This is like buying a computer and then being told you can only run Windows on it. If want want to risk bricking my system, I should be allowed to do it.
Void the warranty...no problem. But you bought it. You should be able to run any damn system you want on it.
This isn't open-source, but it is free (standard version): Legacy Family Tree. I used that and eventually upgraded to the deluxe since it's only about $30 USD. Yes, it's from LDS. You get a lot of choice to customize things to your taste--a really serious amount of options. One thing I really like is it will warn you if you put in a county that didn't exist during the year in question (and will tell if what year it came into existence.) Also has some nice defaults, like marking someone as deceased if say, they were born in 1830, if you forget. You can turn these on and off. But what's really nice is the reporting features (may be in the deluxe only) that nicely put the information together in a story-styled book. You can also make wall charts (although they usually get too complicated in large families so it's easier to do the book.) The deluxe version also gives you access to the databases which makes it easy to research straight from the program, although from what I can see, most are available anyway from your browser.
Check out what's online for free before you jump in and pay. You can also get a lot of free access to Ancestry.com and other paid sites from the library. I did end up joining Ancestry because, while you can add your tree for free and you can get access to documents via the library, the one thing you can't do is contact a member (which you may want to do if you have questions or find a second cousin.) Libraries are a great source of free access to sites you'd otherwise have to pay for. I second FamilySearch.org. They have a beautiful search engine and often it links to actual scanned files, not just transcribed. RootsWeb is owned by Ancestry, but provides free access to other family trees and FreeSurnameSearch is a good starting place.
One caution--do your own research and go with scanned documents over transcriptions. You'll be amazed at how many transcriptions are wrong and how many people are sloppy and just copy what someone else has. We've got an issue in one branch where someone made statements about one ancestor being a full-blooded Indian who was adopted. All nonsense with no facts to support it, but you wouldn't believe how many people are jumping on this and adding it to their trees.
But is that just a matter of conditioning? Yes to certain extent there is safety in numbers, but wild birds are not going to run in mass into a shed or enclosure where it would be logically less safe because they'd be unable to escape a predator.
Unfortunately, I think people are being conditioned. I wonder if it could also be correlated to where you live. I live in part of that "flyover" country the media disdains. For us, the norm is at least having a yard of some size. Acreage is preferable. Apartment dwelling is usually done so you can save up for a house or if you can't handle the upkeep of a house. But what I've found is that those who come from traditionally large urban areas (NYC, etc.) are more comfortable getting a high-rise apartment downtown even though it's smaller. (It's also amusing watching the home improvement shows when they show what constitutes a view in places like NYC.)
I would bet that in the larger, urban areas where apartment life is the norm, it is more likely to find smaller and open work spaces, both due to familiarity although probably also to real estate costs. Being squished into row upon row of ever-shrinking space or worse--pods (large cubicles that hold several workers in the same space) are non-productive. At some point when do people start working from home? With the expansion of networks, video conferencing and the affordability of laptops, this makes the only logical answer to curb office costs while saving the employee's sanity.
The early keen games may not be sophisticated by today's standards, but they're still fun. And Apogee had a great marketing plan. They would give away the first full game. Then if you liked it, you could purchase the sequels. Hmm...yes a bit like a dealer.;-)
Appropriately enough, here is the Dopefish, who has a fan page and who's midi music theme will get stuck in your head.
I wonder if they'd feel the same if they saw themselves taking the money directly away from the artist instead of a big nameless, faceless conglomerate music publisher? Not that the industry helps by coming down like a hammer on some grandma who's granddaughter used her computer. I also think a lot of piracy could have been avoided had the industry snapped up the customer base that wanted to be able to purchase single songs vs. an entire CD.
I don't know how the artists feel, with a few notable exceptions. As I understand it, they make they're money more from concerts than putting out a new CD. They may (if a lesser known band) look on it as a way to get their music out and draw more people to their concert.
As artists become more independent of the large publishing corporations, I don't know that that will change people's habits. I rather doubt it at this point once people get a taste for "free" songs, it's probably hard to get them to turn around and shell out $. Although, in a similar industry Stephen King reported that he has made $80K so far on his novella UR (written exclusively for the Kindle) that he did as an experiment in 2009.
"I didn't do "Ur" for money. I did it because it was interesting. I'm fairly prolific. It took three days, and I've made about $80,000. You can't get that for short fiction from Playboy or anybody else. It's ridiculous."
