USA been interested in just taking land, they would have owned Mexico, lock stock and barrel. We didn't. In fact, we spent money to assist them in getting their government going again after the war and helped them rebuild.
Then, at a later date.... Mexico agreed to SELL the US additional land and resolve the pending border dispute.
I'm sorry that some in Mexico feel cheated, but I don't believe they have a valid case to lay such claims at this late date.
There are two sides to every conflict. However, in this case it is clear that Mexico "fired the first shot" as it where, by engaging their military outside their country and attacking a US patrol in Texas, killing 16. War was declared on both sides and the conflict lasted about 18 months with the total capture of ALL of Mexico by the USA.
I'm sure the Mexican view is quite different, given that they still had not recognized the independence of Texas, but their surrender and subsequent sale of additional land to the USA makes the border between our two countries pretty much a settled issue at this point. Those who complain about it now are misguided and unfairly maligning the USA's actions.
One small correction... We returned a LOT of Mexico, but not MOST of it after the war. The USA kept 55% or so but the land was seen as worthless, having little water. However, in the treaty that ended the war we did pay some of their debts and damages. Also, any citizens of Mexico where offered relocation from the territory if they wanted to stay in Mexico. If they stayed, they where given immediate US citizenship including the right to vote.
The USA has not always walked worthy of the document that started it all (The Declaration of Independence) but we are generally progressing towards the realization of it's principles.
Did we have slaves? Initially, yes. However, we did fight a bloody civil war in the 1860's and managed to abolish it in our laws. Tens of thousands of lives, both white and black where lost in this war. The USA paid in blood to do right.
Did we illegally arrest and hold Japanese Americans during WWII? Yes, but we have recognized that it was wrong and done what we can to restore what was lost.
Did we take territory from Mexico during a war? Of course, during the war we actually took ALL of Mexico, seems to me we gave a lot of it back and I'd bet that the people who live there now wish we had kept it all. Also don't forget that this war was to protect the disputed areas called Texas which had already declared it's independence and then joined the Union in 1845. Territory that had gone though multiple country's hands, including France, Spain before Mexico ended up with it. But this war was initiated by Mexico's attacks, and when the USA totally defeated Mexico, we gave most of it back to them.
Civil rights laws have (as a matter of law) established equal rights for all Americans. We may not have lived up to that ideal, but it is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on race or gender. Any failure to meet that ideal needs to be subject to legal action and dealt with in the courts.
How all this says that the USA is a bad place is beyond me. Are we perfect? No. But we are advancing closer to the ideal expressed in our founding document. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We need to keep advancing on the ideal set forth in the Declaration of Independence and should not abandon our past by declaring the USA a lost cause. Because it will only truly be a lost cause if we give up.
How would you feel if there were highways that only certain companies could use to distrubute their goods? Why do we allow this on the internet?
It's called a "TOLL ROAD" and we DO have them. We also have Rail Roads, where if you want to put your freight on that system, you PAY the owner of the rails. Ever flown in an airplane, ridden a subway or a buss? You normally pay for that too.
The internet is not different, at least not all that different. If your business involves loads of traffic over somebody else's network, expect them to want a cut of the action.
What really should bother you though, is that Verizon customers like me have already paid them for access to the internet and that includes streaming of Netlix content. Now, I will have to pay them more as my Netflix subscription rate will go up to offset Verizon's cut. I already PAID (and paid dearly) for Netflix's traffic that I use, but now I will pay AGAIN for the same traffic though my Netflix subscription fees. THAT I don't like..
Wow, going from 2000 to 327,661 iterations sounds like a big deal. Does that actually add any value, or is that like doing rot-13 a million times?
No, it actually helps, but you have to understand what they are doing before it makes sense.
Usually they use an encryption technique that takes a fixed sized key, usually multiples of 8 bits or so. This means you can optimize the software (or hardware) to encrypt using say 16 bits. You want 160 bits in your key, so you run 10 times though, using up 16 bits of your key each time. However, with 160 bits, you can now change how you rotate the bits in the key. Say you advance only 2 bits each time, then you run though your ~80 iterations. Therr are a whole bunch of options on how you use your keys with the same encryption technique. Now, there is also some gain from encrypting multiple times using the same key too. It means you have to know how many iterations to try which adds to the complexity of the code breaker's task.
Now I have simplified all this by leaving some important details out, but as you can see, multiple trips though the encryption process can be helpful, especially if it includes making use of more bits worth of key, rotating the key bits and the decrypter doesn't know how many encryption passes you used or what key rotation process you used.
