About six months ago I replaced my motherboard. The only hard requirement I had was that it have a ps2 port for my Model M. It did limit my choices but there are still plenty of motherboards that offer a ps2 port. In three years though, when I'm looking at upgrading, I suspect I'll also be looking at a unicomp keyboard or a USB adapter, though I've read the USB adapters are sort of hit and miss.
Or that "due process" as used in the constitution does not mean judicial process, just any kind of process, such as the president making a decision in private based on secret accusations without any oversight.
Not sure which side of this you are on, but the perfect example of circling the wagons is Marty Lederman. When GWB was pres, he excoriated him for using secret legal memos to support due process free detention, torture, and for abusing the rule of law. Once he became part of Obama's legal team, he went to work WRITING secret legal memos to support due process free assassination.
If Marty Lederman doesn't win a Nobel in Hypocrisy, I don't know who possibly could.
And to be clear, my view is that Marty was right to attack GWB, and he should be now attacking Obama for doing the exact same shit. If that isn't circling the wagons, I don't what is.
Blah blah blah... context apparently means nothing to you. This is in the context the leak of a summary of Obama's assassination memos -- the ones that support his policy of extrajudicial assassination (i.e., murder). The weapon of choice is drones, but it could be spaghetti for all the weapon matters -- the issue is the policy itself.
If you don't see some conflict between Obama's assertion that he can kill anyone based on secret accusation, and the notion that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" -- then it's hopeless arguing with you. You'd be the person who would argue with someone who says "he used a gun to kill them" by saying, "well, actually, it was rifle, blah blah blah..."
You are absolutely correct. Elected officials are pure scammers. When I wrote of tribalism though, I was thinking more of the party members -- the rank and file. You don't have to look hard to find people whose identity is partly comprised of their party affiliation. And when you talk to these people it's a wall.
Lackey: GWB was evil. Me: Obama is doing the same thing. Lackey: Oh, so you're one of those pickup driving low information voters then -- where's your KKK badge?
Lackey: Obama is a marxist. Me: He wants to cut social security, even said his policy was similar to Romney's in a debate. Lackey: Those fucking patchouli stinking pot smoking hippy marxists...
Anyway, these types of people honestly and deeply hate each other on a purely tribal basis. That's what I was getting at. I also think it is a somewhat dangerous dynamic, at least potentially, because it is not based on reason, just hate.
Click the link in my sig. I've not updated it in some time, but Obama is worse or equal to GWB on so much it is disgusting. But more to the point:
What powers are the MOST characteristic of a dictator? How about this:
arbitrary execution arbitrary indefinite detention arbitrary war
Obama has taken on each and every one of those powers (if you didn't notice, Libya hits the third). So yeah, Obama is a lesser evil like being crushed to death by million pounds of crap is a lesser evil than being crushed by a million and one pounds of crap.
I don't think anybody anywhere suggests that a person engaging in a violent criminal act and who will not surrender or surrender is not an option (e.g., seconds away from pulling the trigger) --- nobody is saying "don't kill the shooter." There is absolutely no constitutional or ethical issue with using deadly force to end the rampage. Never has been. The drone policy is much more like the situation where "Joe (who has a grudge against Bob) told Sally who told a mall cop, that Bob was going to shoot up the mall," so the mall cop sneaks up behind Bob while he's eating in the food court and blows his brains out.
Drone strikes are about killing people the Government, in secret and with no oversight, has _accused_ of being dangerous people (based on who knows what) while those people are NOT actively engaged in any type of violent activity. There are several problems here:
1: accusation is not guilt. If you ever have been the subject of a vengeful person's wrath, you get this. People lie. If you've ever been accused of something by mistake, you get this. People err.
2: accusation in secret means you don't even know you've been accused and have absolutely no chance to demonstrate that there is some kind misunderstanding. You're just driving down the road thinking about dinner, then you're dead.
3. if you aren't actually in the middle of rampage through the mall or a kindergarten, how is it that arrest is too onerous? It's not, or if it is, then all arrests everywhere are too dangerous and all suspects everywhere should just be killed. I'm sure even in N. Korea you get a show trial first. And it is that black and white -- either all accused not actively doing their crime should be summarily executed based on accusation alone, or only those people who are actually acting in an immediately dangerous fashion should be subject to deadly force. There is no logical reason to create exceptions in which some people in non-dangerous situations should be killed and others should not.
