That still leaves the necessity of defining which searches are "reasonable", which is the purpose of the second half.
This is obviously not true, since I have already given two examples of reasonable search that require absolutely no warrant. The second half defines how warrants must be obtained, but it does not say that this is how "reasonable" is defined. It is one path to "reasonable".
If you don't have a warrant, you don't have any legal authority to perform a search or seizure.
All it takes is one example to disprove your statement, and I've given two already. Third: the police chase you into your house after you've committed a crime. This is, by itself, an example of a warrantless entry. They may then proceed to do a visual search of your surroundings to check for any potential weapons you may have available. This is another warrantless search.
That's now four examples. Shall we try for five? You drive onto a military base. The authorities may search your vehicle and your person. Six? You visit Mexico and drive back across the border. Guess what?
And you know what? A law enforcement officer ALWAYS has authority to seize things such as your baggie of coke if he sees it. During a traffic stop you reach into your pocket to get your license and you pull out a lid. Guess what isn't necessary for the cop to sieze your stash?
second, no searches or seizures can legally take place without first establishing probable cause.
That's true. But the second half of the 4th doesn't define probable cause, it defines what must happen for a warrant to be issued. You can establish probable cause without getting a warrant. You're falling into the "All A is B" means "All B is A" trap. That you need probable cause for a warrant doesn't mean you must have a warrant to prove probable cause. A cop seeing you make an illegal left turn is probable cause for a traffic stop; he's not going to go find a judge and take an Oath to get a warrant before he stops you. He stops you and he sees the barrel of a sawed-off shotgun sticking out from under a blanket in your back seat. You've just given him probable cause to search your vehicle. You're being arrested, which gives him the legal right to search your person -- all of this happens with probable cause and not a single warrant in sight.
Now, just for fun, let's say that the cop oversteps and searches your trunk based on the shotgun in your back seat. Oops. That's a place not under your current direct control, for that he needs a warrant. But he does it anyway and he finds a kilo of cocaine. Seizure. You could argue later on that the search was illegal and get that coke thrown out as evidence, but you're not getting the seized property back. It stays seized. And there wasn't a warrant.
Such a declaration would be equivalent to issuing a general warrant, and thus directly violates the 4th amendment.
That is patently absurd. The fourth amendment uses the phrase "against unreasonable searches and seizures", thus clearly opening the door to definitions of "reasonable" that are legal under the 4th amendment. All the examples I've given are already defined as "reasonable", and they take place every day. You can try challenging them under the 4th, but unless you can come up with some unique conditions other than "I say it is unconstitutional" your case won't make it to SCOTUS.
Had the founders wanted the fourth to mean what you claim it means, they would have written it differently. There would be no mention of "unreasonable", and it would be explicit in saying "there can be NO searches unless a warrant is obtained, and no warrant shall be issued..." They didn't. You can argue all you want about what a draft version said or didn't say, the real fourth amendment is what we go by, and it clearly includes the concept of "unreasonable".
It doesn't matter in the slightest how you define "unreasonable", because that term only appears in the rationale part of the amendment.
It isn't a "rationale", it's a statement of what you have a right to be secure against. That makes the definition of "unreasonable" critical to any application of the fourth amendment. You aren't secure against reasonable searches, only unreasonable ones. And no, the next clause doesn't say it is the only way to define "reasonable", it deals with the requirement for warrants.
The only definition consistent with the Constitution is that if no legal warrant has been issued, the search or seizure must be presumed unreasonable by default.
That is hardly the only consistent definition. It is also consistent to define "unreasonable" to mean "lacking cause for an immediate search".
There are numerous examples of expedient searches that do not require warrants because they have been declared to be reasonable a-priori. As just one example, if you are detained by the police, they need no warrant to search your person for weapons. That's not an unreasonable search, and no warrants are required. You are not secure against such a search even if no warrant has been issued. If you are arrested, there is no warrant necessary for them to force you to empty your pockets -- you will do so and have what they find bagged and tagged before you are put in the cell. These are just two obvious cases of where the term "reasonable" applies, and the term "warrant" isn't necessary.
In the past, people had physical key trading parties.
Oh, you mean those wonderful days when it was safe for everyone to toss their keys into a punchbowl and go home with whoever's key they pulled back out? That kind of key trading party?