While certainly I'm sure they're are pirated versions floating around, it does show fans are willing to pay for an artist's work directly and is encouraging even for not as well known artists.
Okay, add your Vista is crap already joke here....
I wondered what the problem was. I hadn't installed any new software. The computer had booted up previously. But I left it on and went to dinner. Came back and the screen wouldn't come up. Started tapping the keyboard (thought it was in sleep mode) but then it rebooted. Tapping the key must have signaled the AVG reboot. Or it tried to reboot but then came up with an error. Ran the auto fix on it which found nothing wrong with the hardware. Finally got it to boot up by rolling back the System Restore to 11/30.
I wondered about AVG because it's the only think I could think of that was active unless a virus had slipped in somehow...
What far left ideas? Forcing private citizens to give their money to giant corporations? Checking my leftist handbook, I don't see that one. Gently slapping the wrists of giant corporations that completely screwed our economy? Once again, it isn't in my lefty handbook. Bailouts? Yes, those would be if they actually helped people, and not more giant corporations. Continuing a couple unjustifiable wars that only benefit politicians and giant corporations? Nope, that isn't in my handbook either. Not pursuing justice against the previous batch of corrupt nincompoops for potential war crimes, and not reversing the policies that allowed them? Nope, not in the book either. Not reversing the erosion of civil liberties, and actively trying to erode them further? Nope, still not in the book.
Ah, but that's because you've fallen into the trap that Republicans favor business, Democrats favor the people. Or perhaps I should put it that the thought is conservatives favor business while liberals favor people as there are conservatives and liberals in both parties. The real problem is liberals support a philosophy that, by it's nature, puts people in power to exert control over the population. At it's heart is that the public is too stupid to govern itself and must have government control. Without that all those evil corporations would run rampant over the sheeple.
However, that idea leads people into office who simply want the control.
The left is just fine with paying off corporations--when the ultimate goal is control of corporations. When somebody gives you money, you have to follow their rules. As states have found, federal $$$ come with a lot of purse strings. Just look at GM. The federal government had a defacto takeover of GM, propped up the unions, named the majority of the members to a new corporate board, stiffed former stockholders and control what type of cars are produced. Now they have the Volt, which retails for $41K, but costs $40K to build. This is probably the best illustration of government involvement in business.
Conservatives want limited federal government with more power (where needed) going to local control. Local politicians who are accountable to the people they serve. For example, I have much more control over elections in my city or state. But I have no control over what Senator gets elected in say Florida or New York or California. That's how it should be per the constitution, but that doesn't mean those senators should have the bulk of the power over everyone. The federal government needs to keep the country safe from attack--it does not need to regulate every aspect of our lives.
Politicians have forgotten they work for us. That's a lot about what happened in the last election. The people said, "No! Stop!" The politicians just said, "We know better than you," and kept pushing their outrageous bills. They knew this was the chance to get in their wish list over the public's wishes.
Not a single left thing? How about his health care bill? No one would argue that health care has things that need fixing. We need competition and the ability to take our heath care with us from job to job. Doctors need tort reform. What it didn't need was an overhaul that will cost taxpayers more, do nothing to solve the problems and it's goal is to push us into a single payer system. That IS Obama's goal as he stated. That is also the goal of many liberals despite such health care leading to abysmal care in those countries. And yes, death panels. I don't know what else you call it when the government curtails care to it's seniors. There is example after example of those over 50 being denied things like common screenings, like PSA screening for prostate cancer. Or women denied mammograms even though the risk of cancer increases which age. But the
Do you really think the pentagon would admit if they were compromised?
I think the real danger will be to those on the ground, particularly citizens of other countries who have been assisting us. Sources will also dry up, because who's going to want to take a risk if they know a few months down the line, they'll be outed for all to see.
Are you kidding? Since you said "that demographic seems to be taking over this country" I'll assume you also live in the US and so have the same in-country experience.
There was and is no problem with Obama's race. The problem with Obama is his far reaching, left ideas that are bringing the country to the economic brink. If you think he's "barely left of center," I can assure you that you're view is the political minority. From his advisers to his policies he is to the extreme left of center. He and the like-minded Pelosi have veered policy to the extent that even independents who voted for him are bailing. This is why you had the huge turnover in seats in November.
