Yeah whatever. How about the State Secrets Doctrine which really took hold after the widows of some RCA engineers sued the USAF after the plane their husbands were on crashed (they were testing some equipment). The widows wanted the crash report, the USAF said it contained secrets. No judge, not even any on the Supreme Court, ever checked to see if the USAF was flat out lying. Which they were as it turns out. 40 years later when the accident report was declassified, it contained no national security level secrets. It did contain information that the USAF neglected to maintain the plane properly and neglected to install heat shields in the engines -- a manufacturer recommended modification to prevent engine fires. The plane that killed the geeks on board suffered engine fires exactly like those the modification was designed to prevent.
So yeah, the Feds have waived SI to some extent, but that won't stop them from lying to everyone and anyone, even the Supreme Court, in order to cover up malfeasance and negligence.
The State Secrets Doctrine has been used by the Feds to get away with all kinds of crap, most recently of course, with a focus telecommunications masspionage, preventing people who were innocent and tortured from seeking redress, and so forth. As for the 4th Amendment -- it's a joke because of the Third Party Doctrine which equates "reasonable expectation of privacy" to "complete and total secrecy." Anything that is not absolutely secret has no 4th Amendment protection, and if you think about, barely anything in modern life does not include third parties in some way. The whole fucking post 9/11 debacle has the Feds using the State Secrets Doctrine and the Third Party Doctrine as a bulldozer to burry every American ideal we've pretended to revere for centuries.
So again, whatever. If a Fed. agent dings your bumper, the Feds will pay out, but the sovereign immunity waiver is only for such trivial things. If it matters, the Feds will fuck you over till Christmas, and then kick you in the teeth before taking a crap on you.
Yes, but with a replaceable battery, you can carry a spare.
I don't know what the deal is with thin -- beyond a certain point it just doesn't matter and in fact, makes the phone harder to hold really. But I don't think people will be happy till phones are as thin as a razor -- who cares about the gashes and gushes of blood so long as the phone is thin thin thin!
The particular android phone I wanted to get was the HTC One (I have an HTC Amaze and it's a great phone, removable battery too). The One however, has an embedded battery. So I haven't bought it.
Either the police and weev should be in jail, or both should be free. This is a good example of the double legal standard applied to pleebs and those in power.
There is a distinction between this and the situation in weev. It doesn't seem like a big distinction to people who are even vaguely familiar with URLs but to many legal professionals, a large percentage of whom are technically incompetent (the number of law offices I've seen running open access points or WEP encrypted wireless networks in my office building is pretty astounding). This isn't true for all in the legal community, and I'm sure it is getting less common as time goes by, but there are still a lot of people in the legal community who basically think of their computers as glorified typewriters their assistants use.
Anyway, Weev had to manipulate a URL to get the information. He even wrote a script to do this. We know that this is trivial, but to many in the legal community, that is high order hacking because if they can't just click it, it doesn't exist. The markup making the page is just gibberesh outside being interpreted in a browser and if you curl, awk, grep, and/or sed the text that makes up that page to extract info, you are obviously an elite hacker.
In contrast, the files offered up on a public P2P network can be obtained by clicking on them. You don't need to brush of your bash scripting skills to get them. So it is the difference between getting something with a click, and getting something by manual manipulation of a URL.
All that said, I agree with the poster above who quite insightfully wrote "silly peasant, aristocracy has its own set of laws and courts." http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4437999&cid=45404191 In either case, if you make information available on a public web service of one sort or another, it really seems ridiculous to argue that people who use that public info should be punished (in this case, the police used the public info, in Weev's, Weev used the public info -- I think Weev, as much of an asshole as he is, shouldn't be in jail for that, and that here, the police weren't in the wrong).
I think I'm at best an average driver. Whole stretches of the road seem to disappear and all I can recall is the story I was listening to or the thing I was thinking about. Anyway, I hate driving and would jump at the chance to be a passenger.
I was in 1st grade 39 years ago so my memory is a little fuzzy to say the least. I do remember being the fasted reader in the class and just burned through all the materials (I think it was SRA readers). Even so, I doubt I would get the word "guitar" -- that word is an import from Spanish and just doesn't lend itself to being sounded out using English sound characteristics. Why didn't they just use "balls" or "hats" or something about which there can be little confusion? It's a math test -- not a reading test.