Generally, and in respect to the technologies we're discussing in this thread, the statement "encryption is illegal" is essentially true as far as I'm aware,
Actually, it isn't, at least in US rules. The rule is against transmitting "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" (47CFR97.113a(4)). Those engaged in HSMM have interpreted this as allowing encryption (WEP, WPA, etc) because the encryption is intended as access control and not hiding the meaning of the messages themselves. They also feel that because they publish the key somewhere it doesn't really count as encryption.
You realize that many of the people complaining about captchas are blind, right?
Easily solved with an appropriate ALT tag, something like "A picture of a person holding a frankfurter in her right hand." In fact, can't all CAPTCHAS be fixed by simple use of the appropriate tag? "A picture of the characters E, Q, 3, 6, T and 9".
There is a petition filed with the FCC to reverse that rule, but as far as I've seen no action has been taken in that regard.
The action is a request for comments, currently ongoing, before the proposal is denied. The ARRL, the US amateur radio lobbying group, has come out against the change, and it would violate existing treaty law regarding international traffic, so there is little hope of it passing.
Even were it to pass, there is zero possibility that hams will set up publicly accessible communications networks for unmonitored third party traffic. There would still be legal limitations on what kinds of traffic could be carried, such as commercial or traffic that could be transported a different way.
The blanket statement that "encryption is illegal" is also not exactly true. There are some very specific exceptions to this, dealing with telecommand of space stations (controlling amateur satellites) and remote control aircraft.
The solution is to stop using untrustworthy providers: Don't use ANY services.
FTFY.
You're sending your data over someone else's pipes to someone else. What would make anyone think that their stuff is completely and irrevocably secure?
This isn't a sudden change in the Internet, it's how the Internet has been ever since the beginning of the Eternal September, and a good bit before that. Twenty five years ago, when the Internet was by-invitation only, every byte I sent went over someone else's pipes. This differs today exactly how?
We've had this problem on PCs for a while, and it's one of the reasons the market is shrinking so fast. Once you have a dual core machine, more cores don't do anything for you given that most of your work is single threaded. There's nothing more annoying than waiting for something or seeing lag in a game with an i7 that never gets over 25% utilization (or 13% if you have hyperthreading enabled).
Does Qualcom make i7 chips?
The other consideration is
another consideration. I was replying specifically to the comment that "the workloads that people regularly do simply don't use 8 cores." If you're worried that your 8 core 2GHz CPU isn't doing things as fast as a 4 core 4GHz CPU, that's a different consideration, and hardly makes the 8 core system "dumb", if you realize that doing 8 different things at the same time is useful. And that those 8 cores are probably not going to be 2GHz, they'll be faster, since people wanting 8 cores will be looking for processing speed, not just being able to say "woot woot I have 8 cores you luzer lol!"
The problem is that workloads people regularly do simply don't use 8 cores.
The problem is people who don't do much on their computers who then claim that more computing power isn't necessary because nobody does much on their computers.
I work in an environment where modelers are using quad-chip hex-core systems and could easily use more in a heartbeat. Load averages of greater than 100 on a regular basis. Small input, medium output, and lotsa lotsa CPU time.
Where did you get the idea that everyone is expected to buy an 8 core system and so 8 core systems aren't justified because some people don't need them?
The police have incentive to cover their asses by saying "bomb" was included in the couple's search history.
And "the couple" can have an incentive to make a sensational story by changing the details, too. Where's the fun in saying "yeah, my husband used his work computer to search for information about pressure cooker bombs, and the police came and talked to us about it because he wasn't even smart enough to clear his browser history when he left the company." Much more fun to leave things out and claim police brutality and NSA wiretapping and Google reporting searches to the feds.
What remains as a question for this "wife searched for pressure cookers to buy one" story is why the wife was using her husband's work computer to do this instead of a personal one.
As for inference, no, I think an explicit statement that the word "bomb" was used precludes calling it an "inference".
Calendar issue, Not sure, but I'd wager there is a setting like you said using the wrong timezone. there are 300 calendar apps. I use google's and have never had an issue.
If he thinks that Pacific Standard Time is 9 hours off of UTC, then yes, he's using the wrong timezone, and it probably isn't the phone's fault. PST is UTC-8. PDT is UTC-7. He's somewhere out in the Pacific between San Francisco and Hawaii, which means, all wet.
I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.
I've been in some large airports, but if you know of one where you need to drive from the check-in counter through the security checkpoint and then to the gate, I'd like to hear of it. Otherwise, how could your car breaking down after you get to the departure gate where this announcement is made make you miss the flight?
Got sick or simply missed the flight, perhaps, but you'll pay the penalty for having checked in and then not boarding. I wouldn't bet against doing that is sufficient to get a quad-S special treatment boarding pass for the next flight.