We make sure we hire a Jeep with leather seats, burning beef tallow based diesel fuel to keep the AC going and make sure we staff the car with hamburger eating Google engineers wearing natural fur coats. Attach a trailer with a nice BBQ and make sure to hand out as much tasty meat as can be obtained, cooked and dispensed along the way to any hungry persons who asks. THEN we make sure to get a number of camels to pull the jeep along and make meat deliveries. Attache a big sign that says "People Eating Tasty Animals" too.
Any other ways we can anger the PETA folks?
These people are fruit cakes... WITH too many nuts. Go back to rescuing abused pets....
You seem to be confused regarding who is engaging in the DoS attack.
The script poisons bittorrent traffic in order to *stop* the DoS attack that is *already* in progress, caused by the *torrenter*.
You missed my point then. Assuming that YOU are entitled to decide what traffic is allowed and what traffic is disrupted in a network which is NOT YOURS is wholly inappropriate and smacks of self importance. Who are you? Who put you in charge? What makes you entitled to decide?
It's like you decided that your neighbor's back yard garden was getting too weedy and didn't have enough flowers, so the next time he invites you over for a BBQ you show up with shovels and herbicides to start "fixing" the problem. In the process, you might be digging up his organic vegetable garden, you don't know.
Stay in YOUR yard and DON'T start trying to administer networks which are NOT yours.
This software is inappropriate for USERS to run. Network operators/owners are free to do what they wish with their network. Both are in my original post on this.
Who won the cold war? Why? Russia doesn't suffer lack of natural resources, Russians are not dumber than North Americans, it was their system of government that made the difference.
At this point I rest my case, mainly because argument over the micro issues is obviously trumpped by the macro.
You write a utility that scans network traffic (strike 1) so you can find traffic *you* don't agree with (strike 2). Then, you engage in a DOS attack to stop it? (Strike 3). You are out; at least you should be.
What on earth entitles you to do such nonsense on a network you don't own? The business owner can do what he wants and allow what he wants. If you want to offer to run your little hack, after explaining what it does and getting their permission have fun, but you have ZERO right to just march in and start making a mess of somebody's ARP cache because you don't like what's going on. Morally, You need permission to do this kind of thing on a network you don't own or legally control, so until you have permission BUTT OUT!
You probably yell at your neighborhood kids for riding their bikes in the street or not crossing at the corners after the full "Stop, Look, and Listen" routine too.... If it's not your network, keep your packet sniffing and ARP poisoning attacks to yourself. You don't know if the BitTorrent traffic isn't the owner's laptop downloading CentOS in the back room or some guy working for the MPAA who hacked in from 2 miles away, and it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
You cannot be serious... Russian Capitalism a bad thing? I would contend that their general problems since the late 80's where related directly to the failings of their socialistic system that preceded it. The social and economic damage done by socialism are not undone overnight, and the Russian experience serves as a warning to those who would try the same things again. The implementation of liberty and capitalistic systems has been helpful for the most part, but the damage to be undone is huge. Look what is happening in Venezuela and Greece with their socialistic systems if you need even more recent evidence. Both countries are in serious trouble, not for lack of resources, but because of socialism. Argentina is another example.
There is an old saying that "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." I like to add that those who DO know history are doomed to watch while those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
If you think about it for a few, I think you will see my point. If you assume that burning fossil fuels is bad, and you, being well off, decide to pay more for energy in an effort to not do bad things, the net effect is at best neutral. You really haven't prevented the burning of fossil fuels for energy, but have only really succeeded in making it cheaper for others to burn it.
Remember that the markets for such fuels are WORLD WIDE. So if you reduce demand for these fuels in one country, you just make it cheaper for people who don't share your view (or cannot afford to do anything else). So countries like China will willingly take the advantage of cheap energy while they sell you the means of being environmentally friendly because they will become richer and more powerful. I don't think we want to be governed by China, but that's what we are headed towards when we do stupid stuff like this.
You see, unless we get EVERYBODY in the world on the same page there is no real change. Unless you can outlaw fossil fuel consumption both here, in China, in the third world and everyplace else, nothing will really change. So spending more money for your electricity, just because it is solar or wind powered, is both financially and environmentally stupid. Your money would be better spent on RESEARCH into cheaper/cleaner energy production...
So why do people choose to spend more on such garbage? I'm guessing it's because they haven't thought it though and are being shamed into it.
