Not if you put in a splitter and kept the antenna connected to your TV's tuner as well.
If you have a fancy TV with two RF inputs that might work, except you've now cut the signal level for both digital and analog by 1/2.
My TV, unfortunately, is like most TVs and it has only one antenna input. It goes either to the antenna or to the output of the digital converter. And no, the $50 converters did not have a component or HDMI output even if my TV had those. They were designed to be cheap and force people to go digital only.
True - to preserve bandwidth, they used a bandwidth optimized codec that was all or nothing.
No, they used a digital compression scheme which was all or nothing.
In the US, it cost maybe $10 (after government rebate) to buy a converter box during the rebate program.
Sometimes it cost nothing after rebate. Unfortunately, the standards for the rebate units did not initially include analog passthrough, so if you put one of those converters on your TV before the cut-off date you lost access to analog channels. And if you have analog LPTV/translators, you still can't get to them. Only later did the passthrough get put in.
And the picture was better than cable.
The picture for the two "channels" I could get using the digital converter were very nice. (One station, two channels.) The other channels went away altogether. I can live with a bit of snow on an analog signal, it's easy to ignore. "Snow" in a digital picture means you get a solid blue screen -- nothing. I went from being able to get all five major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) to one (PBS).
If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best choice.
Because of the shovelware issue, and mostly locked, un-rooted phones owned by people who can't root their phones by themselves
I got tired of seeing all the useless services and apps that have come on both my phone and my tablets, so I decided today I would root them both and get rid of the crap.
I googled for the root procedure and came up with SuperOneClick. It was discussed in XDA developers so it must be ok. Looks easy, too. Almost too easy to be true.
I tried to download it. I found a few "official" pages that claimed to have it but were populated by several of the very large green "Download Now" buttons that actually download other things. No, thanks, I don't want Zip Unzippers or whatever it is you want me to download, I came for SuperOneClick. The ShortFuse website had obvious links for versions 2.2 and the next one up, but when I clicked one of those I was told that the file had been removed. Hmmm. Can't get what I came for, but I can get lots of other things.
I found a link on the bottom of an XDA post and downloaded v. 2.2 as a zip file. Extracted it. I actually ran it and it sat for a long time at the "starting ADB" status. And almost immediately, Symantec pops up a warning that it has found malware -- a virus it says is related to AOHell. And it's in the SuperOneClick I just downloaded.
Yes, it isn't easy given that getting and running the software looks for all the world like you're getting pwned.
Perhaps it would be easier for the general population if doing it didn't look like you were dealing with the kinds of software that you don't want them installing because it is malware. I'm NOT saying that SuperOneClick IS, but it's hard to know it isn't.
How is this any different than the hundreds of 'entrepreneurship' books they keep on the shelves (which probably cost more in total than the 3D printer)?
You can get a book for $20. You loan that out for five years. You get a 3D printer for $1000 (a reasonable one that will take some abuse). You're already a factor of 50 more expensive. You buy spools of plastic filament for $20 each. If you run out of filament, the printer is useless. The printer may last a year. How is this different you ask?
The difference is that the entrepreneur is using the printer to keep from having to spend his own money developing a product that he hopes to make money from, and a book is there to educate anyone who comes by.
At least the 3D printer may be useful to other people too...
And books won't be? And a 3D printer that has a line of ten entrepreneurs lined up making production prototypes of widgets will be useful to exactly how many other people?
As a taxpayer I'd rather fund local libraries that get the masses off the streets, educated, literate, potentially productive and even entrepreneurial.
Except that's not what the libraries are doing. They don't deal with "the masses", and they don't create literacy to start with.
If I was going to cut bloated government bureaucracies that are not essential to the freedom or security of our nation, I'd start with the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
That's nice, but the issue you seemed to be replying to was that tax dollars are going to fund the entrepreneurs who need to build prototypes of their products but don't want to spend the money for the equipment to do that themselves. You might consider that the people who would be making use of this service won't be the poor undereducated ones who never go to the library because they're too busy working to feed their families, but the richer better-educated people who are already up the chain and have ample free time to do this.
And you ignore the difference that the "local libraries" are funded by local tax dollars in local tax districts while the offices you want to eliminate are federal. Cutting either or both of the targets you want eliminated will do nothing to fund libraries.
A couple of thousand dollars for a 3D printer or free replaces hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment - and specific skills and training.