I got one of those because my international flight arrived late and I didn't get through customs/etc until long after my original connection left. The problem was, I got the new pass at the gate. The gate agent rebooked me, bingo, no SSSS.
The most interesting thing to me is that it includes an analog TV tuner, which is preset to only receive a handful of specific channels controlled by the state.
In a state where all the channels are controlled by the state, is it really significant that the channels that a TV bought there can tune is also controlled by the state? What difference does it make?
So your claim that "obey orders" is "matter of fact" an afterthought is absolute nonsense.
Are you disagreeing that it's an ordered list,
Of course it is not an ordered list. It contains nothing that implies any order. "First I will... and then... and then..." isn't there.
or did you just decide that you disagree with me and thus, latched on to the one sentence in the post that's indicative of an opinion?
"Matter of fact" doesn't indicate an opinion. You think it is a fact that "obey orders" is just an "afterthought" in the oath. It isn't. It's not an optional part that one can decide to ignore if one thinks "there's too much other stuff I'm swearing to do, this is just an afterthought and thus not important..."
I think that support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, trumps all other clauses and addendums.
The problem with that position is that you are assuming that unilateral decisions about what is and isn't constitutional let someone out of everything else that someone has sworn to do. In case you didn't notice, there are currently many debates over what is and is not constitutional, including such things as "people who form corporations have no first amendment rights" and "if you aren't part of an organized militia you have no right to bear arms." Unless someone has slipped a secret amendment into the system, the only arbiter of "constitutional" is the court system; not you, not I, and not Bradley Manning. Notice that in that list of three people, there is no significance to the ordering.
So, once you get past the oath to defend the Constitution, there was an additional, voluntary, oath to obey orders and regulations and the UCMJ. Somehow I think that it is impossible to justify the release of a cable from an embassy official back to the state department that contained nothing more serious than a statement that "met with prime minister X, I think he's a git" as something that violates the constitution and justifies ignoring regulations. That's the content of some of the cables he released. Can you point to any specific part of the constitution that was violated by that cable? No? Then the oath to obey regulations still applies.
Of course, I not only stayed awake, but enjoyed my Civics classes...
That's nice. So did I. If "staying awake" and/or "enjoyed civics classes" were sufficient to make one an authoritative judge of constitutional matters, there would be lots of us out here. As it stands, Bradley Manning had the option of using the constitutionality of the material he released in his defense, and either chose not to or did so and it wasn't found sufficient to justify his actions.
That ruling would also have to consider whether his actions were justified even were there some constitutional violation. Does one constitutional violation justify release to foreign nationals all classified documents one has access to? I don't think so. Apparently neither did Manning's court.
Matter of fact, obeying orders appears to have been an afterthought.
Being third in the list of things sworn to does not make it "an afterthought". It makes it only third in the list. Your 'matter of fact' is your imagination and hope.
As for not mentioning "secret documents", remember that it does say "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." If you think there is nothing in the regulations or UCMJ that deals with how someone treats classified material, you're wrong.
Easily detectable like the one car on the road that isn't screeching to a halt?
One car? I'd say more than half of the people didn't have radar detectors, so less than half the cars within a mile or so had their detectors go off. Of that less than half, many (if not most) weren't speeding so had no need to slam on the brakes to avoid being detected speeding. So no, there wouldn't be just one car not screeching to a halt. Nobody even once screeched to a halt, even, in all the times I did this. So, of all the cars that didn't screech to a halt, which one is the one with the radar transmitter?
If you're talking about someone sending another car a "stop now" command, why would any other car not involved "screech to a halt"? You wouldn't want all cars "screeching to a halt" because that would create a huge pileup. (Imagine, this network has reached half-saturation so half the cars were participating, half weren't. All of a sudden, half of all traffic going both ways for a mile's worth of interstate slams on the brakes. Chaos and death. So, no, there will not be a blanket "everyone stop right now" command, unless the designers of the system are total morons, and indeed, psychopaths.)
You could easily send such a command from the opposite direction lanes, and there would be nobody screeching to a halt over there. So, not easily detectable.
Any car-to-car network is going to be an organized mesh network not random blasts of signal.
Any car-to-car mesh is going to have nodes joining and dropping out on a regular basis. The black-hat node joins up just like any other member. Wait a few minutes, BLAM. Not "random blasts of signal", a valid looking command from an existing member of the mesh.
It's pretty easy to log where these commands are coming from for the most part.
