BitCoins are not incompatible with a normal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that might prevent some of this. That said, due to their extreme utility for money laundering, tax avoidance, etc. I'm pretty sure they'd rather the things disappear and therefore may direct law-enforcement resources elsewhere in the case of a BitCoin theft.
You utterly misunderstand what this website does. You punch in your zip code and age, it spits back plans and rack-rate premiums. That's it. That's the part of healthcare.gov that actually works, and has since they rolled out the feature a few days after launch.
The part of the government website that is having all the problems is the part where you actually sign up for the plans. That's what is requiring a large amount of integration, and has been doing horribly. Because of how the law was written (specifically the parts on subsidy eligibility) it's a little more complicated than processing a shopping cart on Amazon. (Business rules validation/integration is the most difficult part of most business applications.)
Translation: "In a few weeks we created a pretty front end to the part of the website that is really easy to write."
I'm not saying the healthcare.gov rollout was done well, or that the main contractor didn't botch the job. I'm just saying that this website doesn't provide any evidence of it.
There are two parts to the healthcare.gov website. The one where you can simply search for plans available in your zip code, and the one where you actually sign up. The one where you search for plans in your zipcode works just fine, and that's what they've duplicated here.
The far more complex part of the website (the one that requires talking to, and integrating data from, a very large pile of different databases) is the part not working well.
Translation: They created a pretty front-end to a database-driven site somebody else made. Hardly the labors of Hercules.
From TFS: "However, the story has been slightly garbaged into it being fake [LinkedIn and Slashdot] accounts, as opposed to network spoofing."
What on earth is "garbaging"? I always thought "garbage" was a noun. "Verb-ing" nouns is a time-honored tradition, but there are plenty of perfectly good verbs that would have worked here (mangled is the first that comes to mind) without devising a new one that is confusing, at best, in this context.
A quick googling does reveal garbaging as a verb, but in contexts that actually make sense. (Spreading garbage on somebody's lawn (Urban Dictionary), or something to do with garbage collection (various technical sites.))
"And thanks to the Federal Reserve system, there aren't even physical assets (like gold bars) of equal value to all the Federal Reserve notes in circulation. It's a bizarre system that only works as long as debt keeps circulating (buying and selling) and accumulating (loans with interest)."
It sure sounds to me like you are blaming the Federal Reserve for the gold standard being gone. And then following it with a statement about "bizarre" fractional reserve banking sure read to me like you are blaming the Fed for that too.
If you meant to point out the ignorance of those that neglected to pay attention to Civics class in high school, where they went over all things like the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, you could have phrased it differently.
Well, I agree with you on one point: Robbing a bank by walking into the lobby of your local branch is very romantic, but it's a horrible and dangerous way to steal money, and has lousy returns. I'd say we've long past the point where that was the best way to rob a bank. (I'd say owning or running a bank is probably the best way to rob it...)
A bank doesn't need to keep ANY dollar bills on hand for dollars in their bank accounts; only branch banks need physical currency at all. There are plenty of non-branch banks out there that don't have any physical currency; what would they need it for? The Fed does not require any bank, even Federal Reserve members, to hold any particular portion of their assets in currency (although I do think Federal Reserve members do need to let their account holders withdraw their deposits as cash at any point; it's how the Fed actually distributes cash out into the economy.)
A dollar bill doesn't represent "debt"; it represents one dollar's worth of the world's total supply of dollars/dollar-denominated assets. In that sense, it's little different from a share of stock. Some of those dollar-denominated assets are debts, some are coins in my pocket, some are bits on my bank's hard disks, some consist of stacks of $100's in a cave in some benighted 3rd-world kleptocracy. If the supply of dollars increases faster than dollar-denominated assets, we have inflation, if the reverse happens, we have deflation.
You may of course choose to blame the Federal Reserve for whatever you like, but the Fed did not create fractional reserve banking or fiat currency, nor did they originate the idea of moving money around through a method other sacks of cash.
And even if we still had the gold standard, why would we tie the amount of gold on-hand to physical currency? Virtual currency is easier and safer to store, manage, and move. An electronic dollar is no different from a $1 bill in my pocket.
BTW, yes, credit is the backbone of every modern economy in the world; this is hardly new... it's been the case for centuries. Modern capitalism would be utterly impossible without it.
1) Not all non-violent resistance is peaceable. Preventing other citizens from exercising their own rights is not peaceable. For instance, if you non-violently erect barricades in front of Pennsylvania Ave., you prevent other protestors from accessing that same space. You prevent other citizens from using that space for whatever those needs are (maybe they want to get into the White House to exercise their own rights.) You prevent the government, who actually owns the space, from using it for their own purposes, like accessing the entrance of the White House. Illegal and/or disruptive behavior does not receive a "get out of jail free" card just because it takes place in the context of a protest. There is quite a bit of leeway, but it is not infinite just because you don't become violent.