Isn't it nice then that the taxpayer is funding the startup costs for the entrepreneur who needs to make his prototypes. Now he can go to the public library and make them.
NOW - if you want to mass produce your item, those machine shop skills (lathe, milling machine, foundry) will become well respected and needed.
Why? At mass production time the object will most likely be injection molded or vacuformed on a machine operated by a high-school dropout. A Chinese high-school, at that. Yeah, one high-school graduate will have to make the molds, but then millions of product will be made from that one person's labor. Replaceable one-person.
No, the only time machine shop skills will be valued is when you are making something that a 3D printer cannot do as cheaply, which today means things made out of solid blocks of metal for strength. Or to make replacement parts for something that wasn't originally CAD-designed and would require longer to scan/fine tune the 3D printer data than it would take to just make the part.
*Anyone* can crack *any* password using brute force
Only if they're using the correct character space. I use lots of upside down and flipped left-right characters in mine, outside the range of even UTF8. And no, I don't have an APL keyboard.
It'll take 20 minutes for him to find a password that works, and he'll have to write it down to remember it. Problem solv... oh, wait...
Yeah, this.
I hate sites that force password changes after a given amount of time. I comply, and then I change my password right back.
One site I need to have access to goes one step further. They require regular changes and remember the last four passwords you've used. I have to write that one down. They're also the organization that sends regular emails to employees FROM AN OUTSIDE VENDOR reminding people that they need to log in with their company credentials to submit their mandatory timesheet. And they've created a Cyber Security department in IT to help train people to be secure and avoid phishing emails. Job security.
That makes it sound like the difference between "China" or "Red China".
Many years ago I sent a letter to Radio Peking in "China". It was returned by the Chinese post office with the stamp "The correct address is People's Republic of China." It was more important to them that I called it PRC than to get a program schedule so I could listen to their propaganda broadcasts. Too bad for them, I stuck with Radio Havana, where they actually referred to the US as "running dogs".
Enterprise grade disks? The cheapest disk is not always the cheapest disk in the long run. I can buy consumer disks for my disk servers, but when they fail I have to spend time replacing them and paying for them myself. When my enterprise grade disks fail, they're under warranty and are replaced "free".
Wrong and wrong. The FAA / FCC comment was insightful although I confused the xray machine with the nudie scanners. the point still applies. forest and trees, man.
You were factually incorrect whether you cry about confusing xray with some "nudie" scanner or not. Not everyone who boards an aircraft has been through your "nudie" scanners, either. Many times I've been waved through a simple metal detector instead of the millimeter wave devices, and some people don't even get that much. And what does the FCC have to do with any of this?
for the theatre thing, first off talking ~ texting, both are annoying to people but are nothing to be shot over. second, no evidence of a physical confrontation.
That's nice, but you claimed he was shot for talking, and that is simply not true. And another untruth is that there was no evidence of a physical confrontation. The reports are clear that there was a physical confrontation, including the fact that the wife of the shooting victim was actively restraining her husband at the time she was shot (in the hand).
third, the guy could have gotten a manager at any point. the manager could have resolved it easily with no deaths.
And you've now ignored the fact that the "guy" tried to get a manager and could not find one. But this is still all irrelevant to you being incorrect in both the "FAA/FCC comment" and in the way you modified someone else's comment to create your straw man. The argument I have with your statements is not about the event or appropriateness of the response, but the complete nonsense you've used to support your arguments.
And this in no way contradicts that some languages are better than others for that purpose. For a simple example consider the original COBOL syntax of
ADD 1, N GIVING N
This is sucky, harder to read code than n:= n+1 or n++
Algebraic notation is easier if you know algebra and that it really isn't algebra despite the similar appearance. "n++" in particular requires knowledge of pre and post increment ops.
The COBOL, on the other hand, is almost English. If English isn't your language COBOL is hard.
And I still remember the elegance of the:
MOVE CORRESPONDING A TO B.
COBOL syntax. It was a very fresh alternative to other early languages where you had to do this operation one field at a time. And if you modified the struct but forgot to add the copy of the new field every place you copied the old, you made bugs.
x = f(object y)// function f touches variable z deep inside the methods of object y print z
If you have made z a global so that it is in scope for function f as well as the main code the compiler will know this, as will the programmer.
Bullshit. Nobody goes through xray machines before boarding an airplane. Your claim that they all go through one is patently absurd.