We're talking about a hacker being able to create "stop now" commands using an unauthenticated network with no control over who connects and who they are. Sure, log to your heart's content. Nothing says that the log entry you have that says "VIN number 2903j3f8230u21j21 transmitted an emergency stop message to VIN number 229jfg20u2029" has a valid source address.
Or do you trust the MAC address spoofers who take over someone else's paid transient WIFI session, too?
If hyper advanced random acts of cyber terrorism were actually a concern you would already see it.
Why yes, clearly, bogus messages in a car-to-car mesh network that has functions that cause vehicles to stop aren't a concern because we aren't seeing such messages happen already. No, it can't be that they aren't happening today because we don't have the underlying network today, it must be because they won't happen when we do.
Doing these things would be highly illegal (just like they are now).
I'm so glad that people won't do it because it would be highly illegal but almost impossible to catch.
That's what stops people from doing them currently (that and most people aren't sociopaths).
"Most people aren't sociopaths" is what stops MOST people from doing bad things today. It clearly does not stop ALL people from doing bad things, because bad things happen. What stops people from issuing bogus emergency messages in a car-to-car mesh net is that the net doesn't exist. What stops them from putting up bogus reader-board announcements? Or announcing zombie apocalypses over the EAS network? Security that will be hard to implement in a car-to-car mesh that needs to allow arbitrary users to send emergency messages.
The people that would do this intersected with the people that could do this is so vanishingly small (probably 0) that it's really not a concern.
Two words: script kiddies. Create a one hundred million node potential network with obvious and immediate feedback and they will come to play.
Same outcome. These things have been possible for ever yet we don't see some epidemic of them happening.
Because both of those are trivially detectable by any law enforcement office who observes your vehicle/activity. Sending a bogus radio message from one car to another is not. If thirty seconds ago your car got an "emergency stop" command via radio, all you know is that something within the last thirty seconds was within some unknown range of your vehicle. That could be a car now half a mile down the road ahead of you, a car half a mile down the road the other way, or anyone within an unknown radio range of your car.
Nobody could tell why all those radar detectors were going off unexpectedly. There were companies selling the transmitters.
I have a TV-B-Gone. The only limit on using it is my concern that I'll use it in a place with a lot of CCTV and the high level IR output will be caught on camera. Otherwise, it is only because I'm a nice guy that I don't use it more often. That and the problem that the kit has the power wires coming into the board so close together that shorting them accidentally is very likely.
Even with the easy detectability of some things, like dropping rocks from overpasses, it happens enough that they've had to install fences on some overpasses where it was common, and in some areas they have extra patrols looking for it on nights like Halloween.
Or, even worse "OMG! YOU'RE GONNA HIT SOMETHING! EMERGENCY STOP!" to all the cars you pass.
I had something kinda like that 20 years ago. A microwave transmitter from an automatic door opener sensor. $15. A battery. $1. A switch. $1.
Watching the tail lights light up on all the cars that have just zipped past you on the freeway as the radar detectors in those cars start squawking. Priceless. Passing them as they slow to well below the speed limit. Priceless. Watching them zip past again, slam on brakes again, get passed again. Priceless.
There is the clue. When you hover over the link it is displayed in the ststus bar.
I don't believe this is true all the time. I think some browsers allow you to turn this off.
If it is not the company link don't click it. It is that simple.
Will you hire me when I get fired for not filling out my company's time sheets anymore?
They had done an emailing about some survey, as I recall, a couple of months before they started this online timesheet, and I pointed out to the abuse role address here that they had a policy section of the online employee manual that talked about phishing and how to determine if an email was, and that their survey email had every earmark of being a phishing attack. "You tell people not to respond to phishing email and then send emails that look exactly like them." The guy who answered said "yeah, I know, but it wasn't my decision."
I got no response when I reported the first timesheet reminder. Professional IT running the entire company. Such a wonderful concept, on paper.
Slashdot Mirror
SunSharks or maybe SolarSharks
Candygram.
Many people will believe it to be impossible that it is natural.
I do not believe that the WSO telescope facility is a natural formation. I think it was intelligently designed. You may now prove me wrong.
That still leaves the necessity of defining which searches are "reasonable", which is the purpose of the second half.
This is obviously not true, since I have already given two examples of reasonable search that require absolutely no warrant. The second half defines how warrants must be obtained, but it does not say that this is how "reasonable" is defined. It is one path to "reasonable".
If you don't have a warrant, you don't have any legal authority to perform a search or seizure.
