" I can focus on my next idea since I don't have to worry about promoting my last idea to pay the rent. My patent allows me to inovate."
Bullshit. If you sell off your idea to someone who has a clue about marketing, product support, distribution, etc., you might be able to "pay the rent". Having a patent does NOTHING to provide that but merely gives you RECOURSE TO COERCION if someone else sells a better (or cheaper equivalent) version of your product - which is exactly what the free market is supposed to allow. And your "recourse" isn't even necessarily effective - it depends on the quality of your lawyers which depends on your "rent money" going for legal representation - a la SCO.
You are free to "innovate" at all times. What you are NOT free to do is make monopoly profit without effort - which effort includes more than just thinking up ideas (unless as I stated, you sell them off to production people).
I have hundreds of ideas, most of which other people also have. What matters is which ones get to market and survive in the market. Ideas are worthless by themselves - UNLESS they are spread around. It is the spreading around that matters - if the idea has any actual value (most "ideas" don't.) In fact, I can't even say that, since a lot of crap ideas get spread around (at least 50% of humans are stupid according to the bell curve phenomena - personally I think the bell curve is seriously skewed to the point of 90% or more.)
But the free market is a MECHANISM, not a value judgement. It's the most effective way to provide non-destructive, non-coercive competition among primates. Attempting to install coercive mechanisms into it - such as IP - just wrecks it. The net result is that NOBODY makes "rent money".
IP law is a coercive instrument which damages - by slowing the spread of ideas - the effective functioning of the human species to improve itself. As is typical of humans, the justification for it is exactly the opposite of its effect.
"Business out there know that if they spend a lot of time, effort and money developing something new- they can get a patent, so all of that time, effort and money will pay off."
Oh, really? They don't need marketing, distribution, customer relationships, support, financial management, all the rest of business?
All they need is a patent and they're set for life?
I don't think so.
But you're right - that's what they believe and that's what they want patents for - so they don't have to COMPETE.
The motto for anti-IP should be: "IT'S THE COMPETITION, STUPID!" It's not patents or copyright or any other IP laws that produce value for the species from inventions. IT'S THE COMPETITION, STUPID!
"company A builds a product, then company B builds a product that does exactly the same thing in exactly the same way for $100 less. This isn't really fair, because most of our budget (as I've mentioned) is R&D."
Bull fucking shit. I see where you're coming from now. You're some lame that "invents" something that is fucking obvious to anybody who spends ten minutes considering whatever problem your "innovative" software is trying to solve. You put it out for $100. Somebody else says they can do it better for $90. This is called "competition", asshole - which is what you can't deal with. So you whine for patent protection for what was undoubtedly a minuscule advancement (if that) in whatever industry you work in.
"If we had the ability to take somebody else's program and make one that just did that, we could afford to sell our software for $100 too (and indeed we've done that in the past)"
So in other words, you're "not fair", either.
"...but in that model of development, the people who had the idea in the first place are never compensated. Which makes having ideas a libaility, not an asset."
This is moronic. You really have absolutely no clue how the free market works, do you? This is exactly how things are supposed to work. Somebody comes up with an idea, makes it work, produces a product. Somebody else figures out how to make the product cheaper and better or more available - even if it means cloning. The net result is that the product is available to more people and makes it small or large contribution to human progress.
And you want to stop that because you think someone who comes up with an idea isn't "fairly" compensated - according to your notion of "fair" which boils down to "I want ALL the money".
"Nothing new,"
I rest my case.
" nothing somebody else couldn't think up if they were good with regular expressions, Tries and SQL -- but nobody did"
(Maybe I don't rest my case.) Says who, you? You are the one hundred percent natural monopoly in your industry? If so, why do you need patents? If you aren't, then your stuff ISN'T a natural monopoly, and you should be subject to the same competition everything else is.
It's not patents that produce value for the species, IT'S THE COMPETITION, STUPID!
How does primate requirements apply to the issue? So does everybody else - in fact, the explicit justification for IP is the notion (unproven and demonstrated to be false by current corporate behavior) that patents will allow IP to be developed specifically to assist the species to gain access to new knowledge. The actual effect has been the opposite.
