I was just talking on the phone to someone else about the history, and yes, as I've found those are a major driving force behind both bans. Alcohol was, for a long time, the wealthier drug of choice. Prohibition on alcohol obviously went over really well. Even though it was a bloody period, if there wasn't some backing from the leading class, it would still be banned today. Since both opium and marijuana are still looked upon here in the states as drugs used by the lower classes, they will remain being banned. Or, as I said it, why should those damned hippies get their drugs to be happy with? (said sarcastically, of course)
I'm surprised and confused though about the timber and cotton industries stance against hemp. It would seem obvious for them not to force it out, but to embrace it, as they already had the land and the workers. All they would need to do is embrace it, and expand their empires. I wouldn't be surprised if the tobacco industries had something to do with it too.
I've taken many drug tests over the years for employment. Sure, they test for amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, and phencyclidine. Some add barbiturates, benzodizepines, and ethanol. From what I understand, there are additional tests for LSD, tryptamines, and phenethylamines. If they tested for caffeine and nicotine, I'd fail every time. So far, I've never failed a drug test.:) The drugs we control are more based on politics than practicality. How many Americans are addicted to caffeine and nicotine? Pretty much every Slashdot user, that's for sure.:) They couldn't outlaw and test for caffeine, it's given out at virtually every business meeting, luncheon, brunch, and is the mainstay of most people's morning commute. What if cannabinoids were legalized? Then maybe people wouldn't need to take benzodiazepines (valium, xanax, etc) to sleep, and they wouldn't need caffeine to wake up. Oh, two huge politically strong industries wouldn't be very happy about that, now would they?
In the movie Harold and Kumar go to Guantanamo, they joked at GW's drug use, but it had a factual basis. That was pretty much overlooked, even with Clinton's "I didn't inhale" quote being way over abused by his opposition. Even our sitting president has used marijuana and cocaine in the past.
Recently, Mr. Obama sat down with two people over a misunderstanding, and drank beer with them. Beer, an alcohol, is a drug on par with marijuana, although legal.
But hey, drugs were part of this country since it started. Some of our founding fathers cultivated it on their farms. It wasn't until the mid 1920's that it started becoming "illegal", yet still used.
Ya, if anyone could go down to the 7-11 and buy a pack of pot (I guess that's how it would be distributed today), it would ease the load on the court and jail systems, and reduce drug related crime down to almost nil, at least for those drugs.
Opiates have their own sorted history also, where they were once legal in America, and therefore the majority of violent crimes relating to them were almost nil.
I say "almost nil", because you'll still have crime. Who hasn't seen an angry drunk throw a punch in a bar? Then again, would the same person have done it without the alcohol influence? Possibly.
I've seen it quite a bit in Linux rootkits, but I can't say that I've seen it in Windows kits.
That's probably because Linux people are more aware of the tools they can use, and know that if they don't patch them, the kit will be detected.
Even in Linux, sometimes the kits are misapplied (wrong version, corrupted files, etc) so frequently the rooted machine has problems running standard tools. The other big ones I've seen patched are ls and find, so you can't even see their files and directories.
For Windows, it's easy enough to set the files as hidden or system, and they won't show (normally) in the Windows file explorer. Most users won't go looking into directories much beyond their own desktop, so it's not really necessary to do much.
In Linux, I tended to keep a nice set of statically compiled binaries (built on a clean machine!) laying around, so I could drop them into a directory which was first in the path (say ~/safe_bins), which would make an "invisible" intrusion stand out, where without it it would hide. In an ideal world, a compromised machine would be wiped and rebuilt, but that's not always an option, especially if you're dealing with a client, and the compromised server is "essential" and they don't even want it shut down for 5 minutes, much less for hours while you reinstall everything.
In Windows, you'd spend a day just reinstalling, updating service packs, reinstalling their applications, and then putting their data back in place.
You know, it's funny you mention the prostitution thing. A while back I found out something very interesting about Toronto's stand on prostitution. They decided that what happened between consenting adults behind closed doors was really no one's business. Massage parlours, "full service" strip clubs, and incall/outcall escorts are perfectly acceptable. What they don't want is girls standing on street corners selling their wares. It's apparently worked very well for them. Their "sex" crimes have dropped significantly. The "sex" business hasn't been booming. Until I heard about it and done research on it (no, not first-person use of the services), I didn't know about it. It's not famous like the Red Light district of Amesterdam. You simply don't get girls selling themselves on street corners, and other associated crimes.
From what I read, it reduced the crime, as a "working girl" can call the police to report if something bad happened. Here in America, with a very few exceptions, if a "working girl" gets in trouble, she'll be in legal trouble too when she calls to police to report a crime. Say a John rips her off, or becomes physically abusive, there's no recourse, without admitting to other crimes on her own.
I am a believer that we should adopt such legality.
Light drugs, like marijuana, are also taking up a huge amount of law enforcement resources and filling up our jails. In 2007, there were over 870,000 marijuana related arrests.
I know some cops do "the right thing" (kinda) with pot. I've heard it many times from people and from some law enforcement officers. Pot's illegal, but is it really necessary to put someone in jail for having a joint (or a few)? Not really. Some officers "wind test" it. You grind it up in your hand, and let it fall to the ground. By judging how it falls, it may or may not be pot. "I guess that wasn't pot, you're free to go."
It's silly that they have to play such legal games, where it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. I'm not saying "it shouldn't be illegal, so go ahead and do it", I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal, so the laws should be corrected. How's that from someone who doesn't do it, and doesn't want it?:) I'm more worried about an angry drunk than a munchy stoner. The angry drunk will hurt someone. The munchy stoner may eat all my chips and salsa.:) My biggest fear from a stoner is leaving crumbs on my couch.:)
I was maybe 16 or 17 at the time. That's no way to teach a kid how fairly the legal system of America works.
I have seen the right side of it on occasion, where things go the way they're suppose to. I've also seen plenty of the wrong side.
A friend of mine had a store that someone shot out the front windows. He had surveillance footage of the shooting. People usually worked late there doing inventory and the like. Luckily that night, no one was there.
The police did little more than take a report, and pull a few bullets out of the wall. We conducted our own "investigation". I looked carefully at the footage for distinctive identifiers. It was a white pickup truck with text written in the back window. It had blue neon lights underneath. This was pointed out to the investigating officer who said "thank you", and ignored it.