The stand your ground thing was a gentle reminder
It was patent nonsense, as well as being factually incorrect. The shooting was not because someone was talking in a theater, it was because they were texting and when confronted it turned physical. You'd be less wrong if you had claimed the person was shot for breathing in a theater, because although that wasn't the actual cause of the shooting, he was breathing.
it's ok to make two different points on different topics, both of which are good.
And when both are nonsense?
I'm glad you find me regularly insightful
I find you moronic and ignorant, especially in this thread and in the other one dealing with Obama's lies and your support of them.
the point was about the "stand your ground" law and how it results in murders like the guy in the movie theater recently.
Funny how you modified someone else's statement and then claimed that it didn't apply to aviation because everyone goes through xray machines, if your point was solely that someone who YOU call crazy shot someone else for TEXTING (not talking) in a theater. Mentioning one situation and then saying why it wouldn't apply to this one is not a very good way of emphasizing the first thing. You can understand why I might ignore your unfounded wrong accusations while simply pointing out the more incorrect statement that was yours.
Passengers do not need FAA medical certificates to ride in an airplane, and the FAA doesn't care if passengers fall asleep and fly 100 miles past the destination.
And what point was that? Aren't you the same guy who didn't catch on to the fact that Gitmo isn't closed and we're still in two wars in the middle east?
there, fixed that for you. at least on an airplane everybody's gone through an xray machine.
No, they haven't. Only the carry-on bags go through an x-ray. The people go through either a metal detector or millimeter wave scanner. Or get a pat-down. Or get waved through because they have the right credentials to get waved through.
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety.
No, the FCC's job here is to regulate the use of a limited public resource so that it remains productive and usable. The only "safety" feature of the FCC rules are the standards for RF emissions to protect people from injury from RF energy.
The current cell phone ban from the FCC has nothing to do with safety, it is a side effect of the existing regulation based on ITU treaties regarding the use of specific bands of of frequencies. The allocation for a major part of the cell phone frequencies is LAND mobile. That excludes use while airborne.
A secondary justification is the design of hundreds of existing cell systems, which were designed with LAND mobile users as the intended target, so there are technical issues with simply changing the allocation to AIR mobile.
It is the FAA that is tasked with safety regulations for aviation. The vast majority of such regulation occurs as the direct result of an accident or incident, such as the FAAs new policies for medical certificates that forces anyone with a BMI of 40 or more to prove they DO NOT have sleep apnea. Too many pilots falling asleep at the wheel, something has to be done.
We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
There is now precedent for "or shot". I'm still undecided if that is too severe or just the right deterrent.
I don't see how your description contradicts what she said,
Well, if the drone was looking OUT at her, as she is quoted as saying, then it wasn't flying by her house it was inside the house and she was standing on the ledge. Or she simply has problems with basic English words like "in" and "out". Could be either one.
But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?
Just as happy as the families of every detainee released when Gitmo closed five years ago, and the families of troops that all came home from Afghanistan and Iraq five years ago when we ended those wars.
That's right. So, it's useless, and the FISA court is useless.
Your first claim is correct. Your second claim is not supported by the first. The idea that an advocate who can do nothing substantial to advocate making his appointment useless doesn't make the entire court useless.
Sane justice includes representation by all parties involved being present and publicly accountable.
The court being discussed is the FISA court. It's not a court where people stand accused of a crime or seek "justice". It's a court where the government gets search warrant requests approved.
If you think all parties are involved, present and accountable, whenever a regular search warrant is issued, you are hopelessly underinformed. The party seeking the search warrant goes to the judge, swears his information is good, maybe has someone to support the claims, and the judge signs off. If you think there's a call to the subject of the warrant saying "hey, you need to come to court to defend yourself against this warrant", you're wrong. Were that to happen, the first thing that would occur is the suspect destroying the evidence, then getting in the car to go to court.
The only "representation" comes after the fact when the lawyers get to argue whether the warrant should have been issued, but before it happens, no.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you put in a splitter and kept the antenna connected to your TV's tuner as well.
If you have a fancy TV with two RF inputs that might work, except you've now cut the signal level for both digital and analog by 1/2.
My TV, unfortunately, is like most TVs and it has only one antenna input. It goes either to the antenna or to the output of the digital converter. And no, the $50 converters did not have a component or HDMI output even if my TV had those. They were designed to be cheap and force people to go digital only.