"They shouldn't have to hope nobody else can figure out what they're doing and sell it better than they can"
Why? Other people have to eat, too. Where in human evolution is it stated that "thinkers" should be immune from evolution and primate competition like everybody else?
Also, "thinkers" should be smart enough to hire people who CAN market their stuff - which is the way it's actually done, if you haven't noticed.
"(which wouldn't be hard...inventors are as bad at marketing as markeeters are at invention)"
Which is why they hire marketers to market their inventions - which is done anyway.
Your arguments are ruminant evacuation.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron and an attempt to extend contract principles over basic property principles - in other words, an attempt to use coercion to justify monopoly profit without effort.
Since they apparently have not switched yet, how did they end up running Windows on VMWare?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Not to mention the fact that if you want to still be able to handle critical Windows legacy apps in some cases, that might be a way to do that while still relying on Linux for the majority of your desktops.
Yeah, but media cards have what capacity compared to tape and disk? I was referring to archival media. Media cards really don't qualify except for very small amounts of data.
Ah, I didn't even notice the memory card reference in the last sentence of the heading, I was too amazed at the nonsensical torture tests.
The way I see it, people should handle electronic stuff gently. Morons won't. So how tough do you have to make it? More importantly, why is this never done?
I'm still amazed that every "archival" media ever invented seems to be easy to make useless. First it was tape - it unspools, it twists, it rubs, it slips - all from normal use. Then it was eight-inch floppies - bend 'em, they're worthless. Finally somebody got the bright idea of putting them in a plastic case - only took them a decade or two to figure that one out.
Then they came out with - ta-dah! - CD's - put a fingerprint or a scratch on them, they're worthless.
When are these morons going to come up with storage media that is in fact HARD to make worthless?
Obviously, never - because then they couldn't sell you gazillions of them.
When they said "operating system", they meant "operations system" - not the OS.
See this quote from one of the articles:
Wagner said a database malfunctioned that "basically runs every aspect of our client operations -- aircraft dispatch, crew scheduling (and) reporting weight, passenger load, balance."
This system is hosted by EDS, who only said it was a "systems issue".
So there's no evidence it was an OS problem. It could have been anything - OS, Oracle/DB2/SQL Server database, application code, upgrade, whatever.
Nothing to conclude here except that somebody screwed up - and even that isn't certain - could have been a bad memory board someplace, who knows.
Not having a backup is even irrelevant, since the "backup" might have taken three hours to bring up, when you're dealing with a production system like this. "Failover" is what you want, and they should have had, but if something got screwed there, it could still have been three hours.
Shouldn't have happened, but crap like this happens all the time because nobody can do their damn jobs.
Now - what day is "End User Appreciation Day" again?
Reminds Me Of Marvel's "Doom 2099" Series
on
Feed
·
· Score: 1
where the ultimate Marvel supervillain, Doctor Doom, pops out of time travel in 2099 and sees a corporate-dominated world. Being a 20th Century dictator with Victorian era attitudes, he decides to remake the world - which includes invading the United States and using nanotech to subvert the corporations.
One of the best Marvel series ever done, with quotes from Bakunin and other radicals scattered through the stories - they even had Doom quoting Noam Chomsky.
Which is probably why (along with low sales) the series was abruptly canceled and the editor canned.
If you're using MySQL, people who work on Oracle will consider you as NOT doing "real database work".
This may be incorrect depending on what you're doing, but that's the perception. MySQL simply isn't (or wasn't until recently) in the same class as Oracle, DB2 or even PostgreSQL as a database. And the lack of stored procedures (as well as triggers and other capabilities) was the reason.
MySQL is great for doing what it does - keeping up with Web hits while providing a database backend for a Web site. But it's weak compared to the bigger commercial databases (and PostgreSQL) in terms of database capabilities. That's a simple fact.
They may work in smaller matters, but when it comes to "national security" - and somebody's job - then they don't work as well because the "big boys" will make sure of that.
Tenet is gone. You think Mueller wants to follow him? And Ashcroft?
How about Bush - where the buck stops?
Who do you think outed Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's CIA wife?
And you think Republican Senators and Congressmen in an election year want to know that the Bush administration flubbed 9/11? Look at this comment about the 9/11 reports issued by a "bi-partisan" committee after hearing Edmonds' testimony.