I may be a firm believer in liberty over government and you may think I'm wrong, but let's both fully understand the facts of history. In my understanding, liberty and the capitalist system it allows has done more to advance this world's standard of living than any other system. What's my example? Why, the good old USA's 200+ years, compared to the plight of Russia during the same years. One country was decidedly socialist in it's leanings, the other decidedly not. Which did better by it's people? For the world's people? (hint: it wasn't Russia). So, your "Socialism is great" world view doesn't fly in the face of history.
Does Socialism have it's good points? On occasion I suppose it does, at least in the short term. However, history is full of examples of socialism gone wrong and full of warnings about the fact that it is NOT a self correcting system. Socialism leads you to more and more dependance and less and less independence and liberty when it is touted as the solution. Socialism leads to pyramid type schemes like social security and the ACA which may work for awhile but crumble under their own weight eventually and cost many times more than their proponents say. Socialism leads to things like East Germany and Poland of the 80's where people are oppressed, or the "modern" example of North Korea where starvation is the rule.
Compare that to Capitalism and Liberty. Are their examples of bad things Capitalism has done? Sure. However, history proves that such excesses are self limiting and correcting. The evils are short lived in the face of prudent and minimal systems of laws which are designed to keep the playing field level for all. The worst case of capitalism run amok in history was Standard Oil, which we dealt with. But for the creation of wealth and the upward pressure on the standard of living NOTHING beats the capitalistic system.
So, which do you prefer? A system that historically has underperformed and self destructed time and again OR the system which has outperformed all others and usually self corrects?
For me, the framers made the right choice and to use their words "the truth is self evident".
When a warrant is signed by a judge, Law Enforcement has every right to force execution of the warrant by just about any means they see fit to use. If that means they break down your door, toss in a flash bang and do thousands of dollars damage, so be it. If that means they hack into your web server, they get to do it.
This is a PR attempt by the lawyer to gin up the press in an effort to get public opinion on their side in hopes that the prosecutor might be tempted to lower the charges or something. Assuming there was a warrant, the evidence is valid and can be used. Best this guy can hope for is a good plea deal, which I doubt looks very good right now. Think of this as a hail Mary pass by the home team on homecoming night when they are down by 3 and only have 10 seconds left to play. Chances are this won't work and they are going to loose.
I'm sure the CDC has a protocol for this. Cremation would be effective, but the issue is as always, how do you contain and transport that much bio-hazard material? I don't know, but I'm sure we don't have to depend on the collection process used in Africa.
No, not another day, it's going to take a bit longer than that. I think the 5-21 day gap between contracting Ebola and showing symptoms is going to slow this down. It's not an emergency until we have either unexplained cases outside the original case confirmed where the isolation efforts in place clearly isn't effective in containing an outbreak. If we start seeing distant contact cases pop up over the next 20 days or so, THEN it's panic time.
I'd start stocking up on essentials if you have the chance. Should this thing go bad, it will be pretty quick once panic sets in...
I've heard the rumors of parallel construction, but we have no examples of such.
The rest is either not an abuse by the NSA (idiots checking up on their girlfriends) and illegal by the law, or simply supposition without evidence.
Look, conspiracies theories are easy to invent but they are impossible to prove.
I say there isn't anybody who has wrongfully been accused of crimes, or accused of crimes learned though tainted wrongfully collected evidence which came out of the FISA law (and it's amendments). Then you offer evidence that says it *might* have happened and we'd not know about it. Anything is possible I suppose but you are making some really big claims here.
So, time to offer proof because I don't believe that NSA collected evidence has been improperly used to convict anybody, even in secret. I see no evidence that a secret trial could happen, much less that it actually has happened. So on both accounts I will not accept that simply being "possible" means it's happened.
And, just to illustrate my point.... Yes, I believe that the USA landed on the moon, all the conspiracy theories are wrong on that one too. (Yes, your theories above are in the same tradition, and is about as well supported.)
New possible Ebola case in Dallas is a Deputy who served the warrant to force isolation of Duncan's girlfriend's family. We won't know for 48 hours what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Mexico would be much wealthier country if we hadn't taken half of their territory. Not to mention the constant meddling of the United States in Mexican affairs. As Mexican President Porfirio Diaz said: "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!"
The implication here is that the USA improperly took this territory from Mexico, which is NOT true. This is also a rewriting of history that makes the USA into a bad actor by distorting the actual happenings.
The problem for your view is that the USA had taken ALL of Mexico and *could* have easily just absorbed it. Mexico had been basically bordering on anarchy in the decade before the war and really had no effective government at the time. Had the USA been interested in just taking land, they would have owned Mexico, lock stock and barrel. We didn't. In fact, we spent money to assist them in getting their government going again after the war and helped them rebuild.