With the store manager, I talked to everyone who worked in the store. "Do you have any idea who could have been driving this truck?" We got the right person in the store who said "Hey ya, now that you mention it, it looks like X's truck." X was the occasional customer, who was a complete prick. From the customer records and public information, I acquired a home address and phone number.
We went to X's house in the middle of the night (so as to not get shot at), with a video camera. The truck was parked in front of his house. I got dropped off approx 2 blocks away, where I then walked up to the truck, filming the front of the house, the truck, the license plate, the text in the back window, and finally I laid down on the ground, and filmed up. I couldn't see very well through the viewfinder, but the footage was perfect. You could clearly see neon lights mounted underneath.
I compiled the surveillance footage, as well as the footage I filmed, into a DVD. I provided a signed affidavit with it stating that I compiled the footage directly from the surveillance equipment, I filmed the additional footage, and I compiled the DVD for ease of viewing.
We notified the investigating officer of our findings, and provided him with the DVD, who said "thank you", and forgot all about it.
My friend was miffed. It took two more weeks of phone calls, and escalating through several different people until one was finally interested. Oh my god, a good cop who wants an easy case dropped in his lap. He reviewed my DVD. He said "oh my god, you provided everything we'd ever need!"
The police had a search warrant for the suspects house and vehicle the same day. They went and knocked on the door. They found the pistol, matching the bullets found in the wall, under the seat of the truck. The suspect immediately confessed to both that shooting and two others that night. He said that he was drunk and angry, and took out his anger on a few local businesses that he felt had done wrong by him.
Good cops are few and far between, but they do exist.
If/when you do meet someone in the legal profession (police, prosecutors, etc) that really do "the right thing" thank them profusely, even if the case wasn't yours. Hopefully they will teach their subordinates to do "the right thing". There are enough who do the wrong things that it makes the entire system appear inept.
Those are the good and logical arguments. Remember to use such arguments when trumped up charges are brought against you.:)
I ended up in court once as a kid. The state cited impossible physics, my car flying, and my obvious danger to the population at large. It was all a crock.
I'll give you the brief rundown of their case.
My car was traveling at 141 miles per hour on a narrow limestone road. In my attempts to kill the prosecutions witness, I came over a hill in front of his house, and flew my car 58 feet. After landing, I traveled an additional 500 feet, and made a 90 degree turn. The police, who happened to be sitting in his front yard, but did not have any measuring equipment, followed me for approx 1 mile and stopped me.
Now for the impossible parts.
The car was rather heavy, and had a small engine. It wasn't capable of 85mph, much less 141mph.
Based on the slope of the hill, 141mph would have been insufficient for a car to jump that distance. I would have needed to be doing closer to 300mph. To have done it at 141, there must have been other provisions, such as anti-gravity. (ha!)
It had crappy 2 ply tires. They were cheap, but did the job of making the car travel at normal speeds. They couldn't have survived the claimed nor required speeds nor the landing of this flying car.
The 90 degree turn, which was 500 feet from where they claimed the incident happened, had a tree in the middle of the road, and a ditch on the other side. Once making the turn, which at 141mph on a rock road would have been impossible, there's no way I would have navigated between the tree and the ditch.
Their witness said I did the same thing every day.
So I guess I did the impossible every day.
I was arrested. My PASSENGER was arrested, because he was in the car. At the first hearing, the prosecution demanded that I was to be held in custody, as I was a flight risk (I obviously can fly), and a danger to the general public, as I was trying to kill people. What could have been a simple speeding ticket for 10mph over the speed limit became over a year working through the court system until it was finally thrown out.
The only thing about the whole case that I liked was that I met the two officers. They were both arrested and convicted on a whole variety of charges including falsifying information and corruption. But, that was years later and had nothing to do with my case.
You can get arrested on the most BS charges. You will likely go through the system on the BS charges. Unless you can afford a good lawyer, your public defender will tell you to take a plea deal for some slightly lesser charges.
It's all in who you, or someone you know, pisses off. How was I to know that the old man who lived on top of the hill didn't like people driving by his house, on a public road? He apparently sat in his house and would curse at cars driving by on "his" road.
In the end, I guess he got his way. I never drove down "his" road again. I very intentionally took an alternate route, so I'd never have to deal with that again.
Actually, the piper flying in and out of a grass strip may not need radio at all. You don't "need" it until you're in controlled airspace. At least that was the rule a decade or so ago. It is polite to be able to call your approach on an uncontrolled airport, since it'll give the others a clue of what the heck you're attempting to do.
When I was flying out of a small airport with no tower, there were planes in and out all the time with no radio. We also had handhelds, either for instructors on the ground talking to student pilots in the air, or for taking rides in planes with no radio, or a broken radio. Not a big deal.
If they required an encrypted upgrade to every aircraft out there, it wouldn't change things. People would still need to be able to buy radios so they could communicate. It would seem to make sense to trunk the communications, but sometimes it's very useful for others to hear what you have to say.
"tower 1234 heavy experiencing heavy turbulence FL320 approx 100 miles west of you."
Ahhh, it may get bumpy. Fasten your seat belts.
Sure, that'll be broadcast back out by tower as a weather advisory, but sometimes it's nice to get it quick.:)
I find that I'm constantly saying "Say again". Between people on crappy cell phones, crappy cordless phones, in fringe areas, in noise rooms, or are just drifting off and forget to talk into the microphone, there's always some part of the conversation that I missed.
I think it annoys the crap out of the cold callers. They call, ask for [garbled name], and my answer is "Say again." Then they say "what", and it's a vicious circle.:)
If you wanted to call me, you'd better do it in English, and you'd better be clear and concise about what you want. I'm not going to spend 10 minutes on the phone with you to find out that I didn't need to be speaking with you in the first place.
Back in the day, I'm sure the transit police may have invited the FCC in to play, and this kid would have seen more time in interrogation rooms than he ever wanted to see. Eventually they'd send him crying home to his mommy, and that'd be it.
Now, it rates a vacation in Southeastern Cuba.
US Patriot Act, Title VIII
"[those who] does something to impair the running of the transportation system, including removing or damaging a train control system, centralized dispatching system, or rail grade crossing warning signal,"
"[whose who] interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, train driver, captain, or person while they are dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation vehicle or ferry in order to cause harm or death to passengers,"...
"If such an offense is committed, then the offender is to be fined and/or imprisoned for not more than twenty years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and/or life imprisonment."