And here's the facts on that situation as revealed today:
Federal Bureau of Incompetence The shameful treatment of Sibel Edmonds proves the FBI's urgent need for reform. By Fred Kaplan Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 2:55 PM PT
Two news reports today illustrate how far we are from getting real reforms in our methods of spotting and stopping terrorists.
The first story, on the AP wire, notes how gently the 9/11 commission treated the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, the bureau screwed up as badly as any other agency prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, commission chairman Thomas Kean allowed. But the new FBI director, Robert Mueller, is moving in the right direction?"doing exactly the right thing," as Kean put it?so the final report came down lightly on him.
The second story, in the New York Times, notes that the FBI and the Justice Department are keeping a tight seal of secrecy around the case of Sibel Edmonds, despite the inspector general's finding that Edmonds was fired from the FBI at least in part because she'd accused the bureau of incompetence in the war on terror.
Edmonds was a contract linguist for the FBI?translating material from Turkish, Persian, and Azerbaijani?who was dismissed in 2002 after complaining that the bureau's staff linguists had poorly translated important pieces of intelligence on terrorism, before and after Sept. 11. She also charged that one of these linguists had blocked the translation of material that implicated an acquaintance who had come under FBI suspicion.
For her repeated efforts, Edmonds was not only dismissed, she was also barred from testifying in a lawsuit brought by family members of 9/11 victims. The Justice Department further prohibited her from speaking out anywhere about her own case. All facts about her job at the FBI, even which languages she translated, were declared "state secrets."
Until recently, to the extent that FBI spokesmen commented at all about why Edmonds was dismissed, they said only that she'd been "disruptive" (probably true, as far as it goes).
However, the story in today's Times reveals that the Justice Department's inspector general has concluded that Edmonds' allegations "were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services."
How did Mueller, the much-lauded FBI director, respond to this finding? He wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, noting that he was "concerned" about the inspector general's conclusion but also pleased that the IG "had not concluded that the FBI retaliated against Ms. Edmonds when it terminated her services on April 2, 2002."
Huh?
I suppose the phrase "at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services" is not precisely synonymous with a point-blank verdict that "the FBI retaliated against Ms. Edmonds when it terminated her services." But it's close enough. If the IG's report were a piece of intelligence, I'd say it was "actionable."
What action is Mueller taking? He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will, in the Times' words, work "to determine whether any employees should be disciplined as a result"?which, by the way, is not the same as making any such determination or actually disciplining anyone as a result. But will he welcome Edmonds back to the bureau with open arms, place her in a supervisory post among its cadre of linguists, or encourage analysts in all its branches to emulate her example?
No, no, and no. The case, and Edmonds herself, are still under a court seal from the highest law-enforcement authority in our land.
What does all this have to do with the prospects for success in America's war on terrorism? Plenty.
One big lesson of the 9/11 commission's report is that our government failed to disrupt al-Qaida's attack plan?failed to connect the many dots on the horizon?because of a lack of incentives. As I wrote here, in a summary of the report last week, "It turns out that many individuals, panels, and agencies had predicted
It would be nice to see the lot doing time in the same Leavenworth "Hole" I was in.
Even if they come from Utah, they ain't gonna like "D" Cellhouse with its 40-degree temperature in winter and it's 105-110 degree temperature in summer.
Make sure you hide some money, Darl, so your wife can put it on your books without the Feds taking it for racketeering penalties!
Slashdot Mirror
r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s
Hope this helps.
" I can focus on my next idea since I don't have to worry about promoting my last idea to pay the rent. My patent allows me to inovate."
Bullshit. If you sell off your idea to someone who has a clue about marketing, product support, distribution, etc., you might be able to "pay the rent". Having a patent does NOTHING to provide that but merely gives you RECOURSE TO COERCION if someone else sells a better (or cheaper equivalent) version of your product - which is exactly what the free market is supposed to allow. And your "recourse" isn't even necessarily effective - it depends on the quality of your lawyers which depends on your "rent money" going for legal representation - a la SCO.
You are free to "innovate" at all times. What you are NOT free to do is make monopoly profit without effort - which effort includes more than just thinking up ideas (unless as I stated, you sell them off to production people).
