She's also kind of nuts these days. Not completely Sean-Young-level-batshit-crazy, but definitely not the kind of person you would probably want to have to live with. Pretty common with aging actresses, unfortunately. There is nothing more unstable than a narcissistic actress going through fame withdrawls and hearing the word "No" for the first time in years.
Apparently, it was scrapped. Keep in mind, that was back in the days when movie props weren't considered particularly valuable assets. Today, they would probably do some sort of auction or at least warehouse it.
but it seems it would be hard to probably prove most the stuff was actually a prop that was used
Not really. The prop people usually get credits in the movie. And if the guy selling it has some sort of paper trail to the prop people or prop company credited in the movie (or better yet, he worked for them), it's pretty straightforward to demonstrate a highly likely case for authenticity. And reading the article, it looks like the person selling it had well-established ties to Mike Fink, the FX supervisor for the film.
The fact that this is being auctioned off by Christie's indicates that they have made a pretty solid connection too. You can bet that Christie's researches their items pretty carefully before putting their name behind it.
Absolutely NOT. Those guys do not fuck around. When they come after you, it's not a game.
Why don't you ask John Sweeney what can happen after an "innocent meeting" with CoS officials?
And who cares if they threatened me?
They can (and often do) do a *helluva* lot more than that. They've had people put in prison, ruined lives, destroyed careers. You would be amazed at what they can do to you if you get on their bad side.
Except that these meetings were apparently private. Speaking personally, there is no way would I meet with anyone from the CoS without at least several witnesses, legal counsel, and someone video recording the whole thing.
I think it's pretty clear where the CoS stands on internet freedom, and what they want from you if they ask you for a meeting. Why would anyone in their right mind even talk with these people? What, do you think you're going to REASON with them?!? Do you want to give them a chance to threaten you *in person*?!?
Since when does the NSA ever tell the truth? Basically all this letter says is "Your lies have been exposed, so make up some new ones." Meanwhile they're trying to throw the leaker of said lies into a prison for the rest of his life in hopes of discouraging anyone else from exposing the *next* set of lies.
Well, one thing we do know is that he didn't just hand it over indiscriminately to anyone in the past. That strongly suggests that he's not out to just hurt the U.S.
Now you can cook up any number of paranoid scenarios if you like (as you could with anyone who has access to this data). But it presumes a change of attitude on his part that he has heretofore not shown.
What exactly does he have on those four laptops? So far he has pretty much only released a few PowerPoint slides, a few documents. That doesn't take much space. What does he have that he hasn't released? What does he intend to do with it? A little bargaining maybe? What will his source of income be, and from whom?
So your assertion is that because he COULD release this information to foreign intelligence agencies, that that makes him just as guilty as everyone who HAS?!? Well, in that case, you had better arrest everyone else who has access to classified information (all 4.9 million of them), since they could presumably become spies any day now too.
You claim that the surveillance being conducted by the NSA was illegal - what is your source for that?
The 4th amendment to the United States Constitution.
If he had just wanted to "inflict maximum damage on his country" he could have just posted all his intelligence data to Wikileaks instead of vetting it through a responsible newspaper.
Exactly what country do you expect him to go to? There are only about 5-6 countries in the world that aren't the total lapdogs of the U.S. government (or at least in bed with them). That doesn't exactly leave him a lot of options if he wants to remain free and not have all his (very important) information just buried again.
Hanssen and Ames were handing over things like troop strength, locations of CIA operatives, etc. to the Soviets for cash. They weren't blowing the whistle to the press on an illegal internal spying program. Pretty big difference there.
I think a better analogy might be having a bad boss who you don't like. And then one day, a new guy tries to come in and replace this boss. Only the new guy is John Wayne Gacy. And you're pretty sure he's going to kill you and bury you in an unmarked grave if he gets in. In that situation, it may be better to stick with the old boss.
Slashdot Mirror
Even reading the article, I'm still not clear on wtf the "Metropolitan Police" referred to are. Is that the London police? Sydney? Some other city?
She's also kind of nuts these days. Not completely Sean-Young-level-batshit-crazy, but definitely not the kind of person you would probably want to have to live with. Pretty common with aging actresses, unfortunately. There is nothing more unstable than a narcissistic actress going through fame withdrawls and hearing the word "No" for the first time in years.
