Yes he did us a great service, but then destroyed that by revealing much more, revealing extensive details of many legitimate intelligence collection efforts that did not violate US law but were actually fully within the scope and mission of the NSA.
It's not the phone surveillance program reveal that he is facing charges for. (He might be facing charges for those as well but can claim whistleblower status and most likely win against those charges.) It's all the other secrets he revealed to the world and to his Russian hosts to pay for his asylum.
Then I take it that you haven't watched herds of graceful steak-alopes grazing on the slopes of Kilauea? Staying close enough to the lava flows to slowly sizzle but not burn their tasty bodies.
On the other hand I have an access point in a hallway. I originally had a night light as well for my kids. I quickly realized the AP's blinky blue LED's were brighter than the old incandescent night light was.
The NDR is a legal contract. It has been well vetted and challenged in the courts. The SF 312 NDR is not an illegal contract by any definition. He is not bound to protect secrets about illegal acts, thus he would have been justified and even a hero in revealing the illegal phone surveillance of US citizens inside the US. But that was revealed in his first release when he was still in China. Everything since then has been fully legitimate intelligence collection efforts and thus still subject to the lawful contract he signed.
False, the public does not have any right to know our national secrets. If we reveal all our secrets we have none, and have no leverage in international relations. Just because we fund it does not mean we are entitled to know everything the government does. A government with no secrets cannot stand.
the vast majority of what he released was not for public release and has compromised many legitimate intelligence operations that we the people have tasked the intelligence community to engage in.
He signed the NDR, that means he promised to protect those national secrets. The only ones he was not bound to protect are those that were illegal, i.e. the phone surveillance of US citizens inside the US.
He does not deserve a pardon or a medal. He deserves a very long stint at Ft Leavenworth breaking big rocks into little rocks.
How is a new standard connector that the industry is all moving to vendor lock-in? Vendor lock-in is a single vendor implementing a "feature" that they won't license no matter how much people want it to lock users to their product. An industry wide adoption of a new technology is exactly the opposite of vendor lock-in.
Nope, he was the one entrusted with a security clearance. He is the one who signed the NDR. And he is the one who handed classified data on our intelligence gathering systems to individuals not cleared to receive it. He is the one who needs to face charges. He does not deserve a Pardon. Had he limited what he handed over to just the surveillance of US citizens inside the US then he would deserve a Pardon. But he didn't limit what he stole and gave away. Therefore he deserves to spend a very long time in prison.
He is responsible for the data he took without authorization and turned over to individuals not authorized to receive it. They are not bound by the NDR, HE is.
Your police example is not relevant. He is responsible for whatever happens to data he releases without authorization.
And what if Spotify has in fact been breached and they are monitoring for just this action in order to verify the likely changes. Hack one site, get the username and pw database, hack a second site but wait until the breach from the first becomes public knowledge and people start changing their passwords (on their own or worse if universally forced by the second site admins) then collect the data and you have most likely established the password migration pattern for several of those users.
It was the FBI that said "her team deleted the emails in such a way as to prevent forensic recovery." That was what Comey said, not the media. Further Gross Negligence is the standard for prosecuting mishandling of classified information. Intent is not required. She did break the law and should have been indicted.
Worse than that, she'll replace Scalia with a leftist Jurist, as well as Kennedy who has already indicated he's ready to retire. She'll take the moderate balanced court we've had, 4-4 with Kennedy swinging based on the topic, to a hard left 6-3. Trump could do the same but he's already put forth a list of his candidates who are conservatives. But I could see him trying to keep a moderate swing vote to prevent either side from dominating.
No the car will recognize that the passenger's heart is in fibrillation and will redirect to the nearest medical facility while pinging the medical facility about the condition, the police about the emergency and the surrounding traffic to notify that it is going to be exceeding normal traffic flow behaviors. Thus instead of dying and either ruining a birthday or killing someone else when the car crashes, Grandfather instead is delivered to a nearby urgent care facility just as a doctor rushes out the door with a defib pack saving his life so he is there for little Johnny's next birthday as well.
Have you seen what Google's cars are currently capable of? They actually do very well. And are better at anticipating potential threats than human drivers in the cars around them. Wish I had a link to it handy but I don't have access to youtube at work, but I recently watched a video about the Google cars and they showed several scenarios showing what the car was seeing. In one example a bicyclist was coming from the left, the Google car saw it, identified it and that it was not likely to stop at the intersection but just zip through trying to beat the light but failing. Sure enough that is exactly what happened and when the light turned green the Google car remained at a stop as the car to the left (which had a better view of the approaching bike) started to pull forward and almost hit the bike. At the pace tech advances I can fully see this being in wide deployment in just five years.