I have hundreds of ideas, most of which other people also have. What matters is which ones get to market and survive in the market. Ideas are worthless by themselves - UNLESS they are spread around. It is the spreading around that matters - if the idea has any actual value (most "ideas" don't.) In fact, I can't even say that, since a lot of crap ideas get spread around (at least 50% of humans are stupid according to the bell curve phenomena - personally I think the bell curve is seriously skewed to the point of 90% or more.)
But the free market is a MECHANISM, not a value judgement. It's the most effective way to provide non-destructive, non-coercive competition among primates. Attempting to install coercive mechanisms into it - such as IP - just wrecks it.
The net result is that NOBODY makes "rent money".
IP law is a coercive instrument which damages - by slowing the spread of ideas - the effective functioning of the human species to improve itself. As is typical of humans, the justification for it is exactly the opposite of its effect.
No, some of us just HAVE long peninsulas...:-)
(And others don't, so they need patents and copyrights.)
"Business out there know that if they spend a lot of time, effort and money developing something new- they can get a patent, so all of that time, effort and money will pay off."
Oh, really? They don't need marketing, distribution, customer relationships, support, financial management, all the rest of business?
All they need is a patent and they're set for life?
I don't think so.
But you're right - that's what they believe and that's what they want patents for - so they don't have to COMPETE.
The motto for anti-IP should be: "IT'S THE COMPETITION, STUPID!" It's not patents or copyright or any other IP laws that produce value for the species from inventions. IT'S THE COMPETITION, STUPID!
"company A builds a product, then company B builds a product that does exactly the same thing in exactly the same way for $100 less. This isn't really fair, because most of our budget (as I've mentioned) is R&D."
Bull fucking shit. I see where you're coming from now. You're some lame that "invents" something that is fucking obvious to anybody who spends ten minutes considering whatever problem your "innovative" software is trying to solve. You put it out for $100. Somebody else says they can do it better for $90. This is called "competition", asshole - which is what you can't deal with. So you whine for patent protection for what was undoubtedly a minuscule advancement (if that) in whatever industry you work in.
"If we had the ability to take somebody else's program and make one that just did that, we could afford to sell our software for $100 too (and indeed we've done that in the past)"
So in other words, you're "not fair", either.
"...but in that model of development, the people who had the idea in the first place are never compensated. Which makes having ideas a libaility, not an asset."
This is moronic. You really have absolutely no clue how the free market works, do you? This is exactly how things are supposed to work. Somebody comes up with an idea, makes it work, produces a product. Somebody else figures out how to make the product cheaper and better or more available - even if it means cloning. The net result is that the product is available to more people and makes it small or large contribution to human progress.
And you want to stop that because you think someone who comes up with an idea isn't "fairly" compensated - according to your notion of "fair" which boils down to "I want ALL the money".
"Nothing new,"
I rest my case.
" nothing somebody else couldn't think up if they were good with regular expressions, Tries and SQL -- but nobody did"
(Maybe I don't rest my case.) Says who, you? You are the one hundred percent natural monopoly in your industry? If so, why do you need patents? If you aren't, then your stuff ISN'T a natural monopoly, and you should be subject to the same competition everything else is.
It's not patents that produce value for the species, IT'S THE COMPETITION, STUPID!
"Fuck you, man,"
Fuck right the hell off, man.
"thinkers got to eat."
How does primate requirements apply to the issue? So does everybody else - in fact, the explicit justification for IP is the notion (unproven and demonstrated to be false by current corporate behavior) that patents will allow IP to be developed specifically to assist the species to gain access to new knowledge. The actual effect has been the opposite.
"They shouldn't have to hope nobody else can figure out what they're doing and sell it better than they can"
Why? Other people have to eat, too. Where in human evolution is it stated that "thinkers" should be immune from evolution and primate competition like everybody else?
Also, "thinkers" should be smart enough to hire people who CAN market their stuff - which is the way it's actually done, if you haven't noticed.
"(which wouldn't be hard...inventors are as bad at marketing as markeeters are at invention)"
Which is why they hire marketers to market their inventions - which is done anyway.