Apparently, it was scrapped. Keep in mind, that was back in the days when movie props weren't considered particularly valuable assets. Today, they would probably do some sort of auction or at least warehouse it.
but it seems it would be hard to probably prove most the stuff was actually a prop that was used
Not really. The prop people usually get credits in the movie. And if the guy selling it has some sort of paper trail to the prop people or prop company credited in the movie (or better yet, he worked for them), it's pretty straightforward to demonstrate a highly likely case for authenticity. And reading the article, it looks like the person selling it had well-established ties to Mike Fink, the FX supervisor for the film.
The fact that this is being auctioned off by Christie's indicates that they have made a pretty solid connection too. You can bet that Christie's researches their items pretty carefully before putting their name behind it.
Expect a crazy video to soon follow from John McAfee, detailing how the Illuminati stopped him from getting in.
I bet you never even sailed on the RMS Aaron Swartz, did you?
Wouldn't you?
Absolutely NOT. Those guys do not fuck around. When they come after you, it's not a game.
Why don't you ask John Sweeney what can happen after an "innocent meeting" with CoS officials?
And who cares if they threatened me?
They can (and often do) do a *helluva* lot more than that. They've had people put in prison, ruined lives, destroyed careers. You would be amazed at what they can do to you if you get on their bad side.
Except that these meetings were apparently private. Speaking personally, there is no way would I meet with anyone from the CoS without at least several witnesses, legal counsel, and someone video recording the whole thing.
I think it's pretty clear where the CoS stands on internet freedom, and what they want from you if they ask you for a meeting. Why would anyone in their right mind even talk with these people? What, do you think you're going to REASON with them?!? Do you want to give them a chance to threaten you *in person*?!?
I'm more confused than before
Just look in this box. In it, you'll find either a better summary or a dead cat.
If it were an Apple device, it would cost a helluva lot more than $100.
Because it's 1/5th the price and focused on being a *game* console instead of a media player/cable-box overlay/skype device/etc.?
He's going to do his best to end the threat of global reporting.
And that's who the government REALLY works for.
And Cisco saved DS9 countless times.
It wasn't long ago that asteroid mining was only found in the pages of science fiction.
Yeah, not that long ago, as in yesterday...and today...and tomorrow.
Since when does the NSA ever tell the truth? Basically all this letter says is "Your lies have been exposed, so make up some new ones." Meanwhile they're trying to throw the leaker of said lies into a prison for the rest of his life in hopes of discouraging anyone else from exposing the *next* set of lies.
The rest of you can burn in Hell if you want, but in THIS house, we stick to Father Steve's teachings.
Well, one thing we do know is that he didn't just hand it over indiscriminately to anyone in the past. That strongly suggests that he's not out to just hurt the U.S.
Now you can cook up any number of paranoid scenarios if you like (as you could with anyone who has access to this data). But it presumes a change of attitude on his part that he has heretofore not shown.
What exactly does he have on those four laptops? So far he has pretty much only released a few PowerPoint slides, a few documents. That doesn't take much space. What does he have that he hasn't released? What does he intend to do with it? A little bargaining maybe? What will his source of income be, and from whom?
So your assertion is that because he COULD release this information to foreign intelligence agencies, that that makes him just as guilty as everyone who HAS?!? Well, in that case, you had better arrest everyone else who has access to classified information (all 4.9 million of them), since they could presumably become spies any day now too.
You claim that the surveillance being conducted by the NSA was illegal - what is your source for that?
The 4th amendment to the United States Constitution.
Imagine if every time you made a comment, somebody replied with "Hey maybe that will help you eat your BURGERS and shoot your GUNS!".
Hi, you must be new here.
If he had just wanted to "inflict maximum damage on his country" he could have just posted all his intelligence data to Wikileaks instead of vetting it through a responsible newspaper.
Exactly what country do you expect him to go to? There are only about 5-6 countries in the world that aren't the total lapdogs of the U.S. government (or at least in bed with them). That doesn't exactly leave him a lot of options if he wants to remain free and not have all his (very important) information just buried again.
Hanssen and Ames were handing over things like troop strength, locations of CIA operatives, etc. to the Soviets for cash. They weren't blowing the whistle to the press on an illegal internal spying program. Pretty big difference there.
I think a better analogy might be having a bad boss who you don't like. And then one day, a new guy tries to come in and replace this boss. Only the new guy is John Wayne Gacy. And you're pretty sure he's going to kill you and bury you in an unmarked grave if he gets in. In that situation, it may be better to stick with the old boss.