Then, at a later date.... Mexico agreed to SELL the US additional land and resolve the pending border dispute.
I'm sorry that some in Mexico feel cheated, but I don't believe they have a valid case to lay such claims at this late date.
There are two sides to every conflict. However, in this case it is clear that Mexico "fired the first shot" as it where, by engaging their military outside their country and attacking a US patrol in Texas, killing 16. War was declared on both sides and the conflict lasted about 18 months with the total capture of ALL of Mexico by the USA.
I'm sure the Mexican view is quite different, given that they still had not recognized the independence of Texas, but their surrender and subsequent sale of additional land to the USA makes the border between our two countries pretty much a settled issue at this point. Those who complain about it now are misguided and unfairly maligning the USA's actions.
One small correction... We returned a LOT of Mexico, but not MOST of it after the war. The USA kept 55% or so but the land was seen as worthless, having little water. However, in the treaty that ended the war we did pay some of their debts and damages. Also, any citizens of Mexico where offered relocation from the territory if they wanted to stay in Mexico. If they stayed, they where given immediate US citizenship including the right to vote.
The USA has not always walked worthy of the document that started it all (The Declaration of Independence) but we are generally progressing towards the realization of it's principles.
Did we have slaves? Initially, yes. However, we did fight a bloody civil war in the 1860's and managed to abolish it in our laws. Tens of thousands of lives, both white and black where lost in this war. The USA paid in blood to do right.
Did we illegally arrest and hold Japanese Americans during WWII? Yes, but we have recognized that it was wrong and done what we can to restore what was lost.
Did we take territory from Mexico during a war? Of course, during the war we actually took ALL of Mexico, seems to me we gave a lot of it back and I'd bet that the people who live there now wish we had kept it all. Also don't forget that this war was to protect the disputed areas called Texas which had already declared it's independence and then joined the Union in 1845. Territory that had gone though multiple country's hands, including France, Spain before Mexico ended up with it. But this war was initiated by Mexico's attacks, and when the USA totally defeated Mexico, we gave most of it back to them.
Civil rights laws have (as a matter of law) established equal rights for all Americans. We may not have lived up to that ideal, but it is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on race or gender. Any failure to meet that ideal needs to be subject to legal action and dealt with in the courts.
How all this says that the USA is a bad place is beyond me. Are we perfect? No. But we are advancing closer to the ideal expressed in our founding document. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We need to keep advancing on the ideal set forth in the Declaration of Independence and should not abandon our past by declaring the USA a lost cause. Because it will only truly be a lost cause if we give up.
They block encryption they are violating the telecommunication laws. And so they are not a carrier anymore.
If you mean "common carrier" then the truth is that they never where one.
Very true if the poster means "common carrier"
How would you feel if there were highways that only certain companies could use to distrubute their goods? Why do we allow this on the internet?
It's called a "TOLL ROAD" and we DO have them. We also have Rail Roads, where if you want to put your freight on that system, you PAY the owner of the rails. Ever flown in an airplane, ridden a subway or a buss? You normally pay for that too.
The internet is not different, at least not all that different. If your business involves loads of traffic over somebody else's network, expect them to want a cut of the action.
What really should bother you though, is that Verizon customers like me have already paid them for access to the internet and that includes streaming of Netlix content. Now, I will have to pay them more as my Netflix subscription rate will go up to offset Verizon's cut. I already PAID (and paid dearly) for Netflix's traffic that I use, but now I will pay AGAIN for the same traffic though my Netflix subscription fees. THAT I don't like..
Wow, going from 2000 to 327,661 iterations sounds like a big deal. Does that actually add any value, or is that like doing rot-13 a million times?
No, it actually helps, but you have to understand what they are doing before it makes sense.
Usually they use an encryption technique that takes a fixed sized key, usually multiples of 8 bits or so. This means you can optimize the software (or hardware) to encrypt using say 16 bits. You want 160 bits in your key, so you run 10 times though, using up 16 bits of your key each time. However, with 160 bits, you can now change how you rotate the bits in the key. Say you advance only 2 bits each time, then you run though your ~80 iterations. Therr are a whole bunch of options on how you use your keys with the same encryption technique. Now, there is also some gain from encrypting multiple times using the same key too. It means you have to know how many iterations to try which adds to the complexity of the code breaker's task.