2) No, a boycott is NOT the same as a sit-in. A sit-in prevents other people from using the resources being taken. A boycott is a decision not to patronize a revenue-making service, it's not even close to the same thing.
3) The "Kodak Moment" rule does NOT only apply to protestors. If you camp on the sidewalk in front of the White House with a bunch of stationary photographic equipment you are also falling afoul of the law. The law refers to obstructing the view of others with a stationary anything; it doesn't specifically refer to any object, whether it be a clown suit on stilts, a protest sign, a half-dozen of your closest friends or a miniature hot air balloon. You can assemble all you want. You can assemble in a huge group with several hundred of your closest friends. You just can't block others from exercising their own rights to the very public space while doing so; you have to keep moving (so other people that would also like to use the same space have a chance to occupy it.)
These "arrests" for the Kodak Moment Rule are pre-arranged. As in, the protestors request the arrests ahead of time with the Park Police. It's kind of hard to make an argument that you are being targeted for unconstitutional treatment when you've asked the authorities to arrest you prior to the offense even taking place. So yes, I suppose the protestors are being "targeted" for arrest, but only because they have literally asked for it. I can think of no better (or more polite) example of "governing with the consent of the governed" than citizens requesting in advance to be arrested for violating the law. (The alternative; protestors escalating disruptive behavior such as blocking traffic or vandalism until the police decide to restore order, suits nobody. The protestors end up with real criminal records, such demonstrations can quickly get out of hand (on both sides), it ties up more police resources, and fouls up the operation of the city. Voluntary pre-arranged arrests are better for everyone.)
4) Protestors do not have any special claim to government resources or land that trump other people from also using those public resources. The government is more than welcome to place reasonable restrictions on even protests, as long as those restrictions ARE reasonable, and they are applied in a way that evenly applies to the speech, no matter the content.
Reasonable: No marches across the Memorial Bridge Northbound Span during morning rush hour during the work-week. Unreasonable: No marches across the Memorial Bridge between the hours of 4AM-3:30AM, ever. Reasonable: No 100,000 person marches through a trail in a National Park. Unreasonable: No marches by the lumber industry through a trail in a National Park. Reasonable: No blocking of the entrances to government buildings. Unreasonable: No marching in front of government buildings. Reasonable: Two protests are not allowed to take place in the same place at the same time. If the Lincoln Memorial steps have already been "booked" for an assembly with a speaker, you don't get to set up your unrelated picket line in a circle right around the lectern. Unreasonable: Two groups that don't like each other can't protest on the
You have the right to peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Shutting the city down isn't peaceable. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was entirely different. The blacks in the city simply didn't ride the buses, but the buses ran just the same, the city functioned just fine, albeit without those bus fares (and what could they have done? ordered people to ride the bus?) Now, if they had instead chosen to lay down in front of the buses, that would have been very different, and reasonable law enforcement action would have been justified and uncontroversial.
And the "Kodak Moment Rule" isn't actually used for day-to-day enforcement; as long as you don't take up half the sidewalk all day in one spot, they don't really care. (Picket line? Ok; march all day long. Standing as a wall of humanity? Blocks things, including other protestors.) The rule is used because for pre-arranged arrests of protestors (this is worked out with the Park Police by the protestors in advance), they have to write something down on the citation, not because the govt' actually gives a *bleep!* about tourist's photos when you stand still for a minute; I imagine if you wanted to you could each toss a wild pigeon a piece of popcorn and arrange to have them cite you for feeding the wildlife. If you are actually disruptive (instead of requesting in advance to be arrested), like choosing to block car traffic by lying down in the road, they'll find something a little less silly to charge you with, and you'll probably have to spend the night in the lock-up.
Yes, you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to actually obstruct the normal functioning of government or the activities of your fellow citizens, who also have rights to exercise.
I'm not saying Anonymous did this (in fact, I kind of doubt it, given their reputation), but yes, you can work with the Park Police to arrange how many arrests you'd like made, in advance. And the Park Police will also coordinate your protest with others that may be happening the same day (so you aren't all mixed up in the same spot in one non-media-friendly jumble), handle any police protection you might need, etc.
You'd think that this would run counter to the spirit of getting arrested while protesting against the government, but few activists actually want to engage in violence or destruction (which is what you'd normally have to do to get arrested), spend time in jail, get beat by riot police, or have a real criminal record. And the Park Police don't want protestors engaging in violence and destruction just so they can get arrested.
By prearranging your arrest for a laughably minor "offense", your organization gets to boast about what tough willing-to-pay-any-price patriots you are, get your pictures taken for your newsletter, you get to file press releases, etc., and the Park Police get to keep order in the city streets. A win-win situation all around! (And the arrestees get to tell the proverbial grandkids how they got arrested in a protest once...)