Your arguments are ruminant evacuation.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron and an attempt to extend contract principles over basic property principles - in other words, an attempt to use coercion to justify monopoly profit without effort.
Since they apparently have not switched yet, how did they end up running Windows on VMWare?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Not to mention the fact that if you want to still be able to handle critical Windows legacy apps in some cases, that might be a way to do that while still relying on Linux for the majority of your desktops.
In other words, Windows troll.
"Madagascan fat-tailed dwarf lemur, the only primate known to hibernate"
You mean other than Bush when faced with a terror threat?
In fact, that description of the lemur kinda resembles Bush, doesn't it?
Tell you how screwed up /. is?
/.!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
This IS
Yeah, but media cards have what capacity compared to tape and disk? I was referring to archival media. Media cards really don't qualify except for very small amounts of data.
Ah, I didn't even notice the memory card reference in the last sentence of the heading, I was too amazed at the nonsensical torture tests.
The way I see it, people should handle electronic stuff gently. Morons won't. So how tough do you have to make it? More importantly, why is this never done?
I'm still amazed that every "archival" media ever invented seems to be easy to make useless. First it was tape - it unspools, it twists, it rubs, it slips - all from normal use. Then it was eight-inch floppies - bend 'em, they're worthless. Finally somebody got the bright idea of putting them in a plastic case - only took them a decade or two to figure that one out.
Then they came out with - ta-dah! - CD's - put a fingerprint or a scratch on them, they're worthless.
When are these morons going to come up with storage media that is in fact HARD to make worthless?
Obviously, never - because then they couldn't sell you gazillions of them.
aren't memory cards supposed to be INSIDE computers?
When's the last time you dunked your whole computer in coffee?
(For some of you, probably recently.)
When they said "operating system", they meant "operations system" - not the OS.
See this quote from one of the articles:
Wagner said a database malfunctioned that "basically runs every aspect of our client operations -- aircraft dispatch, crew scheduling (and) reporting weight, passenger load, balance."
This system is hosted by EDS, who only said it was a "systems issue".
So there's no evidence it was an OS problem. It could have been anything - OS, Oracle/DB2/SQL Server database, application code, upgrade, whatever.
Nothing to conclude here except that somebody screwed up - and even that isn't certain - could have been a bad memory board someplace, who knows.
Not having a backup is even irrelevant, since the "backup" might have taken three hours to bring up, when you're dealing with a production system like this. "Failover" is what you want, and they should have had, but if something got screwed there, it could still have been three hours.
Shouldn't have happened, but crap like this happens all the time because nobody can do their damn jobs.
Okay.
Fuck you.
Now - what day is "End User Appreciation Day" again?
where the ultimate Marvel supervillain, Doctor Doom, pops out of time travel in 2099 and sees a corporate-dominated world. Being a 20th Century dictator with Victorian era attitudes, he decides to remake the world - which includes invading the United States and using nanotech to subvert the corporations.
One of the best Marvel series ever done, with quotes from Bakunin and other radicals scattered through the stories - they even had Doom quoting Noam Chomsky.
Which is probably why (along with low sales) the series was abruptly canceled and the editor canned.
The oil hasn't run out - yet.
But it will.
If you're using MySQL, people who work on Oracle will consider you as NOT doing "real database work".
This may be incorrect depending on what you're doing, but that's the perception. MySQL simply isn't (or wasn't until recently) in the same class as Oracle, DB2 or even PostgreSQL as a database. And the lack of stored procedures (as well as triggers and other capabilities) was the reason.
MySQL is great for doing what it does - keeping up with Web hits while providing a database backend for a Web site. But it's weak compared to the bigger commercial databases (and PostgreSQL) in terms of database capabilities. That's a simple fact.
They may work in smaller matters, but when it comes to "national security" - and somebody's job - then they don't work as well because the "big boys" will make sure of that.
Tenet is gone. You think Mueller wants to follow him? And Ashcroft?
How about Bush - where the buck stops?
Who do you think outed Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's CIA wife?
And you think Republican Senators and Congressmen in an election year want to know that the Bush administration flubbed 9/11? Look at this comment about the 9/11 reports issued by a "bi-partisan" committee after hearing Edmonds' testimony.
You are a major idiot with absolutely no clue of how the world works. Try learning to read actual non-fiction works before you post anything more.