So here's what I don't get: if the meeting can be essentially ignored by task switching from paying attention to the meeting to paying attention to texts and emails, then the meeting clearly isn't that important. If a meeting isn't important, isn't it just a waste of everyone's time to have it? If it is important, isn't it counterproductive to have people not paying attention to the meeting?
Anyway, I guess my point is, if you are running a meeting in which you feel it is OK for someone to check out and drift off into their own world, maybe you just don't need the meeting at all.
Broken promise. He actually tried and was blocked.
It depends on what you mean by the word "close" because there are two potential meanings for "Close GITMO":
1) End the practice and shut down the prison. 2) Shut down the prison, retain the practice and simply move it to another location.
Obama's intention was #2, specifically, to "close" GITMO and move the practice to the Thomson SuperMax Prison in Illinois. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/ Even liberal members of Congress voted against funding this proposal, but it has been deftly spun by the Obama admin as "Obama tried to close GITMO but congress blocked him." There is a lie of omission there so that despite being technically true, it leads to a totally false impression.
Which is exactly why real reform will require revisiting the the Third Party Doctrine. The 3PD is a Supreme Court principle that if you share information with a 3d party, even if that 3rd party promises confidentiality, and even if they do not breach confidentiality, the Feds can just have the info _without_ any sort of 4th Amendment analysis -- the 4th is just not applicable. The logic behind this is that the 4th only applies when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if share information with anyone at all, you lose that expectation.
I don't agree with this -- it's sort of the Long John Silver standard, dead men tell no tales. I think there is place where people do act reasonably when they share info with at least some third parties because the fact of the matter is, you can't navigate modern life without such sharing. Justice Sotomayer recently made this point in her concurrence in the Jones GPS case. See PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf
Anyway, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is merely a codification of the 3PD. Destroy 3PD, and you instantly unconstitutionalize the masspionage.
This isn't like a rape case because the reporter who dressed hot isn't getting fucked, it's the people who trusted her with their secrets and who dressed plainly who are getting fucked. The rape analogy just doesn't hold up. She has a lot more in common with the rapist because her actions have enabled the rapist to rape a lot of people.
The advantage paper files have is that they cannot be transmitted over the internet/remotely accessed by an attacker because wood pulp just doesn't transmit.
The disadvantage is that there is no way to secure paper, at least not in the affordability realm of normal people.
However, a computer that is never connected to the internet, on which encrypted copies of the documents are stored, is affordable to the average person and would provide a high degree of security. The Feds would have to have a backdoor in the encryption software. Maybe -- we'll never really know on that. Another alternative would be to get an exploit on the air-gapped computer by the use of infected media, then executing a warrant to get the computer. Arranging this would be time consuming and expensive though and isn't possible to do for every reporter.
Anyway, I think encrypted files on an air-gapped never internet connected computer would be better than paper in a file safe.
Jesus -- go back to Viet Nam, probably farther really, but why do you think Nixon abandoned Bretton Woods which tied the dollar to gold? We couldn't afford all the bullshit warmongering Kennedy and LBJ embroiled us in, which Nixon continued. We needed to print dollars without restraint to pay for the bullshit -- and we still do.
As for Clinton, it's easy to look good short term by liquidating our stored wealth, essentially cashing it in for a one time payment during the free trade agreement boom. But now that we're way down that road of exporting our jobs for a temporary boost to stock prices, what exactly are we going to do in the future? Blowing your inheritance is just as stupid as living off credit.
Fuck 'em all. Democrats and Republicans hate America and Americans.
This is sort of off topic but I heard a comment by Ariana Huffington in a debate on whether the US two party system is detrimental. At some point, the debate turned to job creation and she made the point that America currently ranks 10th in upward mobility, behind France. Then she said something like "The US being behind France in upward mobility is like France being behind the US in croissants and afternoon sex."
I agree that the ACLU and EFF include in their missions, protection of the 4th Amendment. That is not however, their sole purpose so they aren't exactly like an NRA for the 4th.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah whatever. How about the State Secrets Doctrine which really took hold after the widows of some RCA engineers sued the USAF after the plane their husbands were on crashed (they were testing some equipment). The widows wanted the crash report, the USAF said it contained secrets. No judge, not even any on the Supreme Court, ever checked to see if the USAF was flat out lying. Which they were as it turns out. 40 years later when the accident report was declassified, it contained no national security level secrets. It did contain information that the USAF neglected to maintain the plane properly and neglected to install heat shields in the engines -- a manufacturer recommended modification to prevent engine fires. The plane that killed the geeks on board suffered engine fires exactly like those the modification was designed to prevent.