This administration has run up debt to unfathomable levels. I was no fan of the Bush spending either! While other countries are trying to cut back we continue to increase spending and becoming indebted to places like China.
What I've never understood is how normally liberals eschew government oppression and, at the same time, keep wanting the fed government to do more. When you have a government that can do everything for you, you have a government that can do anything to you.
Oh gee...I don't know, maybe because all they have to do is mention her name and it's like throwing a kitten into a pit bull ring. It becomes a full-on freak out.
Presuming you don't care, why do (all of you) get so worked up because she's mentioned in the media?
There's a big difference between transparency of spending and bills and leaking state secrets.
No...not ALL things should be made public. There are some things than need to be kept secret in order not to lose lives, either on the battlefield or civilians.
Some of you seriously need to go back and study the history of WWII.
RSF acknowledged that Wikileaks “has in the past played a useful role” by exposing violations of human rights and civil liberties. “But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks,” says the letter.
Reporters (at least in the US) enjoy a certain protection for the release of information. Not just protection their sources but the information they leak. But Assange is blurring the line between leaker (not protected) vs. publisher (protected).
Assange "has gone a long way down the road of talking himself into a possible violation of the Espionage Act," First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said on National Public Radio, noting that Assange has said leaks could bring down a U.S. administration.
Washington lawyer Bob Bittman expressed surprise the Justice Department has not already charged Assange under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property over his earlier release of classified documents about U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bittman said it was widely believed those disclosures harmed U.S. national security, in particular U.S. intelligence sources and methods, meeting the requirement in several sections of the act that there be either intent or reason to believe disclosure could injure the United States.
Even Reporters without Borders condemned Assange's "incredible irresponsibility" for putting lives in danger through his previous release last August.
Done nothing wrong according to who? If an Iranian who works to oppose Ahmadinejad name is leaked, he will be in immediate danger of being arrested and executed. This person can be fighting an oppressive regime and Assange has just put his life in danger.
And to turn it back around to you: If Assange is doing no wrong, how come HE has to go from place to place and secret himself around?
Exactly. And perhaps it will soon be his turn to have his location outed.
Well, I won't be as trite to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." But Assange and his followers are trying to make him a hero and champion of free speech. But to act in such a reckless manner is not the actions of a hero or a responsible mind. Blood will be on his hands.
No...it's about going with a charge you can convict on. It doesn't make them any less guilty of the charges...it just means they get to skate on a more serious charge that they are equally guilty of.
Assange wants to act like he's just a whistle blower.
He's not a whistle blower, he's an anarchist. I don't really think he believes he's going to stop war by somehow leveling the playing field. I personally think he's doing this to get even for the perceived notion that this US administration hasn't worked fast enough to get out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Because if he had any real sense he'd realize he could very possibly start a bigger war in the near future.
But he was able to give an interview to Time magazine in which he called for Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, to resign. "She should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering US diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the US has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that," he said.
Nice job of pot calling kettle--he's doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. He is also committing acts of espionage.
What surprises me is two things: 1) Surely they would have better charges than this they could use against him. 2) Why has no one been able to sink Wiki Leaks. A couple of DOS attacks? Surely if any major governmental power had wanted to, they would have "sunk his battleship" by now.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about finding out politicians are keeping dossiers on each other. No surprise there. But there's nothing to respect about someone who has now put some very real, very innocent people in danger of being killed by their government or others.
I can only imagine the outcome if he had been around during WWII....
Not to mention that the terrorists carrying the bombs came from OTHER COUNTRIES that could care less about screening. That and security totally missed the underwear bomber despite the US being warned by family members that he had become an extremist.
And both were thwarted by the same passengers who are now being subjected to a feel up like they're spending the weekend in county lockup. When the groping becomes uncomfortable enough, they think well all go through the virtual porn machine like good little sheeple.
This isn't about safety. It's about conditioning people for the next step.
Slashdot Mirror
This is like buying a computer and then being told you can only run Windows on it. If want want to risk bricking my system, I should be allowed to do it.
Void the warranty...no problem. But you bought it. You should be able to run any damn system you want on it.
Well...SOMEBODY has to pay for those big reelection bills, don't they?
And, no, that's not really a joke...
The vast amount of politicians (and journalists) look on the public as poor, dumb sheeple who can't make it on their own.