4. secret laws. These drone strikes are based on secret legal memos that Obama says authorize them. First off, legal memos your lawyers write for you aren't the law -- they're opinion. Secondly, what the fuck -- we're talking secret laws here. How can you avoid breaking a law if it is secret? Anwar Alwaki published youtube videos. He was murdered for exercising free speech apparently. Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what you are allowed to say in American political discourse before you are killed by a drone? And then, if you are accused of saying something, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend yourself in the event there was a misinterpretation?
There really is no middle ground -- either you accept arbitrary Federal murder of people accused of any crime or you don't. If you don't, you resist drones. If you do, you are a traitor to everything the constitution stands for.
I've come to realize that American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism. How else can you explain how Democrats who once shredded GWB on his horrid civil liberties record, clam up and circle the wagons around Obama when Obama is even worse than GWB. It obviously has nothing to do with the policy being evil if both sides do it, and that leaves nothing but base tribal defense.
Obama and his ilk in the DNC are precisely why I have utterly abandoned them. Last election I voted for my fucking cat on any ballot position for which there was no third party candidate. I'd vote for Satan if he ran as not-GOP or not-DNC, and you know what, I'd be voting for the lesser evil.
Exactly. You can tell how much better a place North Korea is because it's a democratic people's republic.
It's all just government marketing. Like elections in the US where you are free to vote for anyone, but everyone knows only those in the monoparty (GOP/DNC) will win. It's the form of democracy where you get to choose between a puddle of puke or diarrhea. The kind that gives us a Constitution that is routinely ignored (due process free detention/execution, FISA, war powers, etc.). I'm not saying the US today is as bad as the DPRK by any stretch of the imagination. But we sure don't live up to our propaganda and the future is open.
I don't any details about this case and I'm not more than vaguely familiar with Prenda's practices, so grain of salt.
If the person who owns Prenda is suing personally in these states, he is a pro se litigant and as such, is entitled to represent himself. He can't represent other parties in those jurisdictions, but he has an absolute right to be his own counsel in a case in which he is a party. So, if he is suing personally, the fact that he is also an attorney doesn't enter the equation except for the old addage, "an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client."
I would say "it depends" based on what the seller knew of the buyer's use case. If the seller didn't know, then it had no moral duty. If it did, then, it had a moral duty. Obviously, most businesses aren't going to do the moral thing, but that is merely a societal convention we've come to expect. We don't actually have to accept that it is OK for business to act in a wholly amoral fashion and in fact, we don't. Our air quality would look like Beijing's if we did.
I don't think your car (shopping) analogy holds up.
First off, the State of WV certainly has an IT division somewhere. They don't need a consultant to explain routers and so the clueless car shopper doesn't follow.
Rather, this is more like the state's purchasing agent for the motorpool, who has long experience with cars and maintenance and such, being given a whopping great big check and told to go buy some cars for state employees to run around in. He looks at the check, divides by the number of cars needed, and goes "yipee -- we're going to junket around in BMWs and Lexuses! Screw the Corolla."
I have a Nexus 7 and my wife has a Nexus 10. I thought I'd prefer the 10" too, but when it comes down to my usual use case, i.e., laying back on the couch watching a video, surfing the net, or reading a book, it turns out the 7" size is much more comfortable because I can hold it in one hand, and shift it from hand to hand when either arm gets tired. The ten incher is a two handed device, or requires some kind of stand.
It will also fit in jacket/vest pockets.
As for being blind, I have terrible vision in one eye, and merely bad vision in the other. When I'm reading at night I use one of those bendable arm stands but I have to move it to about 10" in front of my face to and jack up the font size to read it without glasses (I've already destroyed one pair by falling asleep wearing them). Even at 7" portrait mode though, it feels weird because my eyes have to move across the sentences from left to right as a result of the large font size. With a 10", the sentences would be even wider, though I suppose I could bump up the font size even more and move it back farther, though I think the effect would be the same and the reach to flip pages kind of awkward.
I absolutely hate what my government does. But... I still pay my taxes. My dollars support torture, murder, repression, etc. If I was a truly moral person, I would quit paying taxes and do my time in prison. But I'm too selfish for that, so while I hate what is done with my money, I don't actually do anything about it.
So really, it IS fair to launch a broad based condemnation, against even people like me who whinge about this stuff all the time, because despite all that, I still kick in some money to pay the salary of some dumb fuck murderer and pay for his medal to boot.
But the technology won't matter if people face the death penalty for leaking information regarding government malfeasance. That's the heart of this issue, the Government's desire to control every piece of information about what it does. Certainly the mainstream media (i.e., administrative stenographers and press release mills) has gotten to total lapdog status, but the reason WikiLeaks was so hated was because it actually performed the function the press was supposed to perform. But what will WikiLeaks or its successors leak if people honestly fear that death is the punishment for getting caught? If nobody comes forward, the technology is irrelevant.
which is now correctly marked flamebait. My response was sarcasm, but since the flamebait is now modded off screen, the context of my response is missing its target.