So yeah, the Feds have waived SI to some extent, but that won't stop them from lying to everyone and anyone, even the Supreme Court, in order to cover up malfeasance and negligence.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/october_2008/books.cfm
The State Secrets Doctrine has been used by the Feds to get away with all kinds of crap, most recently of course, with a focus telecommunications masspionage, preventing people who were innocent and tortured from seeking redress, and so forth. As for the 4th Amendment -- it's a joke because of the Third Party Doctrine which equates "reasonable expectation of privacy" to "complete and total secrecy." Anything that is not absolutely secret has no 4th Amendment protection, and if you think about, barely anything in modern life does not include third parties in some way. The whole fucking post 9/11 debacle has the Feds using the State Secrets Doctrine and the Third Party Doctrine as a bulldozer to burry every American ideal we've pretended to revere for centuries.
So again, whatever. If a Fed. agent dings your bumper, the Feds will pay out, but the sovereign immunity waiver is only for such trivial things. If it matters, the Feds will fuck you over till Christmas, and then kick you in the teeth before taking a crap on you.
Yes, but with a replaceable battery, you can carry a spare.
I don't know what the deal is with thin -- beyond a certain point it just doesn't matter and in fact, makes the phone harder to hold really. But I don't think people will be happy till phones are as thin as a razor -- who cares about the gashes and gushes of blood so long as the phone is thin thin thin!
The particular android phone I wanted to get was the HTC One (I have an HTC Amaze and it's a great phone, removable battery too). The One however, has an embedded battery. So I haven't bought it.
http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one/#specs
Point taken.
Either the police and weev should be in jail, or both should be free. This is a good example of the double legal standard applied to pleebs and those in power.
There is a distinction between this and the situation in weev. It doesn't seem like a big distinction to people who are even vaguely familiar with URLs but to many legal professionals, a large percentage of whom are technically incompetent (the number of law offices I've seen running open access points or WEP encrypted wireless networks in my office building is pretty astounding). This isn't true for all in the legal community, and I'm sure it is getting less common as time goes by, but there are still a lot of people in the legal community who basically think of their computers as glorified typewriters their assistants use.
Anyway, Weev had to manipulate a URL to get the information. He even wrote a script to do this. We know that this is trivial, but to many in the legal community, that is high order hacking because if they can't just click it, it doesn't exist. The markup making the page is just gibberesh outside being interpreted in a browser and if you curl, awk, grep, and/or sed the text that makes up that page to extract info, you are obviously an elite hacker.
In contrast, the files offered up on a public P2P network can be obtained by clicking on them. You don't need to brush of your bash scripting skills to get them. So it is the difference between getting something with a click, and getting something by manual manipulation of a URL.
All that said, I agree with the poster above who quite insightfully wrote "silly peasant, aristocracy has its own set of laws and courts." http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4437999&cid=45404191 In either case, if you make information available on a public web service of one sort or another, it really seems ridiculous to argue that people who use that public info should be punished (in this case, the police used the public info, in Weev's, Weev used the public info -- I think Weev, as much of an asshole as he is, shouldn't be in jail for that, and that here, the police weren't in the wrong).
First Spoof.
Though this is no laughing matter.
if those were options, I'd use them. But they aren't.
I think I'm at best an average driver. Whole stretches of the road seem to disappear and all I can recall is the story I was listening to or the thing I was thinking about. Anyway, I hate driving and would jump at the chance to be a passenger.
Blame Bush Blame Bush Blame Bush Blah Blah Fucking Neocon Blah.
The expansion of Executive power under GWB was considered radical at the time.
The consolidation of that Executive coup by the Obama Administration is even worse, because what was once considered radical, is now the new normal.
It seems it has become the job of the GOP to advance the authoritarian goal line, and the job of the Democrats to get everyone to accept it.
So yeah, Obama is a terrible odious fuckhead of president. Just like GWB.
You're a douche-bag.
I say that with complete objective certainty.
It's an allusion to the coffee cup in the test. It's called a weak attempt at humor. Perhaps you are crap at context.
What kind of whackjob gives a six year old coffee? They're annoying enough without a caffeine kick!
I was in 1st grade 39 years ago so my memory is a little fuzzy to say the least. I do remember being the fasted reader in the class and just burned through all the materials (I think it was SRA readers). Even so, I doubt I would get the word "guitar" -- that word is an import from Spanish and just doesn't lend itself to being sounded out using English sound characteristics. Why didn't they just use "balls" or "hats" or something about which there can be little confusion? It's a math test -- not a reading test.