Talk about "governing with the consent of the governed"! "Officer, I'm going to violate a law you don't normally enforce tomorrow at such-and-such time, would you do me the favor of arresting me for it? Oh, and can you make sure and supply especially mean-looking officers so we can take good publicity photos?"
"Obstructing the sidewalk" is a misdemeanor traffic violation on the level of a citation for jaywalking. No employer circular-files job applicants for a minor traffic ticket (especially one not actually involving a motor vehicle.)
Your "record" (if the Feds even bother to check your ID or file it in a database) won't indicate you were protesting at all... anyone reading it will just think some cop busted you for sitting down on the sidewalk to rest your legs. (That's if criminal background check services even bother with those parts of the justice databases at all...)
People protest against the government in DC All. The. Time. There's a protest about something or other going on pretty much every day of the year. Dissent is most certainly tolerated (even if its usually ignored.)
What they don't tolerate is your protest turning violent or overly disrupting the functioning of the city... you want to gather a couple hundred thousand people on the National Mall? Fine. But don't have those couple hundred thousand people decide to lay down in the middle of the streets during rush hour; there's no right to be an asshole.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post; I was relating to the fact that the Park Service acknowledges that people like to get arrested during their protests, and simultaneously they don't want protests to be violent or disruptive to the functioning of the city. You can actually arrange with them ahead of time to have them haul some of you off, cite you, and release you. The Park Service does not, in fact, actually care if you obstruct the sidewalk for a little bit. But if you are going to be arrested (at your request), they have to write something on the citation, so they selectively enforce the sidewalk-obstructing law at the request of the arrestees during the advance arrangements.
In a Citizen's arrest, you detain an offender while waiting for a proper sworn officer to arrive and "accept" your arrest. You are going to have a hard time finding a sworn officer with appropriate jurisdiction agree to issue a formal citation to a police officer doing their job.
For properly organized protests, the Park Service will agree (in advance) to arrest you and your fellow patriots in a way that won't harm your reputation in the least. As long as you don't degenerate into a violent mob, they'll happily (and photogenically) arrest you for obstructing the sidewalk, haul you off zip-tied in a van to a holding facility, issue you a nominal fine for a misdemeanor about as serious as a minor speeding ticket, and release you. (I doubt they even care if you pay the fine or not.)
"Obstructing a Sidewalk" is hardly a violation upon which lives are ruined.
The Park Service has no interest in "filling up the jails" with non-violent protestors. They can't have unruly mobs making the city unusable, but also have to make sure people have the ability to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
If you want some non-violent arrests during your protest, all you have to do is ask. The Park Service will work out with you how many of your Warriors For Freedom will get photogenically arrested, and all you have to do is have your designated arrestees stand still long enough to get cited for obstructing the sidewalk. You'll get zip-tied, taken to a ramshackle holding facility, fill out some paperwork, pay a nominal fine, and they then release you; they probably even give you a copy of your arrest record as a souvenir.
If you want to "fill the jails" you are going to have to get violent, because they simply won't hold you for being non-violent. In any case, I thought the whole reason for a protest was to get those in power to change their minds. How is "filling the jails" an inherent part of that?
I read an article several years ago on how the Park Service handles protests...
DC of course hosts a very large number of government protests. Since most of those protests take place on land managed by the US Park Service, they handle protest management. They are required to reasonably let protestors do their thing, but they also have an interest in preserving the other uses of the land; namely for tourism, recreation, and of course the business of government and the functioning of the city.
Now, if they come down like a sack of bricks on protestors, the Park Service will end up looking like a bunch of thugs, and get slapped by the courts. But if anyone that wants to protest can do anything they want, it would make it difficult for DC to function as a city. Different groups also need different space allocated for their protests. (Six different groups protesting six different things can't get their message out if they are all mixed together in an undifferentiated mob.)
Now, protestors like to be arrested; it makes for good PR, nice photos, fundraising, member recruitment, whatever... but few activists actually want to do anything violent or damaging or spend any time in prison, get beat by riot police, etc. And the Park Service has more important things to do then sending people "up the river" for doing something illegal (but not especially violent) during a protest, like vandalism, blocking traffic, etc., and they also don't want those disruptive offenses to take place. (And they especially don't want a protest to degenerate into a violent mob while trying to get arrested.)