True - to preserve bandwidth, they used a bandwidth optimized codec that was all or nothing.
No, they used a digital compression scheme which was all or nothing.
In the US, it cost maybe $10 (after government rebate) to buy a converter box during the rebate program.
Sometimes it cost nothing after rebate. Unfortunately, the standards for the rebate units did not initially include analog passthrough, so if you put one of those converters on your TV before the cut-off date you lost access to analog channels. And if you have analog LPTV/translators, you still can't get to them. Only later did the passthrough get put in.
And the picture was better than cable.
The picture for the two "channels" I could get using the digital converter were very nice. (One station, two channels.) The other channels went away altogether. I can live with a bit of snow on an analog signal, it's easy to ignore. "Snow" in a digital picture means you get a solid blue screen -- nothing. I went from being able to get all five major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) to one (PBS).
If anyone spent more to switch to cable rather than pay a small one-time fee, they weren't making the best choice.
Uhh, yeah. Ok.
Because of the shovelware issue, and mostly locked, un-rooted phones owned by people who can't root their phones by themselves
I got tired of seeing all the useless services and apps that have come on both my phone and my tablets, so I decided today I would root them both and get rid of the crap.
I googled for the root procedure and came up with SuperOneClick. It was discussed in XDA developers so it must be ok. Looks easy, too. Almost too easy to be true.
I tried to download it. I found a few "official" pages that claimed to have it but were populated by several of the very large green "Download Now" buttons that actually download other things. No, thanks, I don't want Zip Unzippers or whatever it is you want me to download, I came for SuperOneClick. The ShortFuse website had obvious links for versions 2.2 and the next one up, but when I clicked one of those I was told that the file had been removed. Hmmm. Can't get what I came for, but I can get lots of other things.
I found a link on the bottom of an XDA post and downloaded v. 2.2 as a zip file. Extracted it. I actually ran it and it sat for a long time at the "starting ADB" status. And almost immediately, Symantec pops up a warning that it has found malware -- a virus it says is related to AOHell. And it's in the SuperOneClick I just downloaded.
Yes, it isn't easy given that getting and running the software looks for all the world like you're getting pwned. Perhaps it would be easier for the general population if doing it didn't look like you were dealing with the kinds of software that you don't want them installing because it is malware. I'm NOT saying that SuperOneClick IS, but it's hard to know it isn't.
How is this any different than the hundreds of 'entrepreneurship' books they keep on the shelves (which probably cost more in total than the 3D printer)?
You can get a book for $20. You loan that out for five years. You get a 3D printer for $1000 (a reasonable one that will take some abuse). You're already a factor of 50 more expensive. You buy spools of plastic filament for $20 each. If you run out of filament, the printer is useless. The printer may last a year. How is this different you ask?
The difference is that the entrepreneur is using the printer to keep from having to spend his own money developing a product that he hopes to make money from, and a book is there to educate anyone who comes by.
At least the 3D printer may be useful to other people too...
And books won't be? And a 3D printer that has a line of ten entrepreneurs lined up making production prototypes of widgets will be useful to exactly how many other people?
As a taxpayer I'd rather fund local libraries that get the masses off the streets, educated, literate, potentially productive and even entrepreneurial.
Except that's not what the libraries are doing. They don't deal with "the masses", and they don't create literacy to start with.
If I was going to cut bloated government bureaucracies that are not essential to the freedom or security of our nation, I'd start with the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
That's nice, but the issue you seemed to be replying to was that tax dollars are going to fund the entrepreneurs who need to build prototypes of their products but don't want to spend the money for the equipment to do that themselves. You might consider that the people who would be making use of this service won't be the poor undereducated ones who never go to the library because they're too busy working to feed their families, but the richer better-educated people who are already up the chain and have ample free time to do this.
And you ignore the difference that the "local libraries" are funded by local tax dollars in local tax districts while the offices you want to eliminate are federal. Cutting either or both of the targets you want eliminated will do nothing to fund libraries.
A couple of thousand dollars for a 3D printer or free replaces hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment - and specific skills and training.
Isn't it nice then that the taxpayer is funding the startup costs for the entrepreneur who needs to make his prototypes. Now he can go to the public library and make them.
NOW - if you want to mass produce your item, those machine shop skills (lathe, milling machine, foundry) will become well respected and needed.