This isn't open-source, but it is free (standard version): Legacy Family Tree. I used that and eventually upgraded to the deluxe since it's only about $30 USD. Yes, it's from LDS. You get a lot of choice to customize things to your taste--a really serious amount of options. One thing I really like is it will warn you if you put in a county that didn't exist during the year in question (and will tell if what year it came into existence.) Also has some nice defaults, like marking someone as deceased if say, they were born in 1830, if you forget. You can turn these on and off. But what's really nice is the reporting features (may be in the deluxe only) that nicely put the information together in a story-styled book. You can also make wall charts (although they usually get too complicated in large families so it's easier to do the book.) The deluxe version also gives you access to the databases which makes it easy to research straight from the program, although from what I can see, most are available anyway from your browser.
Check out what's online for free before you jump in and pay. You can also get a lot of free access to Ancestry.com and other paid sites from the library. I did end up joining Ancestry because, while you can add your tree for free and you can get access to documents via the library, the one thing you can't do is contact a member (which you may want to do if you have questions or find a second cousin.) Libraries are a great source of free access to sites you'd otherwise have to pay for. I second FamilySearch.org. They have a beautiful search engine and often it links to actual scanned files, not just transcribed. RootsWeb is owned by Ancestry, but provides free access to other family trees and FreeSurnameSearch is a good starting place.
One caution--do your own research and go with scanned documents over transcriptions. You'll be amazed at how many transcriptions are wrong and how many people are sloppy and just copy what someone else has. We've got an issue in one branch where someone made statements about one ancestor being a full-blooded Indian who was adopted. All nonsense with no facts to support it, but you wouldn't believe how many people are jumping on this and adding it to their trees.
But is that just a matter of conditioning? Yes to certain extent there is safety in numbers, but wild birds are not going to run in mass into a shed or enclosure where it would be logically less safe because they'd be unable to escape a predator.
Unfortunately, I think people are being conditioned. I wonder if it could also be correlated to where you live. I live in part of that "flyover" country the media disdains. For us, the norm is at least having a yard of some size. Acreage is preferable. Apartment dwelling is usually done so you can save up for a house or if you can't handle the upkeep of a house. But what I've found is that those who come from traditionally large urban areas (NYC, etc.) are more comfortable getting a high-rise apartment downtown even though it's smaller. (It's also amusing watching the home improvement shows when they show what constitutes a view in places like NYC.)
I would bet that in the larger, urban areas where apartment life is the norm, it is more likely to find smaller and open work spaces, both due to familiarity although probably also to real estate costs. Being squished into row upon row of ever-shrinking space or worse--pods (large cubicles that hold several workers in the same space) are non-productive. At some point when do people start working from home? With the expansion of networks, video conferencing and the affordability of laptops, this makes the only logical answer to curb office costs while saving the employee's sanity.
The early keen games may not be sophisticated by today's standards, but they're still fun. And Apogee had a great marketing plan. They would give away the first full game. Then if you liked it, you could purchase the sequels. Hmm...yes a bit like a dealer. ;-)
Appropriately enough, here is the Dopefish, who has a fan page and who's midi music theme will get stuck in your head.
Don't you mean..."Or were these people involved with "marketing", "project management" and other jobs I can't do so it doesn't affect me?"
Fixed that for you...
I wonder if they'd feel the same if they saw themselves taking the money directly away from the artist instead of a big nameless, faceless conglomerate music publisher? Not that the industry helps by coming down like a hammer on some grandma who's granddaughter used her computer. I also think a lot of piracy could have been avoided had the industry snapped up the customer base that wanted to be able to purchase single songs vs. an entire CD.
I don't know how the artists feel, with a few notable exceptions. As I understand it, they make they're money more from concerts than putting out a new CD. They may (if a lesser known band) look on it as a way to get their music out and draw more people to their concert.
As artists become more independent of the large publishing corporations, I don't know that that will change people's habits. I rather doubt it at this point once people get a taste for "free" songs, it's probably hard to get them to turn around and shell out $. Although, in a similar industry Stephen King reported that he has made $80K so far on his novella UR (written exclusively for the Kindle) that he did as an experiment in 2009.
"I didn't do "Ur" for money. I did it because it was interesting. I'm fairly prolific. It took three days, and I've made about $80,000. You can't get that for short fiction from Playboy or anybody else. It's ridiculous."