Exactly, Look at Utah (where the games made a profit), all our venues are in use year round. and the village became student housing at the University of Utah as planned. During the winter athletes train and compete at the venues but they are also open to the public to enjoy and try out which serves to recruit new athletes to some of the more obscure events (Lake Placid is the home to the only other bob sled and luge track in the country). And during the summer we find uses for the venues as well. The Ski Jump landing slopes became mega water slides during the summer.
The problem is when host cities throw money at getting the games with no plans beyond the closing ceremonies of the Paralympic games. We not only made a profit during the games but had plans for maintaining and using the venues afterwards.
My manual transmission 99 Escort got 33 mpg and did better than my parent's 02 automatic transmission Focus which got 31. Your mpg estimates for a 98 escort is totally bogus. Also the Focus had the same engine as the Escort.
No actually in an overnight of charging you can charge sufficiently for two days needs. Because you have a charger at your home. But what if you live in NYC in an apartment, where you have to fight for a parking place. Such a charging option is not available. And in fact while it only takes a couple seconds of YOUR time, it takes hours of your car plugged in to charge. Not an option for many people who live in cities. Instead they go to the Gas Station once every week or two, spend 5 to 10 minutes and don't have to worry about can they get a charging station.
Again, very little of YOUR time is spend charging, but hours of your CAR's time is spent charging. You are being intellectually dishonest in not recognizing and/or admitting that fact.
How about to fire a ballistic Flag from the US, around the moon and back to earth to plant the US Flag in Kimmy boy's front driveway (and share pictures of the lunar fly-by)? The lunar trip would both be in your face and eliminate any risk of it being identified before impact as coming from us.
Yes she was pointing a gun at them. Merely pulling out the gun is grounds for use of deadly force. Actually your rights do change. It's called exigent circumstances. You have your rights, they are defended in the courts, not on the spot with the police. You threaten violence (the mere presence of the gun let alone pointing it at them as the report clearly states she was doing) is such a threat, and the police are justified in cutting off outside communications and use of deadly force.
Rights are not without limits and exceptions. We task the police to enforce the laws of the land, in order to do that they need to be able to temporarily limit some rights when they seek to detain (arrest you). They were serving a warrant, they had cause to be there. She resisted and pulled a weapon on them. Their use of deadly force is justified. She was being encouraged by outside communications breaking the situational control the negotiators need to be able to end these situations peacefully. Cutting communications is standard operating procedure for such negotiations, it is legal and constitutional. He freedom of speech was not infringed by the brief loss of connection. Had she been arrested her speech rights would have been restored.
Authorities regularly cut communications for those involved in stand-off situations. They only want the subject talking to the negotiators so they can control and calm the person down. Those outside individuals spurring her on are exactly why they are permitted to cut the communications. There is no 1st Amendment issue here.
Nope, when she pulled a gun on them she granted them justification for use of deadly force. Self defense does not apply when committing a criminal act. Resisting arrest for a duly sworn warrant is a criminal act that nullifies castle doctrine. And stop claiming the police were trying to kill her. She instigated the shooting when she pulled the shotgun and pointed it at the police. Doing that is an invitation to be shot. She further instigated when she threatened to shoot and kill the police. Further the police do not shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat. There is a difference. If they shot to kill nobody would ever survive being shot at by police. But rather many do. Once the threat is eliminated, be it by surrender or incapacitation of the threat the shooting often stops. That said, firearms are called deadly force because that is a likely outcome of any shooting. But the police shoot to stop the threat, nothing more. They were not trying to kill her if they were they would have fired the moment she pulled the shotgun, rather than waiting for her to add to the physical threat with a verbal threat to use the weapon.
Nope, the moment she pulled out the shotgun, she had used deadly force to resist a lawful arrest. Remember they had a warrant, and nobody is claiming there was anything incorrect about the warrant. When she started to resist, the police gained justification in escalation of force. The moment she pulled the shotgun, she justified the use of deadly force, telling them she would kill them further cemented this justification. Who shot first is immaterial, when she pulled a deadly weapon the police gained justification for use of deadly force.
The defensive action argument goes away when committing a crime, as she was when resisting a lawful arrest warrant based arrest. Castle doctrine does not protect you when you are committing a criminal act.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes he did us a great service, but then destroyed that by revealing much more, revealing extensive details of many legitimate intelligence collection efforts that did not violate US law but were actually fully within the scope and mission of the NSA.