All it takes is one example to disprove your statement, and I've given two already. Third: the police chase you into your house after you've committed a crime. This is, by itself, an example of a warrantless entry. They may then proceed to do a visual search of your surroundings to check for any potential weapons you may have available. This is another warrantless search.
That's now four examples. Shall we try for five? You drive onto a military base. The authorities may search your vehicle and your person. Six? You visit Mexico and drive back across the border. Guess what?
And you know what? A law enforcement officer ALWAYS has authority to seize things such as your baggie of coke if he sees it. During a traffic stop you reach into your pocket to get your license and you pull out a lid. Guess what isn't necessary for the cop to sieze your stash?
second, no searches or seizures can legally take place without first establishing probable cause.
That's true. But the second half of the 4th doesn't define probable cause, it defines what must happen for a warrant to be issued. You can establish probable cause without getting a warrant. You're falling into the "All A is B" means "All B is A" trap. That you need probable cause for a warrant doesn't mean you must have a warrant to prove probable cause. A cop seeing you make an illegal left turn is probable cause for a traffic stop; he's not going to go find a judge and take an Oath to get a warrant before he stops you. He stops you and he sees the barrel of a sawed-off shotgun sticking out from under a blanket in your back seat. You've just given him probable cause to search your vehicle. You're being arrested, which gives him the legal right to search your person -- all of this happens with probable cause and not a single warrant in sight.
Now, just for fun, let's say that the cop oversteps and searches your trunk based on the shotgun in your back seat. Oops. That's a place not under your current direct control, for that he needs a warrant. But he does it anyway and he finds a kilo of cocaine. Seizure. You could argue later on that the search was illegal and get that coke thrown out as evidence, but you're not getting the seized property back. It stays seized. And there wasn't a warrant.
Such a declaration would be equivalent to issuing a general warrant, and thus directly violates the 4th amendment.
That is patently absurd. The fourth amendment uses the phrase "against unreasonable searches and seizures", thus clearly opening the door to definitions of "reasonable" that are legal under the 4th amendment. All the examples I've given are already defined as "reasonable", and they take place every day. You can try challenging them under the 4th, but unless you can come up with some unique conditions other than "I say it is unconstitutional" your case won't make it to SCOTUS.
Had the founders wanted the fourth to mean what you claim it means, they would have written it differently. There would be no mention of "unreasonable", and it would be explicit in saying "there can be NO searches unless a warrant is obtained, and no warrant shall be issued..." They didn't. You can argue all you want about what a draft version said or didn't say, the real fourth amendment is what we go by, and it clearly includes the concept of "unreasonable".
It doesn't matter in the slightest how you define "unreasonable", because that term only appears in the rationale part of the amendment.
It isn't a "rationale", it's a statement of what you have a right to be secure against. That makes the definition of "unreasonable" critical to any application of the fourth amendment. You aren't secure against reasonable searches, only unreasonable ones. And no, the next clause doesn't say it is the only way to define "reasonable", it deals with the requirement for warrants.
The only definition consistent with the Constitution is that if no legal warrant has been issued, the search or seizure must be presumed unreasonable by default.
That is hardly the only consistent definition. It is also consistent to define "unreasonable" to mean "lacking cause for an immediate search".
There are numerous examples of expedient searches that do not require warrants because they have been declared to be reasonable a-priori. As just one example, if you are detained by the police, they need no warrant to search your person for weapons. That's not an unreasonable search, and no warrants are required. You are not secure against such a search even if no warrant has been issued. If you are arrested, there is no warrant necessary for them to force you to empty your pockets -- you will do so and have what they find bagged and tagged before you are put in the cell. These are just two obvious cases of where the term "reasonable" applies, and the term "warrant" isn't necessary.
In the past, people had physical key trading parties.
Oh, you mean those wonderful days when it was safe for everyone to toss their keys into a punchbowl and go home with whoever's key they pulled back out? That kind of key trading party?
Generally, and in respect to the technologies we're discussing in this thread, the statement "encryption is illegal" is essentially true as far as I'm aware,
Actually, it isn't, at least in US rules. The rule is against transmitting "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" (47CFR97.113a(4)). Those engaged in HSMM have interpreted this as allowing encryption (WEP, WPA, etc) because the encryption is intended as access control and not hiding the meaning of the messages themselves. They also feel that because they publish the key somewhere it doesn't really count as encryption.
You realize that many of the people complaining about captchas are blind, right?