While certainly I'm sure they're are pirated versions floating around, it does show fans are willing to pay for an artist's work directly and is encouraging even for not as well known artists.
Okay, add your Vista is crap already joke here....
I wondered what the problem was. I hadn't installed any new software. The computer had booted up previously. But I left it on and went to dinner. Came back and the screen wouldn't come up. Started tapping the keyboard (thought it was in sleep mode) but then it rebooted. Tapping the key must have signaled the AVG reboot. Or it tried to reboot but then came up with an error. Ran the auto fix on it which found nothing wrong with the hardware. Finally got it to boot up by rolling back the System Restore to 11/30.
I wondered about AVG because it's the only think I could think of that was active unless a virus had slipped in somehow...
What far left ideas? Forcing private citizens to give their money to giant corporations? Checking my leftist handbook, I don't see that one. Gently slapping the wrists of giant corporations that completely screwed our economy? Once again, it isn't in my lefty handbook. Bailouts? Yes, those would be if they actually helped people, and not more giant corporations. Continuing a couple unjustifiable wars that only benefit politicians and giant corporations? Nope, that isn't in my handbook either. Not pursuing justice against the previous batch of corrupt nincompoops for potential war crimes, and not reversing the policies that allowed them? Nope, not in the book either. Not reversing the erosion of civil liberties, and actively trying to erode them further? Nope, still not in the book.
Ah, but that's because you've fallen into the trap that Republicans favor business, Democrats favor the people. Or perhaps I should put it that the thought is conservatives favor business while liberals favor people as there are conservatives and liberals in both parties. The real problem is liberals support a philosophy that, by it's nature, puts people in power to exert control over the population. At it's heart is that the public is too stupid to govern itself and must have government control. Without that all those evil corporations would run rampant over the sheeple.
However, that idea leads people into office who simply want the control.
The left is just fine with paying off corporations--when the ultimate goal is control of corporations. When somebody gives you money, you have to follow their rules. As states have found, federal $$$ come with a lot of purse strings. Just look at GM. The federal government had a defacto takeover of GM, propped up the unions, named the majority of the members to a new corporate board, stiffed former stockholders and control what type of cars are produced. Now they have the Volt, which retails for $41K, but costs $40K to build. This is probably the best illustration of government involvement in business.
Conservatives want limited federal government with more power (where needed) going to local control. Local politicians who are accountable to the people they serve. For example, I have much more control over elections in my city or state. But I have no control over what Senator gets elected in say Florida or New York or California. That's how it should be per the constitution, but that doesn't mean those senators should have the bulk of the power over everyone. The federal government needs to keep the country safe from attack--it does not need to regulate every aspect of our lives.
Politicians have forgotten they work for us. That's a lot about what happened in the last election. The people said, "No! Stop!" The politicians just said, "We know better than you," and kept pushing their outrageous bills. They knew this was the chance to get in their wish list over the public's wishes.
Not a single left thing? How about his health care bill? No one would argue that health care has things that need fixing. We need competition and the ability to take our heath care with us from job to job. Doctors need tort reform. What it didn't need was an overhaul that will cost taxpayers more, do nothing to solve the problems and it's goal is to push us into a single payer system. That IS Obama's goal as he stated. That is also the goal of many liberals despite such health care leading to abysmal care in those countries. And yes, death panels. I don't know what else you call it when the government curtails care to it's seniors. There is example after example of those over 50 being denied things like common screenings, like PSA screening for prostate cancer. Or women denied mammograms even though the risk of cancer increases which age. But the
Do you really think the pentagon would admit if they were compromised?
I think the real danger will be to those on the ground, particularly citizens of other countries who have been assisting us. Sources will also dry up, because who's going to want to take a risk if they know a few months down the line, they'll be outed for all to see.
Are you kidding? Since you said "that demographic seems to be taking over this country" I'll assume you also live in the US and so have the same in-country experience.
There was and is no problem with Obama's race. The problem with Obama is his far reaching, left ideas that are bringing the country to the economic brink. If you think he's "barely left of center," I can assure you that you're view is the political minority. From his advisers to his policies he is to the extreme left of center. He and the like-minded Pelosi have veered policy to the extent that even independents who voted for him are bailing. This is why you had the huge turnover in seats in November.
This administration has run up debt to unfathomable levels. I was no fan of the Bush spending either! While other countries are trying to cut back we continue to increase spending and becoming indebted to places like China.