If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers. The consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire. And then there is the principle of the thing. However technically defensible on the language of the statute, and however well-intentioned the individual prosecutors in this case may be, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense?
Note, the espionage act doesn't apply only to people in the military.
I know your comment is tongue in cheek, but it won't be seen that way by many. The fact is, there is no amount of money that can be spent to prevent all terrorism. There is certainly some amount that it is wise to spend, but the edge cases will always make it through. I'm thinking of Breivik or McVeigh/Nichols -- Lone Wolf types. We should just accept that within reason, like how we wear seat belts and have airbags in cars. The utility of vehicles causes to accept some rational risk despite the fact that deaths in car accidents are some multiple of 9/11. If we addressed terrorism like we did driving, we'd actually be able to go somewhere as civilization. Instead, we take all the utility inherent in massive amounts of money, and squander on evil at home and abroad. If cars were terrorism, we'd be driving around in million dollar, mile wide marshmallows that went 3 mph and got 10gal/mile.
Slashdot Mirror
About six months ago I replaced my motherboard. The only hard requirement I had was that it have a ps2 port for my Model M. It did limit my choices but there are still plenty of motherboards that offer a ps2 port. In three years though, when I'm looking at upgrading, I suspect I'll also be looking at a unicomp keyboard or a USB adapter, though I've read the USB adapters are sort of hit and miss.
As for the AT/PS2 issue, an adapter should be fine: http://www.clickykeyboards.com/index.cfm/fa/items.main/parentcat/11298/subcatid/0/id/495548
Ha. Gotcha beat: 06Nov1989
Or that "due process" as used in the constitution does not mean judicial process, just any kind of process, such as the president making a decision in private based on secret accusations without any oversight.
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/
Not sure which side of this you are on, but the perfect example of circling the wagons is Marty Lederman. When GWB was pres, he excoriated him for using secret legal memos to support due process free detention, torture, and for abusing the rule of law. Once he became part of Obama's legal team, he went to work WRITING secret legal memos to support due process free assassination.
What he's doing now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Lederman
What he was saying when GWB was in office: http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/15/first-monday-marty-lederman-on-the-restoration-of-the-rule-of-law/
If Marty Lederman doesn't win a Nobel in Hypocrisy, I don't know who possibly could.
And to be clear, my view is that Marty was right to attack GWB, and he should be now attacking Obama for doing the exact same shit. If that isn't circling the wagons, I don't what is.
Blah blah blah ... context apparently means nothing to you. This is in the context the leak of a summary of Obama's assassination memos -- the ones that support his policy of extrajudicial assassination (i.e., murder). The weapon of choice is drones, but it could be spaghetti for all the weapon matters -- the issue is the policy itself.
If you don't see some conflict between Obama's assertion that he can kill anyone based on secret accusation, and the notion that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" -- then it's hopeless arguing with you. You'd be the person who would argue with someone who says "he used a gun to kill them" by saying, "well, actually, it was rifle, blah blah blah..."
As for arbitrary murder not happening, are you asleep? The term "Terror Tuesday" means nothing to you? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/terror-tuesdays-kill-list_b_1606371.html
Arbitrary execution.
It happens weekly -- what do you think Terror Tuesday is all about. And one for certain was completely innocent 16yo American born boy. The government knew so much about him when it killed him, that it claimed he was 21.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/
Arbitrary indefinite detention.
Obama tried to close the facility at Gitmo and MOVE the PRACTICES to the Thompson Federal Supermax in Illinois. Don't feed me that bullshit about GOP obstruction and he tried to "close GITMO" where people understand "close" to mean "stop the practices" rather than merely continue the practices at a new location.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/obama-promise-close-guantanamo-worse
Libya, and the War Powers Act. Obama conveniently redefines war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/obama-libya-lawyers-war-powers_n_879951.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/house-rejects-authorization-of-libya-intervention-20110624
You are absolutely correct. Elected officials are pure scammers. When I wrote of tribalism though, I was thinking more of the party members -- the rank and file. You don't have to look hard to find people whose identity is partly comprised of their party affiliation. And when you talk to these people it's a wall.
Lackey: GWB was evil.
Me: Obama is doing the same thing.
Lackey: Oh, so you're one of those pickup driving low information voters then -- where's your KKK badge?