Passengers on the train? He could get life.
Now, it's all in how you read it, and they'll probably read it to screw him. It does sound like the judge recognizes that he deserves probation and a small fine, which is why he got off with bail of $4,500.
You could just knock on the train drivers door, and that could be enough to qualify for the same thing. You interfered with the driver, while he was operating a train (even if it wasn't moving) with passengers on it.
You could probably technically get in trouble by walking across a road or railroad tracks. You may have distracted the driver of the vehicle into doing an emergency stop, which could have (oh my gosh) cascaded into something else. You damned terrorist! Or maybe you were just trying to cross the road.
These days, it's not a matter of what you've done illegally, it's a matter of if anyone wants to send you to jail. It's easy enough to find something on anyone. No one is clean, it's all a matter of you don't know what laws you've broken (yet).
I'm not sure he even ranks up that high. Well, not that it's high.
Someone stole a radio. He bought the stolen radio. He turned it on, and found that he could hear inter-train communications, so he decided to play along and give his own instructions.
By far not even script kiddie material. Definitely not hacker material either.
Now, if he had ordered a full stop on all lines, that could have been considered a DoS attack. (denied train service to the lines). It sounds like he didn't even manage to get a working script.:)
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, so many people don't see it that way.
If you are laid off, and make your unemployment claim, you're on the books as "unemployed".
If your claim is denied, you fall off the books.
If your claim is accepted, you are "unemployed" for 6 (now 8) months.
At the end of your unemployment period, you are off the books, because you didn't want to work.
Lets consider myself and a few close friends, for a total of 14 people.
A couple years ago:
9 - Company employed
3 - Self employed (good income, comparable to full time employment)
1 - Unemployed - Medical disability
1 - Unemployed - Retired
Total considered in the official unemployment numbers, 0.
Today:
3 - Company employed
1 - Self employed, comparable to full time employment
1 - Self employed, borderline poverty
1 - Unemployed - Collecting benefits - seeking work
5 - Unemployed - Not able to collect benefits - seeking work
2 - Unemployed - Medical disability
1 - Unemployed - Retired
Total considered in the official unemployment numbers, 1.
A while back, the gainfully employed helped our friends that needed it, and we were all comfortable.
Now, even the employed are struggling, and the rest are pretty much out of luck. I fall into the group of 5, seeking work but not collecting benefits. I'm appealing the benefits decision, but I'd prefer to be working. Beyond the normal routes of job seeking, I ask absolutely everyone I know when I'm talking to them, "is your company hiring?". None of them are hiring. I send off my resume to everyone, "just in case".
Unfortunately, my example isn't the exception these days. None of us hope for it to get better any time soon. We recognize the truth, it's just going to get worse.
My ex wouldn't have gotten it if I had attempted it, so I suggested a good name from mythology (yet fits in well with modern kids names). Now, how old does she have to be before I try to explain the ancient meaning to her name? I'm thinking 4 years old are a good time to start teaching children dead mythologies with stacks of deities.:) At very least, it'll really throw her kindergarden teacher. Most kids will be learning to spell "cat". Mine will be referencing mythology and trying to root the classroom computers.:)
Well, clearly that "Linux" thing is a toxic gas weapon being used by the reds. Ya, I'd worry about them blowing up a chemical weapon in the clouds. They obviously got the technology from the Nazi's (no, not a candidate for Godwin's law).
I don't know about you, but I'm grabbing my M1 Garand and heading down to the shelter under the house. Once that Linux stuff clears, I'll they'd better have thought twice about attackin' my good ol US of A.
Well, you asked what they would have though 50 years ago, didn't you?:)
I was about to ask the same thing. I've seen plenty of famous quotes show up in AP stories. And, those are just the ones I've seen. AP sucks up and redistributes so many stories, it's virtually impossible for any individual to have read them all (except on the weekends, when it's all just recycled news).
But, if the article is right, they're claiming that quote ran in the AP story AP sources: Military-civilian terror prison eyed. If you read the story, it clearly didn't. Or at least the quote has been withdrawn. I thought maybe it could have been words close together, but a few key words didn't show up, so that isn't the case either. So it's clearly not the story that they claimed.
If you check through Google News, the only news site with the quote "if nature has made any one thing less susceptible" is Slashdot, but I'm sure this will start popping up all over the place. That pretty much, but not totally, eliminates recent stories. It's possible that it's in an AP story, that simply hasn't shown up anywhere. They sit on all kinds of stuff that'll never see the light of day.
I'm pretty sure their tool is only weighing how big the quote is for a price tag. It's up to you to find it in an AP story and pay through their tool. I don't know why they cited an original article, if that wasn't really the article cited.
Unfortunately you fail to take into account that the world we live in, and the medium we communicate through, is full of shades of gray.
We don't only have the answers, "yes", and "no", but "maybe", "kind of", "possibly", "vaguely", among others. Beyond that, there are lies, half-truths, white lies, and occasionally even the truth.
But for the scale of your calcuation, I would stick with integer values. It keeps your headache to a minimum. Arbitrarily invalidating a valid answer limits your ability to reason.
You should read up a little on the scope of Good Samaritan laws.
They are not globally recognized. The country or state you are in may simply not have any. If you make a mistake, "oops, I was trying to help" won't always protect you.
The above linked page has a good example of this. If there is a car accident, and you extract the driver or passengers, and they are injured because of it (or their lawyer argues that you made the condition worse), you're screwed. The exception would (usually) be that there was obvious and immediate threat to their life. Like, their car is already on fire, you're probably right to try to get them out. What if one of the passengers had a spinal cord injury, and by moving them you killed them? What if you were mistaken, and the "fire" was just steam from the broken radiator?
Here, as I recall it, the Good Samaritan laws protect the average Joe. Well, as far as that goes. In civil court, any lawyer can argue anything. If it's in front of a jury, regardless if they're instructed "You will ignore the previous question", they still heard it.
The advice on giving medical assistance, even within the bounds of our training, was from the paramedics teaching that portion of the course. They told us more, but basically the lead instructor with 30 years of experience, was currently involved in 3 lawsuits against him, for carrying out his duties properly. He told us he's known those off-duty who jumped in to do "the right thing", just to get burnt as you said.
Now, I'm many many years out of that profession, and I'm sure any certification I previously held is worthless. I am just JW Civilian Smythe now.