It's not the phone surveillance program reveal that he is facing charges for. (He might be facing charges for those as well but can claim whistleblower status and most likely win against those charges.) It's all the other secrets he revealed to the world and to his Russian hosts to pay for his asylum.
Then I take it that you haven't watched herds of graceful steak-alopes grazing on the slopes of Kilauea? Staying close enough to the lava flows to slowly sizzle but not burn their tasty bodies.
On the other hand I have an access point in a hallway. I originally had a night light as well for my kids. I quickly realized the AP's blinky blue LED's were brighter than the old incandescent night light was.
The NDR is a legal contract. It has been well vetted and challenged in the courts. The SF 312 NDR is not an illegal contract by any definition. He is not bound to protect secrets about illegal acts, thus he would have been justified and even a hero in revealing the illegal phone surveillance of US citizens inside the US. But that was revealed in his first release when he was still in China. Everything since then has been fully legitimate intelligence collection efforts and thus still subject to the lawful contract he signed.
False, the public does not have any right to know our national secrets. If we reveal all our secrets we have none, and have no leverage in international relations. Just because we fund it does not mean we are entitled to know everything the government does. A government with no secrets cannot stand.
the vast majority of what he released was not for public release and has compromised many legitimate intelligence operations that we the people have tasked the intelligence community to engage in.
He signed the NDR, that means he promised to protect those national secrets. The only ones he was not bound to protect are those that were illegal, i.e. the phone surveillance of US citizens inside the US.
He does not deserve a pardon or a medal. He deserves a very long stint at Ft Leavenworth breaking big rocks into little rocks.
How is a new standard connector that the industry is all moving to vendor lock-in? Vendor lock-in is a single vendor implementing a "feature" that they won't license no matter how much people want it to lock users to their product. An industry wide adoption of a new technology is exactly the opposite of vendor lock-in.
Nope, he was the one entrusted with a security clearance. He is the one who signed the NDR. And he is the one who handed classified data on our intelligence gathering systems to individuals not cleared to receive it. He is the one who needs to face charges. He does not deserve a Pardon. Had he limited what he handed over to just the surveillance of US citizens inside the US then he would deserve a Pardon. But he didn't limit what he stole and gave away. Therefore he deserves to spend a very long time in prison.
He is responsible for the data he took without authorization and turned over to individuals not authorized to receive it. They are not bound by the NDR, HE is.
Your police example is not relevant. He is responsible for whatever happens to data he releases without authorization.
That and Brawndo, It's got Electolytes!
And what if Spotify has in fact been breached and they are monitoring for just this action in order to verify the likely changes. Hack one site, get the username and pw database, hack a second site but wait until the breach from the first becomes public knowledge and people start changing their passwords (on their own or worse if universally forced by the second site admins) then collect the data and you have most likely established the password migration pattern for several of those users.
Don't forget the auto-redirects to some lame game in the Play store. I clicked on your link to read your news article. Not to install a game.
It was the FBI that said "her team deleted the emails in such a way as to prevent forensic recovery." That was what Comey said, not the media.
Further Gross Negligence is the standard for prosecuting mishandling of classified information. Intent is not required. She did break the law and should have been indicted.
Worse than that, she'll replace Scalia with a leftist Jurist, as well as Kennedy who has already indicated he's ready to retire. She'll take the moderate balanced court we've had, 4-4 with Kennedy swinging based on the topic, to a hard left 6-3. Trump could do the same but he's already put forth a list of his candidates who are conservatives. But I could see him trying to keep a moderate swing vote to prevent either side from dominating.
On the SCOTUS issue alone We need Trump to win.
What about in areas where the tracks run north south?
No the car will recognize that the passenger's heart is in fibrillation and will redirect to the nearest medical facility while pinging the medical facility about the condition, the police about the emergency and the surrounding traffic to notify that it is going to be exceeding normal traffic flow behaviors. Thus instead of dying and either ruining a birthday or killing someone else when the car crashes, Grandfather instead is delivered to a nearby urgent care facility just as a doctor rushes out the door with a defib pack saving his life so he is there for little Johnny's next birthday as well.
Have you seen what Google's cars are currently capable of? They actually do very well. And are better at anticipating potential threats than human drivers in the cars around them. Wish I had a link to it handy but I don't have access to youtube at work, but I recently watched a video about the Google cars and they showed several scenarios showing what the car was seeing. In one example a bicyclist was coming from the left, the Google car saw it, identified it and that it was not likely to stop at the intersection but just zip through trying to beat the light but failing. Sure enough that is exactly what happened and when the light turned green the Google car remained at a stop as the car to the left (which had a better view of the approaching bike) started to pull forward and almost hit the bike. At the pace tech advances I can fully see this being in wide deployment in just five years.