Easily solved with an appropriate ALT tag, something like "A picture of a person holding a frankfurter in her right hand." In fact, can't all CAPTCHAS be fixed by simple use of the appropriate tag? "A picture of the characters E, Q, 3, 6, T and 9".
There is a petition filed with the FCC to reverse that rule, but as far as I've seen no action has been taken in that regard.
The action is a request for comments, currently ongoing, before the proposal is denied. The ARRL, the US amateur radio lobbying group, has come out against the change, and it would violate existing treaty law regarding international traffic, so there is little hope of it passing.
Even were it to pass, there is zero possibility that hams will set up publicly accessible communications networks for unmonitored third party traffic. There would still be legal limitations on what kinds of traffic could be carried, such as commercial or traffic that could be transported a different way.
The blanket statement that "encryption is illegal" is also not exactly true. There are some very specific exceptions to this, dealing with telecommand of space stations (controlling amateur satellites) and remote control aircraft.
The solution is to stop using untrustworthy providers: Don't use ANY services.
FTFY.
You're sending your data over someone else's pipes to someone else. What would make anyone think that their stuff is completely and irrevocably secure?
This isn't a sudden change in the Internet, it's how the Internet has been ever since the beginning of the Eternal September, and a good bit before that. Twenty five years ago, when the Internet was by-invitation only, every byte I sent went over someone else's pipes. This differs today exactly how?
We've had this problem on PCs for a while, and it's one of the reasons the market is shrinking so fast. Once you have a dual core machine, more cores don't do anything for you given that most of your work is single threaded. There's nothing more annoying than waiting for something or seeing lag in a game with an i7 that never gets over 25% utilization (or 13% if you have hyperthreading enabled).
Does Qualcom make i7 chips?
The other consideration is
another consideration. I was replying specifically to the comment that "the workloads that people regularly do simply don't use 8 cores." If you're worried that your 8 core 2GHz CPU isn't doing things as fast as a 4 core 4GHz CPU, that's a different consideration, and hardly makes the 8 core system "dumb", if you realize that doing 8 different things at the same time is useful. And that those 8 cores are probably not going to be 2GHz, they'll be faster, since people wanting 8 cores will be looking for processing speed, not just being able to say "woot woot I have 8 cores you luzer lol!"
The problem is that workloads people regularly do simply don't use 8 cores.
The problem is people who don't do much on their computers who then claim that more computing power isn't necessary because nobody does much on their computers.
I work in an environment where modelers are using quad-chip hex-core systems and could easily use more in a heartbeat. Load averages of greater than 100 on a regular basis. Small input, medium output, and lotsa lotsa CPU time.
Where did you get the idea that everyone is expected to buy an 8 core system and so 8 core systems aren't justified because some people don't need them?
The police have incentive to cover their asses by saying "bomb" was included in the couple's search history.
And "the couple" can have an incentive to make a sensational story by changing the details, too. Where's the fun in saying "yeah, my husband used his work computer to search for information about pressure cooker bombs, and the police came and talked to us about it because he wasn't even smart enough to clear his browser history when he left the company." Much more fun to leave things out and claim police brutality and NSA wiretapping and Google reporting searches to the feds.
What remains as a question for this "wife searched for pressure cookers to buy one" story is why the wife was using her husband's work computer to do this instead of a personal one.
As for inference, no, I think an explicit statement that the word "bomb" was used precludes calling it an "inference".
Calendar issue, Not sure, but I'd wager there is a setting like you said using the wrong timezone. there are 300 calendar apps. I use google's and have never had an issue.
If he thinks that Pacific Standard Time is 9 hours off of UTC, then yes, he's using the wrong timezone, and it probably isn't the phone's fault. PST is UTC-8. PDT is UTC-7. He's somewhere out in the Pacific between San Francisco and Hawaii, which means, all wet.
I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.
I've been in some large airports, but if you know of one where you need to drive from the check-in counter through the security checkpoint and then to the gate, I'd like to hear of it. Otherwise, how could your car breaking down after you get to the departure gate where this announcement is made make you miss the flight?
Got sick or simply missed the flight, perhaps, but you'll pay the penalty for having checked in and then not boarding. I wouldn't bet against doing that is sufficient to get a quad-S special treatment boarding pass for the next flight.
I got one of those because my international flight arrived late and I didn't get through customs/etc until long after my original connection left. The problem was, I got the new pass at the gate. The gate agent rebooked me, bingo, no SSSS.
The most interesting thing to me is that it includes an analog TV tuner, which is preset to only receive a handful of specific channels controlled by the state.