Now I have simplified all this by leaving some important details out, but as you can see, multiple trips though the encryption process can be helpful, especially if it includes making use of more bits worth of key, rotating the key bits and the decrypter doesn't know how many encryption passes you used or what key rotation process you used.
No, SMART would mean the connection is ENCRYPTED....
I'm pretty sure explosion imminent is 3 long, 2 short, 3 long.
I would think that 3 short, 3 long, 3 short would be more appropriate... ("SOS")
via ticking sound, and a countdown timer. It's expected to be a big hit.
I was thinking it would be a banjo playing... Or two as the event approached...
We make sure we hire a Jeep with leather seats, burning beef tallow based diesel fuel to keep the AC going and make sure we staff the car with hamburger eating Google engineers wearing natural fur coats. Attach a trailer with a nice BBQ and make sure to hand out as much tasty meat as can be obtained, cooked and dispensed along the way to any hungry persons who asks. THEN we make sure to get a number of camels to pull the jeep along and make meat deliveries. Attache a big sign that says "People Eating Tasty Animals" too.
Any other ways we can anger the PETA folks?
These people are fruit cakes... WITH too many nuts. Go back to rescuing abused pets....
You seem to be confused regarding who is engaging in the DoS attack.
The script poisons bittorrent traffic in order to *stop* the DoS attack that is *already* in progress, caused by the *torrenter*.
You missed my point then. Assuming that YOU are entitled to decide what traffic is allowed and what traffic is disrupted in a network which is NOT YOURS is wholly inappropriate and smacks of self importance. Who are you? Who put you in charge? What makes you entitled to decide?
It's like you decided that your neighbor's back yard garden was getting too weedy and didn't have enough flowers, so the next time he invites you over for a BBQ you show up with shovels and herbicides to start "fixing" the problem. In the process, you might be digging up his organic vegetable garden, you don't know.
Stay in YOUR yard and DON'T start trying to administer networks which are NOT yours.
This software is inappropriate for USERS to run. Network operators/owners are free to do what they wish with their network. Both are in my original post on this.
You did read MY post right?
Who won the cold war? Why? Russia doesn't suffer lack of natural resources, Russians are not dumber than North Americans, it was their system of government that made the difference.
At this point I rest my case, mainly because argument over the micro issues is obviously trumpped by the macro.
You write a utility that scans network traffic (strike 1) so you can find traffic *you* don't agree with (strike 2). Then, you engage in a DOS attack to stop it? (Strike 3). You are out; at least you should be.
What on earth entitles you to do such nonsense on a network you don't own? The business owner can do what he wants and allow what he wants. If you want to offer to run your little hack, after explaining what it does and getting their permission have fun, but you have ZERO right to just march in and start making a mess of somebody's ARP cache because you don't like what's going on. Morally, You need permission to do this kind of thing on a network you don't own or legally control, so until you have permission BUTT OUT!
You probably yell at your neighborhood kids for riding their bikes in the street or not crossing at the corners after the full "Stop, Look, and Listen" routine too.... If it's not your network, keep your packet sniffing and ARP poisoning attacks to yourself. You don't know if the BitTorrent traffic isn't the owner's laptop downloading CentOS in the back room or some guy working for the MPAA who hacked in from 2 miles away, and it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
You cannot be serious... Russian Capitalism a bad thing? I would contend that their general problems since the late 80's where related directly to the failings of their socialistic system that preceded it. The social and economic damage done by socialism are not undone overnight, and the Russian experience serves as a warning to those who would try the same things again. The implementation of liberty and capitalistic systems has been helpful for the most part, but the damage to be undone is huge. Look what is happening in Venezuela and Greece with their socialistic systems if you need even more recent evidence. Both countries are in serious trouble, not for lack of resources, but because of socialism. Argentina is another example.
There is an old saying that "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." I like to add that those who DO know history are doomed to watch while those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
How's this social justice? That's new...
If you think about it for a few, I think you will see my point. If you assume that burning fossil fuels is bad, and you, being well off, decide to pay more for energy in an effort to not do bad things, the net effect is at best neutral. You really haven't prevented the burning of fossil fuels for energy, but have only really succeeded in making it cheaper for others to burn it.
Remember that the markets for such fuels are WORLD WIDE. So if you reduce demand for these fuels in one country, you just make it cheaper for people who don't share your view (or cannot afford to do anything else). So countries like China will willingly take the advantage of cheap energy while they sell you the means of being environmentally friendly because they will become richer and more powerful. I don't think we want to be governed by China, but that's what we are headed towards when we do stupid stuff like this.