Why? At mass production time the object will most likely be injection molded or vacuformed on a machine operated by a high-school dropout. A Chinese high-school, at that. Yeah, one high-school graduate will have to make the molds, but then millions of product will be made from that one person's labor. Replaceable one-person.
No, the only time machine shop skills will be valued is when you are making something that a 3D printer cannot do as cheaply, which today means things made out of solid blocks of metal for strength. Or to make replacement parts for something that wasn't originally CAD-designed and would require longer to scan/fine tune the 3D printer data than it would take to just make the part.
*Anyone* can crack *any* password using brute force
Only if they're using the correct character space. I use lots of upside down and flipped left-right characters in mine, outside the range of even UTF8. And no, I don't have an APL keyboard.
It'll take 20 minutes for him to find a password that works, and he'll have to write it down to remember it. Problem solv... oh, wait...
Yeah, this.
I hate sites that force password changes after a given amount of time. I comply, and then I change my password right back.
One site I need to have access to goes one step further. They require regular changes and remember the last four passwords you've used. I have to write that one down. They're also the organization that sends regular emails to employees FROM AN OUTSIDE VENDOR reminding people that they need to log in with their company credentials to submit their mandatory timesheet. And they've created a Cyber Security department in IT to help train people to be secure and avoid phishing emails. Job security.
That makes it sound like the difference between "China" or "Red China".
Many years ago I sent a letter to Radio Peking in "China". It was returned by the Chinese post office with the stamp "The correct address is People's Republic of China." It was more important to them that I called it PRC than to get a program schedule so I could listen to their propaganda broadcasts. Too bad for them, I stuck with Radio Havana, where they actually referred to the US as "running dogs".
What's the use case for any more than 50% write?
Backup. I have two raid 6 arrays. One is backup for the other. One is 100% write, the other isn't.
Enterprise grade disks? The cheapest disk is not always the cheapest disk in the long run. I can buy consumer disks for my disk servers, but when they fail I have to spend time replacing them and paying for them myself. When my enterprise grade disks fail, they're under warranty and are replaced "free".
Wrong and wrong. The FAA / FCC comment was insightful although I confused the xray machine with the nudie scanners. the point still applies. forest and trees, man.
You were factually incorrect whether you cry about confusing xray with some "nudie" scanner or not. Not everyone who boards an aircraft has been through your "nudie" scanners, either. Many times I've been waved through a simple metal detector instead of the millimeter wave devices, and some people don't even get that much. And what does the FCC have to do with any of this?
for the theatre thing, first off talking ~ texting, both are annoying to people but are nothing to be shot over. second, no evidence of a physical confrontation.
That's nice, but you claimed he was shot for talking, and that is simply not true. And another untruth is that there was no evidence of a physical confrontation. The reports are clear that there was a physical confrontation, including the fact that the wife of the shooting victim was actively restraining her husband at the time she was shot (in the hand).
third, the guy could have gotten a manager at any point. the manager could have resolved it easily with no deaths.
And you've now ignored the fact that the "guy" tried to get a manager and could not find one. But this is still all irrelevant to you being incorrect in both the "FAA/FCC comment" and in the way you modified someone else's comment to create your straw man. The argument I have with your statements is not about the event or appropriateness of the response, but the complete nonsense you've used to support your arguments.
Your choice to not see things doesn't trump my right to see what I find acceptable.
It does if I'm the government and Allah has given the Most Holy and Sacred Duty of ensuring the Purity and Righteousness of the people.
Or if I own the computers and network you are using to look.
And this in no way contradicts that some languages are better than others for that purpose. For a simple example consider the original COBOL syntax of ADD 1, N GIVING N This is sucky, harder to read code than n := n+1 or n++
Algebraic notation is easier if you know algebra and that it really isn't algebra despite the similar appearance. "n++" in particular requires knowledge of pre and post increment ops. The COBOL, on the other hand, is almost English. If English isn't your language COBOL is hard.
And I still remember the elegance of the:
MOVE CORRESPONDING A TO B.
COBOL syntax. It was a very fresh alternative to other early languages where you had to do this operation one field at a time. And if you modified the struct but forgot to add the copy of the new field every place you copied the old, you made bugs.
If you have made z a global so that it is in scope for function f as well as the main code the compiler will know this, as will the programmer.
the FAA/FCC statement was factually correct.
Bullshit. Nobody goes through xray machines before boarding an airplane. Your claim that they all go through one is patently absurd.