/. nerd-boy.
I happen to be 55 years old and you are so hopelessly naive that you have to be some 16-year-old
And here's the facts on that situation as revealed today:
Federal Bureau of Incompetence
The shameful treatment of Sibel Edmonds proves the FBI's urgent need for reform.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 2:55 PM PT
Two news reports today illustrate how far we are from getting real reforms in our methods of spotting and stopping terrorists.
The first story, on the AP wire, notes how gently the 9/11 commission treated the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, the bureau screwed up as badly as any other agency prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, commission chairman Thomas Kean allowed. But the new FBI director, Robert Mueller, is moving in the right direction?"doing exactly the right thing," as Kean put it?so the final report came down lightly on him.
The second story, in the New York Times, notes that the FBI and the Justice Department are keeping a tight seal of secrecy around the case of Sibel Edmonds, despite the inspector general's finding that Edmonds was fired from the FBI at least in part because she'd accused the bureau of incompetence in the war on terror.
Edmonds was a contract linguist for the FBI?translating material from Turkish, Persian, and Azerbaijani?who was dismissed in 2002 after complaining that the bureau's staff linguists had poorly translated important pieces of intelligence on terrorism, before and after Sept. 11. She also charged that one of these linguists had blocked the translation of material that implicated an acquaintance who had come under FBI suspicion.
For her repeated efforts, Edmonds was not only dismissed, she was also barred from testifying in a lawsuit brought by family members of 9/11 victims. The Justice Department further prohibited her from speaking out anywhere about her own case. All facts about her job at the FBI, even which languages she translated, were declared "state secrets."
Until recently, to the extent that FBI spokesmen commented at all about why Edmonds was dismissed, they said only that she'd been "disruptive" (probably true, as far as it goes).
However, the story in today's Times reveals that the Justice Department's inspector general has concluded that Edmonds' allegations "were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services."
How did Mueller, the much-lauded FBI director, respond to this finding? He wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, noting that he was "concerned" about the inspector general's conclusion but also pleased that the IG "had not concluded that the FBI retaliated against Ms. Edmonds when it terminated her services on April 2, 2002."
Huh?
I suppose the phrase "at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services" is not precisely synonymous with a point-blank verdict that "the FBI retaliated against Ms. Edmonds when it terminated her services." But it's close enough. If the IG's report were a piece of intelligence, I'd say it was "actionable."
What action is Mueller taking? He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will, in the Times' words, work "to determine whether any employees should be disciplined as a result"?which, by the way, is not the same as making any such determination or actually disciplining anyone as a result. But will he welcome Edmonds back to the bureau with open arms, place her in a supervisory post among its cadre of linguists, or encourage analysts in all its branches to emulate her example?
No, no, and no. The case, and Edmonds herself, are still under a court seal from the highest law-enforcement authority in our land.
What does all this have to do with the prospects for success in America's war on terrorism? Plenty.
One big lesson of the 9/11 commission's report is that our government failed to disrupt al-Qaida's attack plan?failed to connect the many dots on the horizon?because of a lack of incentives. As I wrote here, in a summary of the report last week, "It turns out that many individuals, panels, and agencies had predicted
into a Federal fraud case every day.
It would be nice to see the lot doing time in the same Leavenworth "Hole" I was in.
Even if they come from Utah, they ain't gonna like "D" Cellhouse with its 40-degree temperature in winter and it's 105-110 degree temperature in summer.
Make sure you hide some money, Darl, so your wife can put it on your books without the Feds taking it for racketeering penalties!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Are we going to hear about how this is a threat to "national security" like the Linux critics babble about?
Or is it that nobody uses Windows for defense work because it's too insecure to begin with?
Mod this troll! Mod this flamebait! Mod me -5! Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!
Did I say people should be telling secrets to anyone?
When it involves a coverup by the FBI of major national security issues, yes, of course, we want translators to do just that.
She went first to the appropriate officials, and then to the oversight committees in the Congress.
THEN she was gagged.
Quite simply, it is a coverup.
Do you want coverups of flaws in national security?
Fuck that, thank you very much.
Actually the primary thing you need to post on /. is just a brain.
Oh, wait...