In a state where all the channels are controlled by the state, is it really significant that the channels that a TV bought there can tune is also controlled by the state? What difference does it make?
So the fuck what?
So your claim that "obey orders" is "matter of fact" an afterthought is absolute nonsense.
Are you disagreeing that it's an ordered list,
Of course it is not an ordered list. It contains nothing that implies any order. "First I will ... and then ... and then ..." isn't there.
or did you just decide that you disagree with me and thus, latched on to the one sentence in the post that's indicative of an opinion?
"Matter of fact" doesn't indicate an opinion. You think it is a fact that "obey orders" is just an "afterthought" in the oath. It isn't. It's not an optional part that one can decide to ignore if one thinks "there's too much other stuff I'm swearing to do, this is just an afterthought and thus not important..."
I think that support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, trumps all other clauses and addendums.
The problem with that position is that you are assuming that unilateral decisions about what is and isn't constitutional let someone out of everything else that someone has sworn to do. In case you didn't notice, there are currently many debates over what is and is not constitutional, including such things as "people who form corporations have no first amendment rights" and "if you aren't part of an organized militia you have no right to bear arms." Unless someone has slipped a secret amendment into the system, the only arbiter of "constitutional" is the court system; not you, not I, and not Bradley Manning. Notice that in that list of three people, there is no significance to the ordering.
So, once you get past the oath to defend the Constitution, there was an additional, voluntary, oath to obey orders and regulations and the UCMJ. Somehow I think that it is impossible to justify the release of a cable from an embassy official back to the state department that contained nothing more serious than a statement that "met with prime minister X, I think he's a git" as something that violates the constitution and justifies ignoring regulations. That's the content of some of the cables he released. Can you point to any specific part of the constitution that was violated by that cable? No? Then the oath to obey regulations still applies.
Of course, I not only stayed awake, but enjoyed my Civics classes...
That's nice. So did I. If "staying awake" and/or "enjoyed civics classes" were sufficient to make one an authoritative judge of constitutional matters, there would be lots of us out here. As it stands, Bradley Manning had the option of using the constitutionality of the material he released in his defense, and either chose not to or did so and it wasn't found sufficient to justify his actions.
That ruling would also have to consider whether his actions were justified even were there some constitutional violation. Does one constitutional violation justify release to foreign nationals all classified documents one has access to? I don't think so. Apparently neither did Manning's court.
Matter of fact, obeying orders appears to have been an afterthought.
Being third in the list of things sworn to does not make it "an afterthought". It makes it only third in the list. Your 'matter of fact' is your imagination and hope.
As for not mentioning "secret documents", remember that it does say "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." If you think there is nothing in the regulations or UCMJ that deals with how someone treats classified material, you're wrong.
The average is precisely the same as the arithmetic mean.
Unless you are using average to refer to the median. Or to the mode. "Arithmetic mean" is one thing; "average" can be any one of three.
Easily detectable like the one car on the road that isn't screeching to a halt?
One car? I'd say more than half of the people didn't have radar detectors, so less than half the cars within a mile or so had their detectors go off. Of that less than half, many (if not most) weren't speeding so had no need to slam on the brakes to avoid being detected speeding. So no, there wouldn't be just one car not screeching to a halt. Nobody even once screeched to a halt, even, in all the times I did this. So, of all the cars that didn't screech to a halt, which one is the one with the radar transmitter?
If you're talking about someone sending another car a "stop now" command, why would any other car not involved "screech to a halt"? You wouldn't want all cars "screeching to a halt" because that would create a huge pileup. (Imagine, this network has reached half-saturation so half the cars were participating, half weren't. All of a sudden, half of all traffic going both ways for a mile's worth of interstate slams on the brakes. Chaos and death. So, no, there will not be a blanket "everyone stop right now" command, unless the designers of the system are total morons, and indeed, psychopaths.)
You could easily send such a command from the opposite direction lanes, and there would be nobody screeching to a halt over there. So, not easily detectable.
Any car-to-car network is going to be an organized mesh network not random blasts of signal.
Any car-to-car mesh is going to have nodes joining and dropping out on a regular basis. The black-hat node joins up just like any other member. Wait a few minutes, BLAM. Not "random blasts of signal", a valid looking command from an existing member of the mesh.
It's pretty easy to log where these commands are coming from for the most part.
We're talking about a hacker being able to create "stop now" commands using an unauthenticated network with no control over who connects and who they are. Sure, log to your heart's content. Nothing says that the log entry you have that says "VIN number 2903j3f8230u21j21 transmitted an emergency stop message to VIN number 229jfg20u2029" has a valid source address.