Lackey: Obama is a marxist. ...
Me: He wants to cut social security, even said his policy was similar to Romney's in a debate.
Lackey: Those fucking patchouli stinking pot smoking hippy marxists
Anyway, these types of people honestly and deeply hate each other on a purely tribal basis. That's what I was getting at. I also think it is a somewhat dangerous dynamic, at least potentially, because it is not based on reason, just hate.
Click the link in my sig. I've not updated it in some time, but Obama is worse or equal to GWB on so much it is disgusting. But more to the point:
What powers are the MOST characteristic of a dictator? How about this:
arbitrary execution
arbitrary indefinite detention
arbitrary war
Obama has taken on each and every one of those powers (if you didn't notice, Libya hits the third). So yeah, Obama is a lesser evil like being crushed to death by million pounds of crap is a lesser evil than being crushed by a million and one pounds of crap.
I don't think anybody anywhere suggests that a person engaging in a violent criminal act and who will not surrender or surrender is not an option (e.g., seconds away from pulling the trigger) --- nobody is saying "don't kill the shooter." There is absolutely no constitutional or ethical issue with using deadly force to end the rampage. Never has been. The drone policy is much more like the situation where "Joe (who has a grudge against Bob) told Sally who told a mall cop, that Bob was going to shoot up the mall," so the mall cop sneaks up behind Bob while he's eating in the food court and blows his brains out.
Drone strikes are about killing people the Government, in secret and with no oversight, has _accused_ of being dangerous people (based on who knows what) while those people are NOT actively engaged in any type of violent activity. There are several problems here:
1: accusation is not guilt. If you ever have been the subject of a vengeful person's wrath, you get this. People lie. If you've ever been accused of something by mistake, you get this. People err.
2: accusation in secret means you don't even know you've been accused and have absolutely no chance to demonstrate that there is some kind misunderstanding. You're just driving down the road thinking about dinner, then you're dead.
3. if you aren't actually in the middle of rampage through the mall or a kindergarten, how is it that arrest is too onerous? It's not, or if it is, then all arrests everywhere are too dangerous and all suspects everywhere should just be killed. I'm sure even in N. Korea you get a show trial first. And it is that black and white -- either all accused not actively doing their crime should be summarily executed based on accusation alone, or only those people who are actually acting in an immediately dangerous fashion should be subject to deadly force. There is no logical reason to create exceptions in which some people in non-dangerous situations should be killed and others should not.
4. secret laws. These drone strikes are based on secret legal memos that Obama says authorize them. First off, legal memos your lawyers write for you aren't the law -- they're opinion. Secondly, what the fuck -- we're talking secret laws here. How can you avoid breaking a law if it is secret? Anwar Alwaki published youtube videos. He was murdered for exercising free speech apparently. Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what you are allowed to say in American political discourse before you are killed by a drone? And then, if you are accused of saying something, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend yourself in the event there was a misinterpretation?
There really is no middle ground -- either you accept arbitrary Federal murder of people accused of any crime or you don't. If you don't, you resist drones. If you do, you are a traitor to everything the constitution stands for.
So cynically true.
I've come to realize that American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism. How else can you explain how Democrats who once shredded GWB on his horrid civil liberties record, clam up and circle the wagons around Obama when Obama is even worse than GWB. It obviously has nothing to do with the policy being evil if both sides do it, and that leaves nothing but base tribal defense.
Obama and his ilk in the DNC are precisely why I have utterly abandoned them. Last election I voted for my fucking cat on any ballot position for which there was no third party candidate. I'd vote for Satan if he ran as not-GOP or not-DNC, and you know what, I'd be voting for the lesser evil.
It's all just government marketing. Like elections in the US where you are free to vote for anyone, but everyone knows only those in the monoparty (GOP/DNC) will win. It's the form of democracy where you get to choose between a puddle of puke or diarrhea. The kind that gives us a Constitution that is routinely ignored (due process free detention/execution, FISA, war powers, etc.). I'm not saying the US today is as bad as the DPRK by any stretch of the imagination. But we sure don't live up to our propaganda and the future is open.
just to be pedantic, it's "DPRK" (Democratic People's Republic of Korea).
I don't any details about this case and I'm not more than vaguely familiar with Prenda's practices, so grain of salt.
If the person who owns Prenda is suing personally in these states, he is a pro se litigant and as such, is entitled to represent himself. He can't represent other parties in those jurisdictions, but he has an absolute right to be his own counsel in a case in which he is a party. So, if he is suing personally, the fact that he is also an attorney doesn't enter the equation except for the old addage, "an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Four reams of paper stacked up. Set monitor on pile. Place laptop in front. And like everyone else mentioned, plug in a keyboard and mouse.