I can't say that I've been on a lot of scenes of accidents, but I've been at a few. We'll use a decent example of one that happened a few years ago.
I was at a stop sign, 2nd in line. It was out of a residential area, to cross a busy road at night. My view was obscured by bushes. I heard a screech of tires, and an impact. A truck spun into my view, still on the main road. I got out to help.
I instructed a bystander to call 911.
The driver of the truck, a white male, approx 30, as shaken but physically unhurt and relatively calm. He was already out of his truck by the time I got to the vehicles. I advised him to sit calmly in the grass off the road, and pointed to a safe place. He obeyed.
The driver of the car, a white female, approx 20, was shaken, screaming, complaining of breathing problems and extreme pain to her face. I tried to calm her. Her airbag had deployed, and she barely had a red mark on her nose. I reminded her that she was screaming (it was louder than the tire screeching had been), so she was breathing. I told her she was fine, and to stay in her vehicle and not move around. The paramedics would arrive soon. The "breathing" problem was from the airbag dust. her "broken" nose was a mild abrasion from the airbag. A stupid bystander saw the steam from the radiator and started telling the driver that her car was going to explode. So much for calm. She was screaming more and very insistent on getting out of the car.
The original bystander that I had asked to call 911 handed me the phone, so I could give the brief description of what happened. 2 cars, 0 obvious injuries, road blocked. Please send ambulance and police.
So the guy was doing fine on his own, trying to collect his thoughts on what just happened, as he looked at the front of his truck crushed. He looked a bit sad. I guess he liked his truck.
The girl is now out of her car, shaken, and walking badly (like from the adrenaline rush, not from injury). I walked her to the back of her car, and asked her to please please stand there, holding onto the car until the paramedics arrive. The crazy bystander starts telling her all kinds of shit like "oh my god, you almost died. Your car is on fire, get away from it!"
So, the crazy bystander tells me off, and gets the girl into the grass, where she's hugging her, and rubbing her back. Go ahead, I know how wrong that was. Not much I could do, she wouldn't listen to me, since I wouldn't save her from the "burning" car.
When the police got there, I he glanced around and I pointed out vehicles and owners. I then asked "do you need me for anything, or can I go?" He told me I could leave, he didn't need me for anything.
The final part has happened quite a few times. I wasn't involved in the incident, other than being the first person there. It's easier on the paperwork if the witness list is short.:)
I tried to pull $400 from an ATM once. This was a trusted ATM at my bank (the branch I held the account at) It didn't have enough cash for that transaction. I redid it as $100, and it gave me the cash, and then put the notice up saying it was out of cash. That $100 could have been fine if there were 5 $20 transactions instead of mine.
So, is it really out of cash with $400 left, or is it out of cash with $0?
In the above case, I walked into the bank and told them. I was friendly with everyone inside, and wanted the full $400 in cash. The branch manager checked, and yes, it had just run out of cash. We had a little laugh, and then I wrote a counter check for the remaining $300. No harm, no foul, and they called in for an ATM refill. Even though it was the bank, a courier handled the refills.
Actually, the way the laws read in a lot of states, it goes something like this...
I learned this in law enforcement school. I was trained as a first responder. I could stabilize a patient until the paramedics arrived.
While on duty, I am protected by the department regardless of what happens. For example, if a person had a heart attack, and I gave CPR, they may sue for the bruising or cracked rib(s). If I fail to keep them alive, I'm still protected, because I tried to the best of my ability.
When OFF duty, I don't have any such protection, and may lose my ass in court. I was trained to perform those acts, but was not obliged. Pretty much, the lawyer for the victim, who is the person you saved, will tear you up when they say "So where did you go to medical school?" "Did the victim consent to you touching him?" "Being that you work in law enforcement, you thought it would be ok to attack the victim, and leave him with cracked ribs, causing him undue pain and suffering and weeks in the hospital?" As soon as you say "But he was having a heart attack", they'll come back with "But you're not a doctor, who were you to judge this?" You see where that goes. Lawyers are assholes, and some people will grab for money anywhere they can, including from the person who saved their life.
We were told, if you see someone having a heart attack on the street, and you aren't working, call 911. Don't get involved.
So, if someone had a heart attack at a conference of cardiovascular specialists, no, they may not get any treatment, but someone will (hopefully) call 911.
There are good people out there though. An ex-girlfriend was involved in a rather serious car accident. She was in the military, and a base surgeon witnessed it. He stopped, and began treating her to the best of his ability, even though he had no supplies. He called 911, then ensured she didn't move, and started to evaluate her for injuries. Other folks from the base secured the area, and guided traffic away from the scene. The scene was handed off to local law enforcement as they arrived. She was transported by ambulance to a civilian hospital (it happened off-base), where he road along. I was called from the hospital. By the time I got there, she was badly bruised and not terribly happy, but stable. And, no, it was a hit & run. There was a consistent description of the vehicle, but when they saw someone in uniform fall out of the drivers seat onto the ground, the focus was on her, not the other vehicle.
Myself, if I see someone in need, I help whenever possible. When professional help arrives, I'll walk away without giving any information. I care to help. I don't care for fame, fortune, or the lawsuit that may follow.
"Thanks for responding office. I am the shift security chief. We identified the actual owner of the ATM, which as it turns out is perfectly legitimate. We do appreciate your swift response, but there is nothing to do at this time. Those kids just didn't know what they were calling about. They're from Canada."
That was my thought too. I'd suspect if it was a prank, the PC will have a note taped to it saying "Welcome to DefCon" or something like that, hopefully with a description of the prank and the root/Administrator password to the machine so they can inspect it.
Of course, no forensics person (hopefully) would just log in with the given password, as if it was real, it could trip a cleanup routine. Providing the password would simply be a show of good faith to it being a prank.
It could have been a fraud, and the folks doing it had no clue that Defcon was about to happen, and/or they had no clue what Defcon is.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just talking on the phone to someone else about the history, and yes, as I've found those are a major driving force behind both bans. Alcohol was, for a long time, the wealthier drug of choice. Prohibition on alcohol obviously went over really well. Even though it was a bloody period, if there wasn't some backing from the leading class, it would still be banned today. Since both opium and marijuana are still looked upon here in the states as drugs used by the lower classes, they will remain being banned. Or, as I said it, why should those damned hippies get their drugs to be happy with? (said sarcastically, of course)
I'm surprised and confused though about the timber and cotton industries stance against hemp. It would seem obvious for them not to force it out, but to embrace it, as they already had the land and the workers. All they would need to do is embrace it, and expand their empires. I wouldn't be surprised if the tobacco industries had something to do with it too.