Or do you trust the MAC address spoofers who take over someone else's paid transient WIFI session, too?
If hyper advanced random acts of cyber terrorism were actually a concern you would already see it.
Why yes, clearly, bogus messages in a car-to-car mesh network that has functions that cause vehicles to stop aren't a concern because we aren't seeing such messages happen already. No, it can't be that they aren't happening today because we don't have the underlying network today, it must be because they won't happen when we do.
Doing these things would be highly illegal (just like they are now).
I'm so glad that people won't do it because it would be highly illegal but almost impossible to catch.
That's what stops people from doing them currently (that and most people aren't sociopaths).
"Most people aren't sociopaths" is what stops MOST people from doing bad things today. It clearly does not stop ALL people from doing bad things, because bad things happen. What stops people from issuing bogus emergency messages in a car-to-car mesh net is that the net doesn't exist. What stops them from putting up bogus reader-board announcements? Or announcing zombie apocalypses over the EAS network? Security that will be hard to implement in a car-to-car mesh that needs to allow arbitrary users to send emergency messages.
The people that would do this intersected with the people that could do this is so vanishingly small (probably 0) that it's really not a concern.
Two words: script kiddies. Create a one hundred million node potential network with obvious and immediate feedback and they will come to play.
Did they know about it? NO. Did they stop it? NO. So them spying on everyone is a waste of time if they can't catch any terrorist with it.
They did not stop THIS terrorist with it, thus they did not stop ANY terrorist. Logical fallacy.
In fact, they are being the terrorist against their own population
If you think this has created terror in any significant number of people, or was intended to do so, you are mistaken.
Personally I hope Snowden stays in Russia. Their nuclear arsenal would make the US think twice about trying to pull a "Bin Laden" on Snowden.
You are seriously deluded and hopelessly lost in anti-Americanism if you think Russia would resort to nuclear weapons on behalf of Snowden.
Same outcome. These things have been possible for ever yet we don't see some epidemic of them happening.
Because both of those are trivially detectable by any law enforcement office who observes your vehicle/activity. Sending a bogus radio message from one car to another is not. If thirty seconds ago your car got an "emergency stop" command via radio, all you know is that something within the last thirty seconds was within some unknown range of your vehicle. That could be a car now half a mile down the road ahead of you, a car half a mile down the road the other way, or anyone within an unknown radio range of your car.
Nobody could tell why all those radar detectors were going off unexpectedly. There were companies selling the transmitters.
I have a TV-B-Gone. The only limit on using it is my concern that I'll use it in a place with a lot of CCTV and the high level IR output will be caught on camera. Otherwise, it is only because I'm a nice guy that I don't use it more often. That and the problem that the kit has the power wires coming into the board so close together that shorting them accidentally is very likely.
Even with the easy detectability of some things, like dropping rocks from overpasses, it happens enough that they've had to install fences on some overpasses where it was common, and in some areas they have extra patrols looking for it on nights like Halloween.
(The same presenter gave a faculty candidate talk here and it was not censored in that version of the presentation.)
What University do you go to where they have lectures on how to steal cars?
Or, even worse "OMG! YOU'RE GONNA HIT SOMETHING! EMERGENCY STOP!" to all the cars you pass.
I had something kinda like that 20 years ago. A microwave transmitter from an automatic door opener sensor. $15. A battery. $1. A switch. $1.
Watching the tail lights light up on all the cars that have just zipped past you on the freeway as the radar detectors in those cars start squawking. Priceless. Passing them as they slow to well below the speed limit. Priceless. Watching them zip past again, slam on brakes again, get passed again. Priceless.
There is the clue. When you hover over the link it is displayed in the ststus bar.
I don't believe this is true all the time. I think some browsers allow you to turn this off.
If it is not the company link don't click it. It is that simple.
Will you hire me when I get fired for not filling out my company's time sheets anymore?
They had done an emailing about some survey, as I recall, a couple of months before they started this online timesheet, and I pointed out to the abuse role address here that they had a policy section of the online employee manual that talked about phishing and how to determine if an email was, and that their survey email had every earmark of being a phishing attack. "You tell people not to respond to phishing email and then send emails that look exactly like them." The guy who answered said "yeah, I know, but it wasn't my decision."
I got no response when I reported the first timesheet reminder. Professional IT running the entire company. Such a wonderful concept, on paper.