Exactly,
Look at Utah (where the games made a profit), all our venues are in use year round. and the village became student housing at the University of Utah as planned. During the winter athletes train and compete at the venues but they are also open to the public to enjoy and try out which serves to recruit new athletes to some of the more obscure events (Lake Placid is the home to the only other bob sled and luge track in the country). And during the summer we find uses for the venues as well. The Ski Jump landing slopes became mega water slides during the summer.
The problem is when host cities throw money at getting the games with no plans beyond the closing ceremonies of the Paralympic games. We not only made a profit during the games but had plans for maintaining and using the venues afterwards.
My manual transmission 99 Escort got 33 mpg and did better than my parent's 02 automatic transmission Focus which got 31. Your mpg estimates for a 98 escort is totally bogus. Also the Focus had the same engine as the Escort.
IF you have a garage or location in which to charge. A very big if.
No actually in an overnight of charging you can charge sufficiently for two days needs. Because you have a charger at your home. But what if you live in NYC in an apartment, where you have to fight for a parking place. Such a charging option is not available. And in fact while it only takes a couple seconds of YOUR time, it takes hours of your car plugged in to charge. Not an option for many people who live in cities. Instead they go to the Gas Station once every week or two, spend 5 to 10 minutes and don't have to worry about can they get a charging station.
Again, very little of YOUR time is spend charging, but hours of your CAR's time is spent charging. You are being intellectually dishonest in not recognizing and/or admitting that fact.
How about to fire a ballistic Flag from the US, around the moon and back to earth to plant the US Flag in Kimmy boy's front driveway (and share pictures of the lunar fly-by)? The lunar trip would both be in your face and eliminate any risk of it being identified before impact as coming from us.
Yes she was pointing a gun at them. Merely pulling out the gun is grounds for use of deadly force. Actually your rights do change. It's called exigent circumstances. You have your rights, they are defended in the courts, not on the spot with the police. You threaten violence (the mere presence of the gun let alone pointing it at them as the report clearly states she was doing) is such a threat, and the police are justified in cutting off outside communications and use of deadly force.
Rights are not without limits and exceptions. We task the police to enforce the laws of the land, in order to do that they need to be able to temporarily limit some rights when they seek to detain (arrest you). They were serving a warrant, they had cause to be there. She resisted and pulled a weapon on them. Their use of deadly force is justified. She was being encouraged by outside communications breaking the situational control the negotiators need to be able to end these situations peacefully. Cutting communications is standard operating procedure for such negotiations, it is legal and constitutional. He freedom of speech was not infringed by the brief loss of connection. Had she been arrested her speech rights would have been restored.
Authorities regularly cut communications for those involved in stand-off situations. They only want the subject talking to the negotiators so they can control and calm the person down. Those outside individuals spurring her on are exactly why they are permitted to cut the communications. There is no 1st Amendment issue here.
Exigent circumstances allow for the restraint. Authorities regularly cut off outside communications with those in stand-off situations.
Nope, when she pulled a gun on them she granted them justification for use of deadly force. Self defense does not apply when committing a criminal act. Resisting arrest for a duly sworn warrant is a criminal act that nullifies castle doctrine.
And stop claiming the police were trying to kill her. She instigated the shooting when she pulled the shotgun and pointed it at the police. Doing that is an invitation to be shot. She further instigated when she threatened to shoot and kill the police. Further the police do not shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat. There is a difference. If they shot to kill nobody would ever survive being shot at by police. But rather many do. Once the threat is eliminated, be it by surrender or incapacitation of the threat the shooting often stops. That said, firearms are called deadly force because that is a likely outcome of any shooting. But the police shoot to stop the threat, nothing more. They were not trying to kill her if they were they would have fired the moment she pulled the shotgun, rather than waiting for her to add to the physical threat with a verbal threat to use the weapon.
Nope, the moment she pulled out the shotgun, she had used deadly force to resist a lawful arrest. Remember they had a warrant, and nobody is claiming there was anything incorrect about the warrant. When she started to resist, the police gained justification in escalation of force. The moment she pulled the shotgun, she justified the use of deadly force, telling them she would kill them further cemented this justification. Who shot first is immaterial, when she pulled a deadly weapon the police gained justification for use of deadly force.
The defensive action argument goes away when committing a crime, as she was when resisting a lawful arrest warrant based arrest. Castle doctrine does not protect you when you are committing a criminal act.