So what does the Park Service do? A couple things: - They actually negotiate arrest counts, protest locations, timing, etc. in advance of the demonstrations. If you want to protest in a high-profile location, like in front of the White House, your protest can't last too long, and the arrest count the Park Service will agree to will be low. Protests in less photogenic locations can be larger. - The "arrests" are usually for violation of the "Kodak Moment Rule"; basically, you can't stop in one place so long you obstruct others trying to take photos. This is about the least disruptive thing possible, anywhere, to get arrested for. You'll get zip-tied, taken to a holding facility (a warehouse in SE), fill out some paperwork, pay a $50 fine, and get released (it's even convenient to Metro!) I doubt they do anything with your new "criminal record" other than stuff it in a filing box.
The article had an anecdote about a NORML-backed protest and their negotiations; NORML wanted a large number of protestors on a certain day right in front of the White House. The Park Service negotiator complained that there were already three other protests scheduled that day, and his participant count and requested number of arrests was too large; so the Service offered a larger protest in front of Treasury, (just across the street) instead. The guy from NORML challenged the Park Service lawyer to a joint rolling contest to settle the dispute.
The Park Service lawyer won.
Another fun fact: After the Park Service got accused over the years of being racist/anti-semitic/muslim/sexist/baby-killing/woman-hating/jewish/white-oppressing/Nazi/etc. Tools of the Oppressor, they stopped releasing protest/march participant estimates. They do estimate how many people show up for each protest, but don't release the info because they were invariably accused of inflating/undercounting (depending on who was complaining) every single gathering for pretty much every cause.
NSA spying on foreign governments (even allies) is one of the most basic functions of pretty much any state intelligence operation. We spy on them, they spy on us, and this is the way it's always been.
This has been why, other than pearl clutching, there have been precisely zero real consequences for our relations with other countries... once you start punishing allies for spying on you, soon enough you won't have any allies left.
None of this excuses the NSA's domestic activities, but acting like there's something uniquely horrible about this particular incident of international espionage is pretty silly.
First, his "employment contract" went into minutiae on system security? Really? That'd be one strange contract for an individual IT Grunt... a contract w/ a Systems Integrator, sure, but not a front-lines civil servant. I've heard mention of this "contract" before on Slashdot, yet strangely nobody has ever provided a link to it, and news articles about the case are strangely bereft of it also.
In any case, in any employment situation, you don't get to refuse to do something your boss orders you to do unless you are being asked to do something illegal. You might ask to have your butt covered with an e-mail from your boss (as a civil servant it would have been enough to keep him from getting fired), but that's about the limit of your ability to refuse and keep your job.
And why did he decide the Mayor, and only the Mayor, had supreme authority? Was the CIO of the City of SF not good enough? Nope, he doesn't get to make that determination and hold IT assets hostage until he receives what he thinks to be proper authority.
BB was never going to make it as Just Another Android Handset Maker if they had tried; that requires a very different corporate culture and organization from one that tries to create something very different.
If they had started (and finished) BB about two or three years earlier, it might have had a chance, but they spent too much time thinking iOS and Android were "consumer toys" and not worthy of their attention.
At this point, is anyone under the impression that BlackBerry has a viable business plan? It seems to me that their best option would be to liquidate; get what they can for BlackBerry's IP and the remnants of the BES service, and distribute the remaining cash to shareholders. The device business is a wounded and dying animal that at this point is just good money after bad.
There's nothing inherently wrong with BB X, but it was too little, too late, and doesn't present anything that iOS and Android couldn't add in a jiffy if they wanted to.
Of course you can do all sorts of things exactly like this with the CAN bus; that is what it was designed for, that's what it's used for every day. Just about every make has software available (around for over a decade in many instances) to do every single one of those things; in most cases (except odometer rollbacks) they are replicas of the dealer tools to do the same thing. This includes speedometer adjustments (in place to account for wheel/tire diameter), diagnostic tests like cycling locks, ABS valves, various engine bits, etc.
Exactly what "research" was required to discover this? Is it "hacking" for me to purchase a piece of commercial software and use it's well-documented functions, most of which are also detailed in the service manual they sold me for $50?
Let me know when somebody has actually developed a Bluetooth-based attack vector and get back to me. (And plugging a Bluetooth transceiver into the OBD II port doesn't count) Until that point: snooze...
I now expect at least Samzenpus (if not every Slashdot editor) to turn in their geek card, in addition to the submitter being banned from all further Slashdot submissions. How on earth (or in space) do you make a reference to landing (or not) on Europa and NOT put in a Clarke reference? What kind of geek are these people?
Propofol is, by far, the most-used anesthetic induction agent; it has almost entirely replaced induction-by-mask, which is now largely confined to kids who don't take well to getting an IV while awake. For non-gas procedures, it's also the most common (only?) anesthetic used for continuous infusion.
A large hospital can easily go through literally gallons of the stuff a day.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't tried the healthcare.gove website, have you?
I just did a search a few days ago and did not need to register to perform a search in order to get premium estimates.