I've taken many drug tests over the years for employment. Sure, they test for amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, and phencyclidine. Some add barbiturates, benzodizepines, and ethanol. From what I understand, there are additional tests for LSD, tryptamines, and phenethylamines. If they tested for caffeine and nicotine, I'd fail every time. So far, I've never failed a drug test. :) The drugs we control are more based on politics than practicality. How many Americans are addicted to caffeine and nicotine? Pretty much every Slashdot user, that's for sure. :) They couldn't outlaw and test for caffeine, it's given out at virtually every business meeting, luncheon, brunch, and is the mainstay of most people's morning commute. What if cannabinoids were legalized? Then maybe people wouldn't need to take benzodiazepines (valium, xanax, etc) to sleep, and they wouldn't need caffeine to wake up. Oh, two huge politically strong industries wouldn't be very happy about that, now would they?
In the movie Harold and Kumar go to Guantanamo, they joked at GW's drug use, but it had a factual basis. That was pretty much overlooked, even with Clinton's "I didn't inhale" quote being way over abused by his opposition. Even our sitting president has used marijuana and cocaine in the past.
Recently, Mr. Obama sat down with two people over a misunderstanding, and drank beer with them. Beer, an alcohol, is a drug on par with marijuana, although legal.
But hey, drugs were part of this country since it started. Some of our founding fathers cultivated it on their farms. It wasn't until the mid 1920's that it started becoming "illegal", yet still used.
There's a decent summary here.
Ya, if anyone could go down to the 7-11 and buy a pack of pot (I guess that's how it would be distributed today), it would ease the load on the court and jail systems, and reduce drug related crime down to almost nil, at least for those drugs.
Opiates have their own sorted history also, where they were once legal in America, and therefore the majority of violent crimes relating to them were almost nil.
I say "almost nil", because you'll still have crime. Who hasn't seen an angry drunk throw a punch in a bar? Then again, would the same person have done it without the alcohol influence? Possibly.
I've seen it quite a bit in Linux rootkits, but I can't say that I've seen it in Windows kits.
That's probably because Linux people are more aware of the tools they can use, and know that if they don't patch them, the kit will be detected.
Even in Linux, sometimes the kits are misapplied (wrong version, corrupted files, etc) so frequently the rooted machine has problems running standard tools. The other big ones I've seen patched are ls and find, so you can't even see their files and directories.
For Windows, it's easy enough to set the files as hidden or system, and they won't show (normally) in the Windows file explorer. Most users won't go looking into directories much beyond their own desktop, so it's not really necessary to do much.
In Linux, I tended to keep a nice set of statically compiled binaries (built on a clean machine!) laying around, so I could drop them into a directory which was first in the path (say ~/safe_bins), which would make an "invisible" intrusion stand out, where without it it would hide. In an ideal world, a compromised machine would be wiped and rebuilt, but that's not always an option, especially if you're dealing with a client, and the compromised server is "essential" and they don't even want it shut down for 5 minutes, much less for hours while you reinstall everything.
In Windows, you'd spend a day just reinstalling, updating service packs, reinstalling their applications, and then putting their data back in place.
You know, it's funny you mention the prostitution thing. A while back I found out something very interesting about Toronto's stand on prostitution. They decided that what happened between consenting adults behind closed doors was really no one's business. Massage parlours, "full service" strip clubs, and incall/outcall escorts are perfectly acceptable. What they don't want is girls standing on street corners selling their wares. It's apparently worked very well for them. Their "sex" crimes have dropped significantly. The "sex" business hasn't been booming. Until I heard about it and done research on it (no, not first-person use of the services), I didn't know about it. It's not famous like the Red Light district of Amesterdam. You simply don't get girls selling themselves on street corners, and other associated crimes.
From what I read, it reduced the crime, as a "working girl" can call the police to report if something bad happened. Here in America, with a very few exceptions, if a "working girl" gets in trouble, she'll be in legal trouble too when she calls to police to report a crime. Say a John rips her off, or becomes physically abusive, there's no recourse, without admitting to other crimes on her own.
I am a believer that we should adopt such legality.
Light drugs, like marijuana, are also taking up a huge amount of law enforcement resources and filling up our jails. In 2007, there were over 870,000 marijuana related arrests.
I know some cops do "the right thing" (kinda) with pot. I've heard it many times from people and from some law enforcement officers. Pot's illegal, but is it really necessary to put someone in jail for having a joint (or a few)? Not really. Some officers "wind test" it. You grind it up in your hand, and let it fall to the ground. By judging how it falls, it may or may not be pot. "I guess that wasn't pot, you're free to go."
It's silly that they have to play such legal games, where it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. I'm not saying "it shouldn't be illegal, so go ahead and do it", I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal, so the laws should be corrected. How's that from someone who doesn't do it, and doesn't want it? :) I'm more worried about an angry drunk than a munchy stoner. The angry drunk will hurt someone. The munchy stoner may eat all my chips and salsa. :) My biggest fear from a stoner is leaving crumbs on my couch. :)
I wish it had been so easy.
I was maybe 16 or 17 at the time. That's no way to teach a kid how fairly the legal system of America works.
I have seen the right side of it on occasion, where things go the way they're suppose to. I've also seen plenty of the wrong side.
A friend of mine had a store that someone shot out the front windows. He had surveillance footage of the shooting. People usually worked late there doing inventory and the like. Luckily that night, no one was there.
The police did little more than take a report, and pull a few bullets out of the wall. We conducted our own "investigation". I looked carefully at the footage for distinctive identifiers. It was a white pickup truck with text written in the back window. It had blue neon lights underneath. This was pointed out to the investigating officer who said "thank you", and ignored it.
With the store manager, I talked to everyone who worked in the store. "Do you have any idea who could have been driving this truck?" We got the right person in the store who said "Hey ya, now that you mention it, it looks like X's truck." X was the occasional customer, who was a complete prick. From the customer records and public information, I acquired a home address and phone number.