You see, unless we get EVERYBODY in the world on the same page there is no real change. Unless you can outlaw fossil fuel consumption both here, in China, in the third world and everyplace else, nothing will really change. So spending more money for your electricity, just because it is solar or wind powered, is both financially and environmentally stupid. Your money would be better spent on RESEARCH into cheaper/cleaner energy production...
So why do people choose to spend more on such garbage? I'm guessing it's because they haven't thought it though and are being shamed into it.
I may be a firm believer in liberty over government and you may think I'm wrong, but let's both fully understand the facts of history. In my understanding, liberty and the capitalist system it allows has done more to advance this world's standard of living than any other system. What's my example? Why, the good old USA's 200+ years, compared to the plight of Russia during the same years. One country was decidedly socialist in it's leanings, the other decidedly not. Which did better by it's people? For the world's people? (hint: it wasn't Russia). So, your "Socialism is great" world view doesn't fly in the face of history.
Does Socialism have it's good points? On occasion I suppose it does, at least in the short term. However, history is full of examples of socialism gone wrong and full of warnings about the fact that it is NOT a self correcting system. Socialism leads you to more and more dependance and less and less independence and liberty when it is touted as the solution. Socialism leads to pyramid type schemes like social security and the ACA which may work for awhile but crumble under their own weight eventually and cost many times more than their proponents say. Socialism leads to things like East Germany and Poland of the 80's where people are oppressed, or the "modern" example of North Korea where starvation is the rule.
Compare that to Capitalism and Liberty. Are their examples of bad things Capitalism has done? Sure. However, history proves that such excesses are self limiting and correcting. The evils are short lived in the face of prudent and minimal systems of laws which are designed to keep the playing field level for all. The worst case of capitalism run amok in history was Standard Oil, which we dealt with. But for the creation of wealth and the upward pressure on the standard of living NOTHING beats the capitalistic system.
So, which do you prefer? A system that historically has underperformed and self destructed time and again OR the system which has outperformed all others and usually self corrects?
For me, the framers made the right choice and to use their words "the truth is self evident".
When a warrant is signed by a judge, Law Enforcement has every right to force execution of the warrant by just about any means they see fit to use. If that means they break down your door, toss in a flash bang and do thousands of dollars damage, so be it. If that means they hack into your web server, they get to do it.
This is a PR attempt by the lawyer to gin up the press in an effort to get public opinion on their side in hopes that the prosecutor might be tempted to lower the charges or something. Assuming there was a warrant, the evidence is valid and can be used. Best this guy can hope for is a good plea deal, which I doubt looks very good right now. Think of this as a hail Mary pass by the home team on homecoming night when they are down by 3 and only have 10 seconds left to play. Chances are this won't work and they are going to loose.
I'm sure the CDC has a protocol for this. Cremation would be effective, but the issue is as always, how do you contain and transport that much bio-hazard material? I don't know, but I'm sure we don't have to depend on the collection process used in Africa.
No, not another day, it's going to take a bit longer than that. I think the 5-21 day gap between contracting Ebola and showing symptoms is going to slow this down. It's not an emergency until we have either unexplained cases outside the original case confirmed where the isolation efforts in place clearly isn't effective in containing an outbreak. If we start seeing distant contact cases pop up over the next 20 days or so, THEN it's panic time.
I'd start stocking up on essentials if you have the chance. Should this thing go bad, it will be pretty quick once panic sets in...
I was thinking GM myself....
I've heard the rumors of parallel construction, but we have no examples of such.
The rest is either not an abuse by the NSA (idiots checking up on their girlfriends) and illegal by the law, or simply supposition without evidence.
Look, conspiracies theories are easy to invent but they are impossible to prove.
I say there isn't anybody who has wrongfully been accused of crimes, or accused of crimes learned though tainted wrongfully collected evidence which came out of the FISA law (and it's amendments). Then you offer evidence that says it *might* have happened and we'd not know about it. Anything is possible I suppose but you are making some really big claims here.
So, time to offer proof because I don't believe that NSA collected evidence has been improperly used to convict anybody, even in secret. I see no evidence that a secret trial could happen, much less that it actually has happened. So on both accounts I will not accept that simply being "possible" means it's happened.
And, just to illustrate my point.... Yes, I believe that the USA landed on the moon, all the conspiracy theories are wrong on that one too. (Yes, your theories above are in the same tradition, and is about as well supported.)
New possible Ebola case in Dallas is a Deputy who served the warrant to force isolation of Duncan's girlfriend's family. We won't know for 48 hours what it is.