BitCoins are not incompatible with a normal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that might prevent some of this. That said, due to their extreme utility for money laundering, tax avoidance, etc. I'm pretty sure they'd rather the things disappear and therefore may direct law-enforcement resources elsewhere in the case of a BitCoin theft.
You utterly misunderstand what this website does. You punch in your zip code and age, it spits back plans and rack-rate premiums. That's it. That's the part of healthcare.gov that actually works, and has since they rolled out the feature a few days after launch.
The part of the government website that is having all the problems is the part where you actually sign up for the plans. That's what is requiring a large amount of integration, and has been doing horribly. Because of how the law was written (specifically the parts on subsidy eligibility) it's a little more complicated than processing a shopping cart on Amazon. (Business rules validation/integration is the most difficult part of most business applications.)
Translation: "In a few weeks we created a pretty front end to the part of the website that is really easy to write."
I'm not saying the healthcare.gov rollout was done well, or that the main contractor didn't botch the job. I'm just saying that this website doesn't provide any evidence of it.
There are two parts to the healthcare.gov website. The one where you can simply search for plans available in your zip code, and the one where you actually sign up. The one where you search for plans in your zipcode works just fine, and that's what they've duplicated here.
The far more complex part of the website (the one that requires talking to, and integrating data from, a very large pile of different databases) is the part not working well.
Translation: They created a pretty front-end to a database-driven site somebody else made. Hardly the labors of Hercules.
From TFS: "However, the story has been slightly garbaged into it being fake [LinkedIn and Slashdot] accounts, as opposed to network spoofing."
What on earth is "garbaging"? I always thought "garbage" was a noun. "Verb-ing" nouns is a time-honored tradition, but there are plenty of perfectly good verbs that would have worked here (mangled is the first that comes to mind) without devising a new one that is confusing, at best, in this context.
A quick googling does reveal garbaging as a verb, but in contexts that actually make sense. (Spreading garbage on somebody's lawn (Urban Dictionary), or something to do with garbage collection (various technical sites.))
"And thanks to the Federal Reserve system, there aren't even physical assets (like gold bars) of equal value to all the Federal Reserve notes in circulation. It's a bizarre system that only works as long as debt keeps circulating (buying and selling) and accumulating (loans with interest)."
It sure sounds to me like you are blaming the Federal Reserve for the gold standard being gone. And then following it with a statement about "bizarre" fractional reserve banking sure read to me like you are blaming the Fed for that too.
If you meant to point out the ignorance of those that neglected to pay attention to Civics class in high school, where they went over all things like the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, you could have phrased it differently.
Well, I agree with you on one point: Robbing a bank by walking into the lobby of your local branch is very romantic, but it's a horrible and dangerous way to steal money, and has lousy returns. I'd say we've long past the point where that was the best way to rob a bank. (I'd say owning or running a bank is probably the best way to rob it...)
A bank doesn't need to keep ANY dollar bills on hand for dollars in their bank accounts; only branch banks need physical currency at all. There are plenty of non-branch banks out there that don't have any physical currency; what would they need it for? The Fed does not require any bank, even Federal Reserve members, to hold any particular portion of their assets in currency (although I do think Federal Reserve members do need to let their account holders withdraw their deposits as cash at any point; it's how the Fed actually distributes cash out into the economy.)
A dollar bill doesn't represent "debt"; it represents one dollar's worth of the world's total supply of dollars/dollar-denominated assets. In that sense, it's little different from a share of stock. Some of those dollar-denominated assets are debts, some are coins in my pocket, some are bits on my bank's hard disks, some consist of stacks of $100's in a cave in some benighted 3rd-world kleptocracy. If the supply of dollars increases faster than dollar-denominated assets, we have inflation, if the reverse happens, we have deflation.
You may of course choose to blame the Federal Reserve for whatever you like, but the Fed did not create fractional reserve banking or fiat currency, nor did they originate the idea of moving money around through a method other sacks of cash.
And even if we still had the gold standard, why would we tie the amount of gold on-hand to physical currency? Virtual currency is easier and safer to store, manage, and move. An electronic dollar is no different from a $1 bill in my pocket.
BTW, yes, credit is the backbone of every modern economy in the world; this is hardly new... it's been the case for centuries. Modern capitalism would be utterly impossible without it.
1) Not all non-violent resistance is peaceable. Preventing other citizens from exercising their own rights is not peaceable. For instance, if you non-violently erect barricades in front of Pennsylvania Ave., you prevent other protestors from accessing that same space. You prevent other citizens from using that space for whatever those needs are (maybe they want to get into the White House to exercise their own rights.) You prevent the government, who actually owns the space, from using it for their own purposes, like accessing the entrance of the White House. Illegal and/or disruptive behavior does not receive a "get out of jail free" card just because it takes place in the context of a protest. There is quite a bit of leeway, but it is not infinite just because you don't become violent.