We went to X's house in the middle of the night (so as to not get shot at), with a video camera. The truck was parked in front of his house. I got dropped off approx 2 blocks away, where I then walked up to the truck, filming the front of the house, the truck, the license plate, the text in the back window, and finally I laid down on the ground, and filmed up. I couldn't see very well through the viewfinder, but the footage was perfect. You could clearly see neon lights mounted underneath.
I compiled the surveillance footage, as well as the footage I filmed, into a DVD. I provided a signed affidavit with it stating that I compiled the footage directly from the surveillance equipment, I filmed the additional footage, and I compiled the DVD for ease of viewing.
We notified the investigating officer of our findings, and provided him with the DVD, who said "thank you", and forgot all about it.
My friend was miffed. It took two more weeks of phone calls, and escalating through several different people until one was finally interested. Oh my god, a good cop who wants an easy case dropped in his lap. He reviewed my DVD. He said "oh my god, you provided everything we'd ever need!"
The police had a search warrant for the suspects house and vehicle the same day. They went and knocked on the door. They found the pistol, matching the bullets found in the wall, under the seat of the truck. The suspect immediately confessed to both that shooting and two others that night. He said that he was drunk and angry, and took out his anger on a few local businesses that he felt had done wrong by him.
Good cops are few and far between, but they do exist.
If/when you do meet someone in the legal profession (police, prosecutors, etc) that really do "the right thing" thank them profusely, even if the case wasn't yours. Hopefully they will teach their subordinates to do "the right thing". There are enough who do the wrong things that it makes the entire system appear inept.
Until it finally makes it's way through the courts, truth is in the perception of the arresting officer.
Those are the good and logical arguments. Remember to use such arguments when trumped up charges are brought against you. :)
I ended up in court once as a kid. The state cited impossible physics, my car flying, and my obvious danger to the population at large. It was all a crock.
I'll give you the brief rundown of their case.
My car was traveling at 141 miles per hour on a narrow limestone road. In my attempts to kill the prosecutions witness, I came over a hill in front of his house, and flew my car 58 feet. After landing, I traveled an additional 500 feet, and made a 90 degree turn. The police, who happened to be sitting in his front yard, but did not have any measuring equipment, followed me for approx 1 mile and stopped me.
Now for the impossible parts.
The car was rather heavy, and had a small engine. It wasn't capable of 85mph, much less 141mph.
Based on the slope of the hill, 141mph would have been insufficient for a car to jump that distance. I would have needed to be doing closer to 300mph. To have done it at 141, there must have been other provisions, such as anti-gravity. (ha!)
It had crappy 2 ply tires. They were cheap, but did the job of making the car travel at normal speeds. They couldn't have survived the claimed nor required speeds nor the landing of this flying car.
The 90 degree turn, which was 500 feet from where they claimed the incident happened, had a tree in the middle of the road, and a ditch on the other side. Once making the turn, which at 141mph on a rock road would have been impossible, there's no way I would have navigated between the tree and the ditch.
Their witness said I did the same thing every day.
So I guess I did the impossible every day.
I was arrested. My PASSENGER was arrested, because he was in the car. At the first hearing, the prosecution demanded that I was to be held in custody, as I was a flight risk (I obviously can fly), and a danger to the general public, as I was trying to kill people. What could have been a simple speeding ticket for 10mph over the speed limit became over a year working through the court system until it was finally thrown out.
The only thing about the whole case that I liked was that I met the two officers. They were both arrested and convicted on a whole variety of charges including falsifying information and corruption. But, that was years later and had nothing to do with my case.
You can get arrested on the most BS charges. You will likely go through the system on the BS charges. Unless you can afford a good lawyer, your public defender will tell you to take a plea deal for some slightly lesser charges.
It's all in who you, or someone you know, pisses off. How was I to know that the old man who lived on top of the hill didn't like people driving by his house, on a public road? He apparently sat in his house and would curse at cars driving by on "his" road.
In the end, I guess he got his way. I never drove down "his" road again. I very intentionally took an alternate route, so I'd never have to deal with that again.
Actually, the piper flying in and out of a grass strip may not need radio at all. You don't "need" it until you're in controlled airspace. At least that was the rule a decade or so ago. It is polite to be able to call your approach on an uncontrolled airport, since it'll give the others a clue of what the heck you're attempting to do.
When I was flying out of a small airport with no tower, there were planes in and out all the time with no radio. We also had handhelds, either for instructors on the ground talking to student pilots in the air, or for taking rides in planes with no radio, or a broken radio. Not a big deal.
If they required an encrypted upgrade to every aircraft out there, it wouldn't change things. People would still need to be able to buy radios so they could communicate. It would seem to make sense to trunk the communications, but sometimes it's very useful for others to hear what you have to say.
"tower 1234 heavy experiencing heavy turbulence FL320 approx 100 miles west of you."
Ahhh, it may get bumpy. Fasten your seat belts.
Sure, that'll be broadcast back out by tower as a weather advisory, but sometimes it's nice to get it quick. :)
I find that I'm constantly saying "Say again". Between people on crappy cell phones, crappy cordless phones, in fringe areas, in noise rooms, or are just drifting off and forget to talk into the microphone, there's always some part of the conversation that I missed.
I think it annoys the crap out of the cold callers. They call, ask for [garbled name], and my answer is "Say again." Then they say "what", and it's a vicious circle. :)
If you wanted to call me, you'd better do it in English, and you'd better be clear and concise about what you want. I'm not going to spend 10 minutes on the phone with you to find out that I didn't need to be speaking with you in the first place.
I think the punishment on that one comes right along with the crime.
ZzzzzZZZap! ha!
Back in the day, I'm sure the transit police may have invited the FCC in to play, and this kid would have seen more time in interrogation rooms than he ever wanted to see. Eventually they'd send him crying home to his mommy, and that'd be it.
Now, it rates a vacation in Southeastern Cuba.
US Patriot Act, Title VIII
"[those who] does something to impair the running of the transportation system, including removing or damaging a train control system, centralized dispatching system, or rail grade crossing warning signal,"
"[whose who] interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, train driver, captain, or person while they are dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation vehicle or ferry in order to cause harm or death to passengers," ...
"If such an offense is committed, then the offender is to be fined and/or imprisoned for not more than twenty years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and/or life imprisonment."
Passengers on the train? He could get life.
Now, it's all in how you read it, and they'll probably read it to screw him. It does sound like the judge recognizes that he deserves probation and a small fine, which is why he got off with bail of $4,500.