Why? It puts a maximum on how old we can get. I wouldn't mind being younger.
Text under a poster promoting self-employment.
So here's what I don't get: if the meeting can be essentially ignored by task switching from paying attention to the meeting to paying attention to texts and emails, then the meeting clearly isn't that important. If a meeting isn't important, isn't it just a waste of everyone's time to have it? If it is important, isn't it counterproductive to have people not paying attention to the meeting?
Anyway, I guess my point is, if you are running a meeting in which you feel it is OK for someone to check out and drift off into their own world, maybe you just don't need the meeting at all.
The FUCKERS Act?
Fucking Ultimate Congressional Kutsie Elimination Reform and Solutions Act
It depends on what you mean by the word "close" because there are two potential meanings for "Close GITMO":
1) End the practice and shut down the prison.
2) Shut down the prison, retain the practice and simply move it to another location.
Obama's intention was #2, specifically, to "close" GITMO and move the practice to the Thomson SuperMax Prison in Illinois. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/ Even liberal members of Congress voted against funding this proposal, but it has been deftly spun by the Obama admin as "Obama tried to close GITMO but congress blocked him." There is a lie of omission there so that despite being technically true, it leads to a totally false impression.
Which is exactly why real reform will require revisiting the the Third Party Doctrine. The 3PD is a Supreme Court principle that if you share information with a 3d party, even if that 3rd party promises confidentiality, and even if they do not breach confidentiality, the Feds can just have the info _without_ any sort of 4th Amendment analysis -- the 4th is just not applicable. The logic behind this is that the 4th only applies when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if share information with anyone at all, you lose that expectation.
I don't agree with this -- it's sort of the Long John Silver standard, dead men tell no tales. I think there is place where people do act reasonably when they share info with at least some third parties because the fact of the matter is, you can't navigate modern life without such sharing. Justice Sotomayer recently made this point in her concurrence in the Jones GPS case. See PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf
Anyway, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is merely a codification of the 3PD. Destroy 3PD, and you instantly unconstitutionalize the masspionage.
This isn't like a rape case because the reporter who dressed hot isn't getting fucked, it's the people who trusted her with their secrets and who dressed plainly who are getting fucked. The rape analogy just doesn't hold up. She has a lot more in common with the rapist because her actions have enabled the rapist to rape a lot of people.
The advantage paper files have is that they cannot be transmitted over the internet/remotely accessed by an attacker because wood pulp just doesn't transmit.
The disadvantage is that there is no way to secure paper, at least not in the affordability realm of normal people.
However, a computer that is never connected to the internet, on which encrypted copies of the documents are stored, is affordable to the average person and would provide a high degree of security. The Feds would have to have a backdoor in the encryption software. Maybe -- we'll never really know on that. Another alternative would be to get an exploit on the air-gapped computer by the use of infected media, then executing a warrant to get the computer. Arranging this would be time consuming and expensive though and isn't possible to do for every reporter.
Anyway, I think encrypted files on an air-gapped never internet connected computer would be better than paper in a file safe.
Nice chart on the whole Clinton surplus thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgjU-h_xQw
Jesus -- go back to Viet Nam, probably farther really, but why do you think Nixon abandoned Bretton Woods which tied the dollar to gold? We couldn't afford all the bullshit warmongering Kennedy and LBJ embroiled us in, which Nixon continued. We needed to print dollars without restraint to pay for the bullshit -- and we still do.
As for Clinton, it's easy to look good short term by liquidating our stored wealth, essentially cashing it in for a one time payment during the free trade agreement boom. But now that we're way down that road of exporting our jobs for a temporary boost to stock prices, what exactly are we going to do in the future? Blowing your inheritance is just as stupid as living off credit.
Fuck 'em all. Democrats and Republicans hate America and Americans.
This is sort of off topic but I heard a comment by Ariana Huffington in a debate on whether the US two party system is detrimental. At some point, the debate turned to job creation and she made the point that America currently ranks 10th in upward mobility, behind France. Then she said something like "The US being behind France in upward mobility is like France being behind the US in croissants and afternoon sex."
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/560-the-two-party-system-is-making-america-ungovernable&tab=2
43:35
I agree that the ACLU and EFF include in their missions, protection of the 4th Amendment. That is not however, their sole purpose so they aren't exactly like an NRA for the 4th.