I would say "it depends" based on what the seller knew of the buyer's use case. If the seller didn't know, then it had no moral duty. If it did, then, it had a moral duty. Obviously, most businesses aren't going to do the moral thing, but that is merely a societal convention we've come to expect. We don't actually have to accept that it is OK for business to act in a wholly amoral fashion and in fact, we don't. Our air quality would look like Beijing's if we did.
I don't think your car (shopping) analogy holds up.
First off, the State of WV certainly has an IT division somewhere. They don't need a consultant to explain routers and so the clueless car shopper doesn't follow.
Rather, this is more like the state's purchasing agent for the motorpool, who has long experience with cars and maintenance and such, being given a whopping great big check and told to go buy some cars for state employees to run around in. He looks at the check, divides by the number of cars needed, and goes "yipee -- we're going to junket around in BMWs and Lexuses! Screw the Corolla."
I have a Nexus 7 and my wife has a Nexus 10. I thought I'd prefer the 10" too, but when it comes down to my usual use case, i.e., laying back on the couch watching a video, surfing the net, or reading a book, it turns out the 7" size is much more comfortable because I can hold it in one hand, and shift it from hand to hand when either arm gets tired. The ten incher is a two handed device, or requires some kind of stand.
It will also fit in jacket/vest pockets.
As for being blind, I have terrible vision in one eye, and merely bad vision in the other. When I'm reading at night I use one of those bendable arm stands but I have to move it to about 10" in front of my face to and jack up the font size to read it without glasses (I've already destroyed one pair by falling asleep wearing them). Even at 7" portrait mode though, it feels weird because my eyes have to move across the sentences from left to right as a result of the large font size. With a 10", the sentences would be even wider, though I suppose I could bump up the font size even more and move it back farther, though I think the effect would be the same and the reach to flip pages kind of awkward.
I absolutely hate what my government does. But ... I still pay my taxes. My dollars support torture, murder, repression, etc. If I was a truly moral person, I would quit paying taxes and do my time in prison. But I'm too selfish for that, so while I hate what is done with my money, I don't actually do anything about it.
So really, it IS fair to launch a broad based condemnation, against even people like me who whinge about this stuff all the time, because despite all that, I still kick in some money to pay the salary of some dumb fuck murderer and pay for his medal to boot.
I can tell by your comments you did not read the article.
But the technology won't matter if people face the death penalty for leaking information regarding government malfeasance. That's the heart of this issue, the Government's desire to control every piece of information about what it does. Certainly the mainstream media (i.e., administrative stenographers and press release mills) has gotten to total lapdog status, but the reason WikiLeaks was so hated was because it actually performed the function the press was supposed to perform. But what will WikiLeaks or its successors leak if people honestly fear that death is the punishment for getting caught? If nobody comes forward, the technology is irrelevant.
I didn't reply to 1s33c. I responded to this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3510265&cid=43056961
which is now correctly marked flamebait. My response was sarcasm, but since the flamebait is now modded off screen, the context of my response is missing its target.
Ahh, the very fine "your ancestors did something evil so you can't point out my current evil" retort. Brilliant. Settles the case for sure!
Democracy in the middle east is not considered a "good" by the Feds. They much prefer friendly ruthless dictators. Not for example how we've never invaded Saudia Arabia and never have a bad word to say about them. Or how HRC considered Mubarak a friend of the family ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/secretary-clinton-in-2009-i-really-consider-president-and-mrs-mubarak-to-be-friends-of-my-family/ ).
Read this by Harvard Law prof, Yochai Benkler:
The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554#
Note, the espionage act doesn't apply only to people in the military.
I know your comment is tongue in cheek, but it won't be seen that way by many. The fact is, there is no amount of money that can be spent to prevent all terrorism. There is certainly some amount that it is wise to spend, but the edge cases will always make it through. I'm thinking of Breivik or McVeigh/Nichols -- Lone Wolf types. We should just accept that within reason, like how we wear seat belts and have airbags in cars. The utility of vehicles causes to accept some rational risk despite the fact that deaths in car accidents are some multiple of 9/11. If we addressed terrorism like we did driving, we'd actually be able to go somewhere as civilization. Instead, we take all the utility inherent in massive amounts of money, and squander on evil at home and abroad. If cars were terrorism, we'd be driving around in million dollar, mile wide marshmallows that went 3 mph and got 10gal/mile.