You could just knock on the train drivers door, and that could be enough to qualify for the same thing. You interfered with the driver, while he was operating a train (even if it wasn't moving) with passengers on it.
You could probably technically get in trouble by walking across a road or railroad tracks. You may have distracted the driver of the vehicle into doing an emergency stop, which could have (oh my gosh) cascaded into something else. You damned terrorist! Or maybe you were just trying to cross the road.
These days, it's not a matter of what you've done illegally, it's a matter of if anyone wants to send you to jail. It's easy enough to find something on anyone. No one is clean, it's all a matter of you don't know what laws you've broken (yet).
I'm not sure he even ranks up that high. Well, not that it's high.
Someone stole a radio. He bought the stolen radio. He turned it on, and found that he could hear inter-train communications, so he decided to play along and give his own instructions.
By far not even script kiddie material. Definitely not hacker material either.
Now, if he had ordered a full stop on all lines, that could have been considered a DoS attack. (denied train service to the lines). It sounds like he didn't even manage to get a working script. :)
There's always something lurking behind every bush.
During WWII, it was a Nazi.
During the Cold War, it was a communist.
Since 9/11 it's been a terrorist.
But sure as heck, there's always a grammar nazi lurking on the Internet. :)
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, so many people don't see it that way.
If you are laid off, and make your unemployment claim, you're on the books as "unemployed".
If your claim is denied, you fall off the books.
If your claim is accepted, you are "unemployed" for 6 (now 8) months.
At the end of your unemployment period, you are off the books, because you didn't want to work.
Lets consider myself and a few close friends, for a total of 14 people.
A couple years ago:
9 - Company employed
3 - Self employed (good income, comparable to full time employment)
1 - Unemployed - Medical disability
1 - Unemployed - Retired
Total considered in the official unemployment numbers, 0.
Today:
3 - Company employed
1 - Self employed, comparable to full time employment
1 - Self employed, borderline poverty
1 - Unemployed - Collecting benefits - seeking work
5 - Unemployed - Not able to collect benefits - seeking work
2 - Unemployed - Medical disability
1 - Unemployed - Retired
Total considered in the official unemployment numbers, 1.
A while back, the gainfully employed helped our friends that needed it, and we were all comfortable.
Now, even the employed are struggling, and the rest are pretty much out of luck. I fall into the group of 5, seeking work but not collecting benefits. I'm appealing the benefits decision, but I'd prefer to be working. Beyond the normal routes of job seeking, I ask absolutely everyone I know when I'm talking to them, "is your company hiring?". None of them are hiring. I send off my resume to everyone, "just in case".
Unfortunately, my example isn't the exception these days. None of us hope for it to get better any time soon. We recognize the truth, it's just going to get worse.
My ex wouldn't have gotten it if I had attempted it, so I suggested a good name from mythology (yet fits in well with modern kids names). Now, how old does she have to be before I try to explain the ancient meaning to her name? I'm thinking 4 years old are a good time to start teaching children dead mythologies with stacks of deities. :) At very least, it'll really throw her kindergarden teacher. Most kids will be learning to spell "cat". Mine will be referencing mythology and trying to root the classroom computers. :)
Well, clearly that "Linux" thing is a toxic gas weapon being used by the reds. Ya, I'd worry about them blowing up a chemical weapon in the clouds. They obviously got the technology from the Nazi's (no, not a candidate for Godwin's law).
I don't know about you, but I'm grabbing my M1 Garand and heading down to the shelter under the house. Once that Linux stuff clears, I'll they'd better have thought twice about attackin' my good ol US of A.
Well, you asked what they would have though 50 years ago, didn't you? :)
I was about to ask the same thing. I've seen plenty of famous quotes show up in AP stories. And, those are just the ones I've seen. AP sucks up and redistributes so many stories, it's virtually impossible for any individual to have read them all (except on the weekends, when it's all just recycled news).
But, if the article is right, they're claiming that quote ran in the AP story AP sources: Military-civilian terror prison eyed. If you read the story, it clearly didn't. Or at least the quote has been withdrawn. I thought maybe it could have been words close together, but a few key words didn't show up, so that isn't the case either. So it's clearly not the story that they claimed.
If you check through Google News, the only news site with the quote "if nature has made any one thing less susceptible" is Slashdot, but I'm sure this will start popping up all over the place. That pretty much, but not totally, eliminates recent stories. It's possible that it's in an AP story, that simply hasn't shown up anywhere. They sit on all kinds of stuff that'll never see the light of day.
I'm pretty sure their tool is only weighing how big the quote is for a price tag. It's up to you to find it in an AP story and pay through their tool. I don't know why they cited an original article, if that wasn't really the article cited.
Unfortunately you fail to take into account that the world we live in, and the medium we communicate through, is full of shades of gray.
We don't only have the answers, "yes", and "no", but "maybe", "kind of", "possibly", "vaguely", among others. Beyond that, there are lies, half-truths, white lies, and occasionally even the truth.
But for the scale of your calcuation, I would stick with integer values. It keeps your headache to a minimum. Arbitrarily invalidating a valid answer limits your ability to reason.
You should read up a little on the scope of Good Samaritan laws.
They are not globally recognized. The country or state you are in may simply not have any. If you make a mistake, "oops, I was trying to help" won't always protect you.
The above linked page has a good example of this. If there is a car accident, and you extract the driver or passengers, and they are injured because of it (or their lawyer argues that you made the condition worse), you're screwed. The exception would (usually) be that there was obvious and immediate threat to their life. Like, their car is already on fire, you're probably right to try to get them out. What if one of the passengers had a spinal cord injury, and by moving them you killed them? What if you were mistaken, and the "fire" was just steam from the broken radiator?
Actually, that's a well disputed point.
It can be said either way, and has effectively the same meaning.
Say caring is on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 meaning no care at all, and 10 meaning absolute care.
I could care less, can still mean that my care could be only a 1.
I couldn't care less should mean my care is only a 0.
Leaving it at "I could care less" implies there is some, but that may drop to nothing, because I don't care much. :)
Bring on the linguistic and logic pseudoexperts to argue the point. I could care less. :)
Here, as I recall it, the Good Samaritan laws protect the average Joe. Well, as far as that goes. In civil court, any lawyer can argue anything. If it's in front of a jury, regardless if they're instructed "You will ignore the previous question", they still heard it.