The stand your ground thing was a gentle reminder
It was patent nonsense, as well as being factually incorrect. The shooting was not because someone was talking in a theater, it was because they were texting and when confronted it turned physical. You'd be less wrong if you had claimed the person was shot for breathing in a theater, because although that wasn't the actual cause of the shooting, he was breathing.
it's ok to make two different points on different topics, both of which are good.
And when both are nonsense?
I'm glad you find me regularly insightful
I find you moronic and ignorant, especially in this thread and in the other one dealing with Obama's lies and your support of them.
the point was about the "stand your ground" law and how it results in murders like the guy in the movie theater recently.
Funny how you modified someone else's statement and then claimed that it didn't apply to aviation because everyone goes through xray machines, if your point was solely that someone who YOU call crazy shot someone else for TEXTING (not talking) in a theater. Mentioning one situation and then saying why it wouldn't apply to this one is not a very good way of emphasizing the first thing. You can understand why I might ignore your unfounded wrong accusations while simply pointing out the more incorrect statement that was yours.
Does that apply to passengers as well?
Passengers do not need FAA medical certificates to ride in an airplane, and the FAA doesn't care if passengers fall asleep and fly 100 miles past the destination.
No, it was you. And exactly what was the point you thought you were making that you think I deliberately ignored?
thank you for purposely missing the point.
And what point was that? Aren't you the same guy who didn't catch on to the fact that Gitmo isn't closed and we're still in two wars in the middle east?
Why does every discussion of 3D printing seem to devolve into how it could make better weapons or armor?
It doesn't. MIT Technology Review has an article in the current issue on 3-D printing lithium-ion batteries.
there, fixed that for you. at least on an airplane everybody's gone through an xray machine.
No, they haven't. Only the carry-on bags go through an x-ray. The people go through either a metal detector or millimeter wave scanner. Or get a pat-down. Or get waved through because they have the right credentials to get waved through.
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety.
No, the FCC's job here is to regulate the use of a limited public resource so that it remains productive and usable. The only "safety" feature of the FCC rules are the standards for RF emissions to protect people from injury from RF energy.
The current cell phone ban from the FCC has nothing to do with safety, it is a side effect of the existing regulation based on ITU treaties regarding the use of specific bands of of frequencies. The allocation for a major part of the cell phone frequencies is LAND mobile. That excludes use while airborne. A secondary justification is the design of hundreds of existing cell systems, which were designed with LAND mobile users as the intended target, so there are technical issues with simply changing the allocation to AIR mobile.
It is the FAA that is tasked with safety regulations for aviation. The vast majority of such regulation occurs as the direct result of an accident or incident, such as the FAAs new policies for medical certificates that forces anyone with a BMI of 40 or more to prove they DO NOT have sleep apnea. Too many pilots falling asleep at the wheel, something has to be done.
We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
There is now precedent for "or shot". I'm still undecided if that is too severe or just the right deterrent.
I don't see how your description contradicts what she said,
Well, if the drone was looking OUT at her, as she is quoted as saying, then it wasn't flying by her house it was inside the house and she was standing on the ledge. Or she simply has problems with basic English words like "in" and "out". Could be either one.
But he PROMISED that all they data they're going to gather on you will never be looked at. Doesn't that make you happy?
Just as happy as the families of every detainee released when Gitmo closed five years ago, and the families of troops that all came home from Afghanistan and Iraq five years ago when we ended those wars.
That's right. So, it's useless, and the FISA court is useless.
Your first claim is correct. Your second claim is not supported by the first. The idea that an advocate who can do nothing substantial to advocate making his appointment useless doesn't make the entire court useless.
Sane justice includes representation by all parties involved being present and publicly accountable.
The court being discussed is the FISA court. It's not a court where people stand accused of a crime or seek "justice". It's a court where the government gets search warrant requests approved.
If you think all parties are involved, present and accountable, whenever a regular search warrant is issued, you are hopelessly underinformed. The party seeking the search warrant goes to the judge, swears his information is good, maybe has someone to support the claims, and the judge signs off. If you think there's a call to the subject of the warrant saying "hey, you need to come to court to defend yourself against this warrant", you're wrong. Were that to happen, the first thing that would occur is the suspect destroying the evidence, then getting in the car to go to court.
The only "representation" comes after the fact when the lawyers get to argue whether the warrant should have been issued, but before it happens, no.