2) No, a boycott is NOT the same as a sit-in. A sit-in prevents other people from using the resources being taken. A boycott is a decision not to patronize a revenue-making service, it's not even close to the same thing.
3) The "Kodak Moment" rule does NOT only apply to protestors. If you camp on the sidewalk in front of the White House with a bunch of stationary photographic equipment you are also falling afoul of the law. The law refers to obstructing the view of others with a stationary anything; it doesn't specifically refer to any object, whether it be a clown suit on stilts, a protest sign, a half-dozen of your closest friends or a miniature hot air balloon. You can assemble all you want. You can assemble in a huge group with several hundred of your closest friends. You just can't block others from exercising their own rights to the very public space while doing so; you have to keep moving (so other people that would also like to use the same space have a chance to occupy it.)
These "arrests" for the Kodak Moment Rule are pre-arranged. As in, the protestors request the arrests ahead of time with the Park Police. It's kind of hard to make an argument that you are being targeted for unconstitutional treatment when you've asked the authorities to arrest you prior to the offense even taking place. So yes, I suppose the protestors are being "targeted" for arrest, but only because they have literally asked for it. I can think of no better (or more polite) example of "governing with the consent of the governed" than citizens requesting in advance to be arrested for violating the law. (The alternative; protestors escalating disruptive behavior such as blocking traffic or vandalism until the police decide to restore order, suits nobody. The protestors end up with real criminal records, such demonstrations can quickly get out of hand (on both sides), it ties up more police resources, and fouls up the operation of the city. Voluntary pre-arranged arrests are better for everyone.)
4) Protestors do not have any special claim to government resources or land that trump other people from also using those public resources. The government is more than welcome to place reasonable restrictions on even protests, as long as those restrictions ARE reasonable, and they are applied in a way that evenly applies to the speech, no matter the content.
Reasonable: No marches across the Memorial Bridge Northbound Span during morning rush hour during the work-week.
Unreasonable: No marches across the Memorial Bridge between the hours of 4AM-3:30AM, ever.
Reasonable: No 100,000 person marches through a trail in a National Park.
Unreasonable: No marches by the lumber industry through a trail in a National Park.
Reasonable: No blocking of the entrances to government buildings.
Unreasonable: No marching in front of government buildings.
Reasonable: Two protests are not allowed to take place in the same place at the same time. If the Lincoln Memorial steps have already been "booked" for an assembly with a speaker, you don't get to set up your unrelated picket line in a circle right around the lectern.
Unreasonable: Two groups that don't like each other can't protest on the
You have the right to peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Shutting the city down isn't peaceable. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was entirely different. The blacks in the city simply didn't ride the buses, but the buses ran just the same, the city functioned just fine, albeit without those bus fares (and what could they have done? ordered people to ride the bus?) Now, if they had instead chosen to lay down in front of the buses, that would have been very different, and reasonable law enforcement action would have been justified and uncontroversial.
And the "Kodak Moment Rule" isn't actually used for day-to-day enforcement; as long as you don't take up half the sidewalk all day in one spot, they don't really care. (Picket line? Ok; march all day long. Standing as a wall of humanity? Blocks things, including other protestors.) The rule is used because for pre-arranged arrests of protestors (this is worked out with the Park Police by the protestors in advance), they have to write something down on the citation, not because the govt' actually gives a *bleep!* about tourist's photos when you stand still for a minute; I imagine if you wanted to you could each toss a wild pigeon a piece of popcorn and arrange to have them cite you for feeding the wildlife. If you are actually disruptive (instead of requesting in advance to be arrested), like choosing to block car traffic by lying down in the road, they'll find something a little less silly to charge you with, and you'll probably have to spend the night in the lock-up.
Yes, you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to actually obstruct the normal functioning of government or the activities of your fellow citizens, who also have rights to exercise.
I'm not saying Anonymous did this (in fact, I kind of doubt it, given their reputation), but yes, you can work with the Park Police to arrange how many arrests you'd like made, in advance. And the Park Police will also coordinate your protest with others that may be happening the same day (so you aren't all mixed up in the same spot in one non-media-friendly jumble), handle any police protection you might need, etc.
You'd think that this would run counter to the spirit of getting arrested while protesting against the government, but few activists actually want to engage in violence or destruction (which is what you'd normally have to do to get arrested), spend time in jail, get beat by riot police, or have a real criminal record. And the Park Police don't want protestors engaging in violence and destruction just so they can get arrested.
By prearranging your arrest for a laughably minor "offense", your organization gets to boast about what tough willing-to-pay-any-price patriots you are, get your pictures taken for your newsletter, you get to file press releases, etc., and the Park Police get to keep order in the city streets. A win-win situation all around! (And the arrestees get to tell the proverbial grandkids how they got arrested in a protest once...)