What I've never understood is how normally liberals eschew government oppression and, at the same time, keep wanting the fed government to do more. When you have a government that can do everything for you, you have a government that can do anything to you.
Oh gee...I don't know, maybe because all they have to do is mention her name and it's like throwing a kitten into a pit bull ring. It becomes a full-on freak out.
Presuming you don't care, why do (all of you) get so worked up because she's mentioned in the media?
Really?
There's a big difference between transparency of spending and bills and leaking state secrets.
No...not ALL things should be made public. There are some things than need to be kept secret in order not to lose lives, either on the battlefield or civilians.
Some of you seriously need to go back and study the history of WWII.
Even Reporters without Borders condemned Assange after his August release:
RSF acknowledged that Wikileaks “has in the past played a useful role” by exposing violations of human rights and civil liberties. “But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks,” says the letter.
should just be labeled "flame bait".
.
.
.
.
Is it ratings time again already?
Even Reporters without Borders condemned Assange's "incredible irresponsibility" for putting lives in danger through his previous release.
Reporters (at least in the US) enjoy a certain protection for the release of information. Not just protection their sources but the information they leak. But Assange is blurring the line between leaker (not protected) vs. publisher (protected).
Assange "has gone a long way down the road of talking himself into a possible violation of the Espionage Act," First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said on National Public Radio, noting that Assange has said leaks could bring down a U.S. administration.
Washington lawyer Bob Bittman expressed surprise the Justice Department has not already charged Assange under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property over his earlier release of classified documents about U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bittman said it was widely believed those disclosures harmed U.S. national security, in particular U.S. intelligence sources and methods, meeting the requirement in several sections of the act that there be either intent or reason to believe disclosure could injure the United States.
Even Reporters without Borders condemned Assange's "incredible irresponsibility" for putting lives in danger through his previous release last August.
Done nothing wrong according to who? If an Iranian who works to oppose Ahmadinejad name is leaked, he will be in immediate danger of being arrested and executed. This person can be fighting an oppressive regime and Assange has just put his life in danger.
And to turn it back around to you: If Assange is doing no wrong, how come HE has to go from place to place and secret himself around?
Exactly. And perhaps it will soon be his turn to have his location outed.
Well, I won't be as trite to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." But Assange and his followers are trying to make him a hero and champion of free speech. But to act in such a reckless manner is not the actions of a hero or a responsible mind. Blood will be on his hands.
No...it's about going with a charge you can convict on. It doesn't make them any less guilty of the charges...it just means they get to skate on a more serious charge that they are equally guilty of.
Assange wants to act like he's just a whistle blower.
He's not a whistle blower, he's an anarchist. I don't really think he believes he's going to stop war by somehow leveling the playing field. I personally think he's doing this to get even for the perceived notion that this US administration hasn't worked fast enough to get out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Because if he had any real sense he'd realize he could very possibly start a bigger war in the near future.
But he was able to give an interview to Time magazine in which he called for Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, to resign. "She should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering US diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the US has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that," he said.
Nice job of pot calling kettle--he's doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. He is also committing acts of espionage.
What surprises me is two things: 1) Surely they would have better charges than this they could use against him. 2) Why has no one been able to sink Wiki Leaks. A couple of DOS attacks? Surely if any major governmental power had wanted to, they would have "sunk his battleship" by now.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about finding out politicians are keeping dossiers on each other. No surprise there. But there's nothing to respect about someone who has now put some very real, very innocent people in danger of being killed by their government or others.
I can only imagine the outcome if he had been around during WWII....
They only were able to take down Al Capone after charging him with tax evasion.
That's because if it wasn't for the TSA, most of these people would have been asking, "Do you want fries with that?"
Remember when we were told that federalizing airport security would make us safer?
Not to mention that the terrorists carrying the bombs came from OTHER COUNTRIES that could care less about screening. That and security totally missed the underwear bomber despite the US being warned by family members that he had become an extremist.
And both were thwarted by the same passengers who are now being subjected to a feel up like they're spending the weekend in county lockup. When the groping becomes uncomfortable enough, they think well all go through the virtual porn machine like good little sheeple.
This isn't about safety. It's about conditioning people for the next step.
Never let a crisis go to waste...
Not sure about earlier versions of 4.0, but it comes up as not compatible with Beta 6.