The advice on giving medical assistance, even within the bounds of our training, was from the paramedics teaching that portion of the course. They told us more, but basically the lead instructor with 30 years of experience, was currently involved in 3 lawsuits against him, for carrying out his duties properly. He told us he's known those off-duty who jumped in to do "the right thing", just to get burnt as you said.
Now, I'm many many years out of that profession, and I'm sure any certification I previously held is worthless. I am just JW Civilian Smythe now.
I can't say that I've been on a lot of scenes of accidents, but I've been at a few. We'll use a decent example of one that happened a few years ago.
I was at a stop sign, 2nd in line. It was out of a residential area, to cross a busy road at night. My view was obscured by bushes. I heard a screech of tires, and an impact. A truck spun into my view, still on the main road. I got out to help.
I instructed a bystander to call 911.
The driver of the truck, a white male, approx 30, as shaken but physically unhurt and relatively calm. He was already out of his truck by the time I got to the vehicles. I advised him to sit calmly in the grass off the road, and pointed to a safe place. He obeyed.
The driver of the car, a white female, approx 20, was shaken, screaming, complaining of breathing problems and extreme pain to her face. I tried to calm her. Her airbag had deployed, and she barely had a red mark on her nose. I reminded her that she was screaming (it was louder than the tire screeching had been), so she was breathing. I told her she was fine, and to stay in her vehicle and not move around. The paramedics would arrive soon. The "breathing" problem was from the airbag dust. her "broken" nose was a mild abrasion from the airbag. A stupid bystander saw the steam from the radiator and started telling the driver that her car was going to explode. So much for calm. She was screaming more and very insistent on getting out of the car.
The original bystander that I had asked to call 911 handed me the phone, so I could give the brief description of what happened. 2 cars, 0 obvious injuries, road blocked. Please send ambulance and police.
So the guy was doing fine on his own, trying to collect his thoughts on what just happened, as he looked at the front of his truck crushed. He looked a bit sad. I guess he liked his truck.
The girl is now out of her car, shaken, and walking badly (like from the adrenaline rush, not from injury). I walked her to the back of her car, and asked her to please please stand there, holding onto the car until the paramedics arrive. The crazy bystander starts telling her all kinds of shit like "oh my god, you almost died. Your car is on fire, get away from it!"
So, the crazy bystander tells me off, and gets the girl into the grass, where she's hugging her, and rubbing her back. Go ahead, I know how wrong that was. Not much I could do, she wouldn't listen to me, since I wouldn't save her from the "burning" car.
When the police got there, I he glanced around and I pointed out vehicles and owners. I then asked "do you need me for anything, or can I go?" He told me I could leave, he didn't need me for anything.
The final part has happened quite a few times. I wasn't involved in the incident, other than being the first person there. It's easier on the paperwork if the witness list is short. :)
I found out later, the girl was speeding,
It may not be of a poor design.
I tried to pull $400 from an ATM once. This was a trusted ATM at my bank (the branch I held the account at) It didn't have enough cash for that transaction. I redid it as $100, and it gave me the cash, and then put the notice up saying it was out of cash. That $100 could have been fine if there were 5 $20 transactions instead of mine.
So, is it really out of cash with $400 left, or is it out of cash with $0?
In the above case, I walked into the bank and told them. I was friendly with everyone inside, and wanted the full $400 in cash. The branch manager checked, and yes, it had just run out of cash. We had a little laugh, and then I wrote a counter check for the remaining $300. No harm, no foul, and they called in for an ATM refill. Even though it was the bank, a courier handled the refills.
Actually, the way the laws read in a lot of states, it goes something like this...
I learned this in law enforcement school. I was trained as a first responder. I could stabilize a patient until the paramedics arrived.
While on duty, I am protected by the department regardless of what happens. For example, if a person had a heart attack, and I gave CPR, they may sue for the bruising or cracked rib(s). If I fail to keep them alive, I'm still protected, because I tried to the best of my ability.
When OFF duty, I don't have any such protection, and may lose my ass in court. I was trained to perform those acts, but was not obliged. Pretty much, the lawyer for the victim, who is the person you saved, will tear you up when they say "So where did you go to medical school?" "Did the victim consent to you touching him?" "Being that you work in law enforcement, you thought it would be ok to attack the victim, and leave him with cracked ribs, causing him undue pain and suffering and weeks in the hospital?" As soon as you say "But he was having a heart attack", they'll come back with "But you're not a doctor, who were you to judge this?" You see where that goes. Lawyers are assholes, and some people will grab for money anywhere they can, including from the person who saved their life.
We were told, if you see someone having a heart attack on the street, and you aren't working, call 911. Don't get involved.
So, if someone had a heart attack at a conference of cardiovascular specialists, no, they may not get any treatment, but someone will (hopefully) call 911.
There are good people out there though. An ex-girlfriend was involved in a rather serious car accident. She was in the military, and a base surgeon witnessed it. He stopped, and began treating her to the best of his ability, even though he had no supplies. He called 911, then ensured she didn't move, and started to evaluate her for injuries. Other folks from the base secured the area, and guided traffic away from the scene. The scene was handed off to local law enforcement as they arrived. She was transported by ambulance to a civilian hospital (it happened off-base), where he road along. I was called from the hospital. By the time I got there, she was badly bruised and not terribly happy, but stable. And, no, it was a hit & run. There was a consistent description of the vehicle, but when they saw someone in uniform fall out of the drivers seat onto the ground, the focus was on her, not the other vehicle.
Myself, if I see someone in need, I help whenever possible. When professional help arrives, I'll walk away without giving any information. I care to help. I don't care for fame, fortune, or the lawsuit that may follow.
"Thanks for responding office. I am the shift security chief. We identified the actual owner of the ATM, which as it turns out is perfectly legitimate. We do appreciate your swift response, but there is nothing to do at this time. Those kids just didn't know what they were calling about. They're from Canada."
That was my thought too. I'd suspect if it was a prank, the PC will have a note taped to it saying "Welcome to DefCon" or something like that, hopefully with a description of the prank and the root/Administrator password to the machine so they can inspect it.
Of course, no forensics person (hopefully) would just log in with the given password, as if it was real, it could trip a cleanup routine. Providing the password would simply be a show of good faith to it being a prank.
It could have been a fraud, and the folks doing it had no clue that Defcon was about to happen, and/or they had no clue what Defcon is.