Talk about "governing with the consent of the governed"! "Officer, I'm going to violate a law you don't normally enforce tomorrow at such-and-such time, would you do me the favor of arresting me for it? Oh, and can you make sure and supply especially mean-looking officers so we can take good publicity photos?"
Where did I mention Civil Infractions? I know the two are different.
"Obstructing the sidewalk" is a misdemeanor traffic violation on the level of a citation for jaywalking. No employer circular-files job applicants for a minor traffic ticket (especially one not actually involving a motor vehicle.)
Your "record" (if the Feds even bother to check your ID or file it in a database) won't indicate you were protesting at all... anyone reading it will just think some cop busted you for sitting down on the sidewalk to rest your legs. (That's if criminal background check services even bother with those parts of the justice databases at all...)
People protest against the government in DC All. The. Time. There's a protest about something or other going on pretty much every day of the year. Dissent is most certainly tolerated (even if its usually ignored.)
What they don't tolerate is your protest turning violent or overly disrupting the functioning of the city... you want to gather a couple hundred thousand people on the National Mall? Fine. But don't have those couple hundred thousand people decide to lay down in the middle of the streets during rush hour; there's no right to be an asshole.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post; I was relating to the fact that the Park Service acknowledges that people like to get arrested during their protests, and simultaneously they don't want protests to be violent or disruptive to the functioning of the city. You can actually arrange with them ahead of time to have them haul some of you off, cite you, and release you. The Park Service does not, in fact, actually care if you obstruct the sidewalk for a little bit. But if you are going to be arrested (at your request), they have to write something on the citation, so they selectively enforce the sidewalk-obstructing law at the request of the arrestees during the advance arrangements.
In a Citizen's arrest, you detain an offender while waiting for a proper sworn officer to arrive and "accept" your arrest. You are going to have a hard time finding a sworn officer with appropriate jurisdiction agree to issue a formal citation to a police officer doing their job.
For properly organized protests, the Park Service will agree (in advance) to arrest you and your fellow patriots in a way that won't harm your reputation in the least. As long as you don't degenerate into a violent mob, they'll happily (and photogenically) arrest you for obstructing the sidewalk, haul you off zip-tied in a van to a holding facility, issue you a nominal fine for a misdemeanor about as serious as a minor speeding ticket, and release you. (I doubt they even care if you pay the fine or not.)
"Obstructing a Sidewalk" is hardly a violation upon which lives are ruined.
The Park Service has no interest in "filling up the jails" with non-violent protestors. They can't have unruly mobs making the city unusable, but also have to make sure people have the ability to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
If you want some non-violent arrests during your protest, all you have to do is ask. The Park Service will work out with you how many of your Warriors For Freedom will get photogenically arrested, and all you have to do is have your designated arrestees stand still long enough to get cited for obstructing the sidewalk. You'll get zip-tied, taken to a ramshackle holding facility, fill out some paperwork, pay a nominal fine, and they then release you; they probably even give you a copy of your arrest record as a souvenir.
If you want to "fill the jails" you are going to have to get violent, because they simply won't hold you for being non-violent. In any case, I thought the whole reason for a protest was to get those in power to change their minds. How is "filling the jails" an inherent part of that?
I read an article several years ago on how the Park Service handles protests...
DC of course hosts a very large number of government protests. Since most of those protests take place on land managed by the US Park Service, they handle protest management. They are required to reasonably let protestors do their thing, but they also have an interest in preserving the other uses of the land; namely for tourism, recreation, and of course the business of government and the functioning of the city.
Now, if they come down like a sack of bricks on protestors, the Park Service will end up looking like a bunch of thugs, and get slapped by the courts. But if anyone that wants to protest can do anything they want, it would make it difficult for DC to function as a city. Different groups also need different space allocated for their protests. (Six different groups protesting six different things can't get their message out if they are all mixed together in an undifferentiated mob.)
Now, protestors like to be arrested; it makes for good PR, nice photos, fundraising, member recruitment, whatever... but few activists actually want to do anything violent or damaging or spend any time in prison, get beat by riot police, etc. And the Park Service has more important things to do then sending people "up the river" for doing something illegal (but not especially violent) during a protest, like vandalism, blocking traffic, etc., and they also don't want those disruptive offenses to take place. (And they especially don't want a protest to degenerate into a violent mob while trying to get arrested.)
So what does the Park Service do? A couple things:
- They actually negotiate arrest counts, protest locations, timing, etc. in advance of the demonstrations. If you want to protest in a high-profile location, like in front of the White House, your protest can't last too long, and the arrest count the Park Service will agree to will be low. Protests in less photogenic locations can be larger.
- The "arrests" are usually for violation of the "Kodak Moment Rule"; basically, you can't stop in one place so long you obstruct others trying to take photos. This is about the least disruptive thing possible, anywhere, to get arrested for. You'll get zip-tied, taken to a holding facility (a warehouse in SE), fill out some paperwork, pay a $50 fine, and get released (it's even convenient to Metro!) I doubt they do anything with your new "criminal record" other than stuff it in a filing box.
The article had an anecdote about a NORML-backed protest and their negotiations; NORML wanted a large number of protestors on a certain day right in front of the White House. The Park Service negotiator complained that there were already three other protests scheduled that day, and his participant count and requested number of arrests was too large; so the Service offered a larger protest in front of Treasury, (just across the street) instead. The guy from NORML challenged the Park Service lawyer to a joint rolling contest to settle the dispute.
The Park Service lawyer won.
Another fun fact: After the Park Service got accused over the years of being racist/anti-semitic/muslim/sexist/baby-killing/woman-hating/jewish/white-oppressing/Nazi/etc. Tools of the Oppressor, they stopped releasing protest/march participant estimates. They do estimate how many people show up for each protest, but don't release the info because they were invariably accused of inflating/undercounting (depending on who was complaining) every single gathering for pretty much every cause.
NSA spying on foreign governments (even allies) is one of the most basic functions of pretty much any state intelligence operation. We spy on them, they spy on us, and this is the way it's always been.
This has been why, other than pearl clutching, there have been precisely zero real consequences for our relations with other countries... once you start punishing allies for spying on you, soon enough you won't have any allies left.
None of this excuses the NSA's domestic activities, but acting like there's something uniquely horrible about this particular incident of international espionage is pretty silly.
First, his "employment contract" went into minutiae on system security? Really? That'd be one strange contract for an individual IT Grunt... a contract w/ a Systems Integrator, sure, but not a front-lines civil servant. I've heard mention of this "contract" before on Slashdot, yet strangely nobody has ever provided a link to it, and news articles about the case are strangely bereft of it also.
In any case, in any employment situation, you don't get to refuse to do something your boss orders you to do unless you are being asked to do something illegal. You might ask to have your butt covered with an e-mail from your boss (as a civil servant it would have been enough to keep him from getting fired), but that's about the limit of your ability to refuse and keep your job.
And why did he decide the Mayor, and only the Mayor, had supreme authority? Was the CIO of the City of SF not good enough? Nope, he doesn't get to make that determination and hold IT assets hostage until he receives what he thinks to be proper authority.
BB was never going to make it as Just Another Android Handset Maker if they had tried; that requires a very different corporate culture and organization from one that tries to create something very different.
If they had started (and finished) BB about two or three years earlier, it might have had a chance, but they spent too much time thinking iOS and Android were "consumer toys" and not worthy of their attention.
At this point, is anyone under the impression that BlackBerry has a viable business plan? It seems to me that their best option would be to liquidate; get what they can for BlackBerry's IP and the remnants of the BES service, and distribute the remaining cash to shareholders. The device business is a wounded and dying animal that at this point is just good money after bad.
There's nothing inherently wrong with BB X, but it was too little, too late, and doesn't present anything that iOS and Android couldn't add in a jiffy if they wanted to.
Of course you can do all sorts of things exactly like this with the CAN bus; that is what it was designed for, that's what it's used for every day. Just about every make has software available (around for over a decade in many instances) to do every single one of those things; in most cases (except odometer rollbacks) they are replicas of the dealer tools to do the same thing. This includes speedometer adjustments (in place to account for wheel/tire diameter), diagnostic tests like cycling locks, ABS valves, various engine bits, etc.
Exactly what "research" was required to discover this? Is it "hacking" for me to purchase a piece of commercial software and use it's well-documented functions, most of which are also detailed in the service manual they sold me for $50?
Let me know when somebody has actually developed a Bluetooth-based attack vector and get back to me. (And plugging a Bluetooth transceiver into the OBD II port doesn't count) Until that point: snooze...
I now expect at least Samzenpus (if not every Slashdot editor) to turn in their geek card, in addition to the submitter being banned from all further Slashdot submissions. How on earth (or in space) do you make a reference to landing (or not) on Europa and NOT put in a Clarke reference? What kind of geek are these people?
Wasn't Sun (the corporate predecessor of Oracle's HW division, for those with short memories) talking about this stuff like a decade ago?
Wake me up when there's an actual product announcement.
Propofol is, by far, the most-used anesthetic induction agent; it has almost entirely replaced induction-by-mask, which is now largely confined to kids who don't take well to getting an IV while awake. For non-gas procedures, it's also the most common (only?) anesthetic used for continuous infusion.
A large hospital can easily go through literally gallons of the stuff a day.