I don't know what the original article said (the site is thoroughly slashdotted), but finding life based on alternative chemistry won't "alter the odds" - it will just alter our computation of the odds. That immediately raises my suspicions since it suggests that the article was written by a journalist rather than a scientist, and consequently that it might be severely distorted.
Ugh, no. Because when a scientist says "this alters the odds", they know that this inherently means "alters the conditional probability based on knowledge".
I.e.: "What is the probability that Bob has cancer?" -- P(BC) = cancer rate in the population of large. "What is the probability that Bob has cancer, given indicator gene X?" -- P(BC) = cancer rate of people with gene X. "What is the probability that Bob has cancer, given a positive result on a biopsy?" -- P(BC) = 1 - false positive rate of biopsy.
Did doing a gene map on BoB to find Indicator X increase his odds of getting cancer? No, it means what we think the odds are changed, based on knowledge. All probability is conditional on knowledge. This doesn't mean the odds change -- at the end of the day, Bob either has cancer or doesn't. Odds are always about measuring our expectations based on knowledge.
So in short, an actual scientist who was not prepared for the pedantry of/.ers would say "alter the odds", expecting that everyone would automatically understand that what he really meant was "alter our computation of the odds based on conditional knowledge".
Fire is not "spontaneously created" any more than humans or mules are.
Oh yes it is, at least much more than humans or mules are. All you need is 1) something capable of undergoing combustion and 2) sufficient heat.
The only thing which can make a human or a mule are human or mule ancestors. "Spontaneous" doesn't mean "for no reason" in this context. It means "without the aid of pre-existing fire".
That fire appears to "reproduce" is simply an artifact of how fire functions. It is not actually reproducing, it's causing further combustion reactions to occur that could have just as easily occurred as a result of lightning or a magnifying glass.
I won't make grand claims about the effects on anyone else, but I know I don't want my 3-year old son playing violent games.
I'm sure there will be other obvious points made, so instead I'll say I agree with you on this one completely. By a certain relatively early, say pre-teen, I think most minds have a solid enough grip on reality vs fantasy and right and wrong to be able to handle normal levels of violence in movies and video games. Very young children are such blank slates though that they really can be influenced by just about anything.
My younger step brother was a huge Power Rangers fan when he was in the 4-5 range. He got into the very unfortunate habit of kicking and punching people in emulation of the show. He thought it was great fun. He kinda didn't understand the difference between kung-fu on screen and punching his dad in the leg. So needless to say that show was banned. Only a few years later, he understood real vs pretend violence well enough to participate in tae kwon do classes.
To me half the problem with the whole "do video games cause violence in children" debate is that people use "children" to include everyone under the age of majority. Sorry, but if your high schooler goes out and steals a car because they played GTA, then they were already a delinquent. But children children? Yeah, I am totally on board with being careful about what they're allowed to consume for entertainment.
Plus, "species" is sort of a fuzzy and debated term with lots of funny edge cases - much to the consternation of people who need to label everything:)
That's true, but using the definition of "cannot crossbreed and produce viable offspring" is useful for drawing a hard line around "not the same species" among all sexually reproducing animals since genetic crossover is essentially impossible. There's lots of gray area in, say, classifying certain birds. On the other hand horses and donkeys can breed, but produce mules which cannot reproduce themselves, ergo donkeys and horses are definitely different species.
Wow you really are crap at following a discussion and understanding arguments, aren't you? Maybe you should try reading posts before hammering out your responses? Or at least pretend you read them rather than just admitting you don't, so it won't be so obvious who is responsible for the disconnect. LOL.
In your first reply to me, you said "when you are president of the united states there is no such thing as personal use", and "his communication with [his family] by extension is vulnerable to interception, manipulation, etc. all sorts of fascinating psychological data about the president can be gleaned form his "private" communication". With the practical upshot that: "i would be incredibly surprised if obama was allowed to use any common carrier or protocol... you really think they would let him do that? you really think obama himself isn't mindful of this threat?"
And THAT is what I'm arguing against. There is such a thing as personal use, both in law and in practical reality. Obama is allowed to use a common carrier for personal use, because his personal communications with family are not considered serious national security risks by government agencies. I was demonstrating this through simple counterexample, showing that he was allowed to use unsecured channels for personal use, which would not be the case if they were considered risky. The secure phone (not a blackberry, lol, i was thinking encrypted land line) given to relatives in Africa, or rather its absence, was an extreme example. Not something you were literally arguing for (lol), something whose non-existence demonstrates that the Secret Service et. al. does not consider phone calls to relatives to be security risks. Obama's use of a standard Blackberry is the most obvious counterexample, and something you obviously felt couldn't happen as a consequence of your way of thinking, since that is exactly why you were arguing Obama couldn't be using a Blackberry.
But you were wrong about that, and you're wrong that personal phone calls are national security risks -- if they were, the Secret Service would require Obama always uses secure channels. But they don't. It's not complicated logic. I spelled it out for you in simple logical steps, but, you know, that whole "not reading what other people post" thing gets you every time. Well that and idiocy.
So instead rather than read, comprehend, and then respond to arguments, you go on retarded rants about persecution and socialization? LOL, DUDE you have serious -- but hilarious -- issues. It's obvious who has the socialization issue. Your vehement -- but completely incoherent -- responses demonstrate you were at least as stubbornly clinging to your side, but so lacking in intellectual honesty that you don't even bother reading what you're responding to (ever click that PRA link, lol?). Don't try to attribute to me what is your basic mode of operation. You're projecting, and it's sad, but very very funny at the same time.
Anyway, since you've at least admitted you were utterly wrong about the Blackberry, and you will at least at some point come to understand the logic that means you were wrong about everything else too, and I highly doubt you could craft a more hilariously self-revealing screed than what you did here, I consider my job here done. Bye!
How can they develop a vaccine that doesn't have the side effects if the side effects don't exist? And since the people we're talking about can't be convinced that the current set of vaccines are safe despite the evidence, what good would it do? They would just think the government was trying to trick them again.
Bottom line facts: 1) Obama has a Blackberry for personal use, and a Sectera for official use. He's been seen with both. 2) This is because neither law nor agency treats every Presidential communication as a national security risk. 3) Obama has a Blackberry. 4) You are wrong and stupid.
Logic: 1) You argue all Presidential communications are a national security risk, and that gov. agencies agree. 2) Conversations which involve national security risks are not conducted through insecure channels. 3) Obama can and has communicated through insecure channels. 4) Therefore, not all Presidential communication is considered a national security risk. 5) Therefore, you are wrong and stupid. Q.E.D.
It's funny how you'd try to take me to task for being stubbornly right in the face of your equally stubborn ignorance. But that's what this has all been. It's very fun pointing out how stupid and wrong you are, proving it, then watching you do backflips trying to avoid the inevitable.
TLDR version: Obama has a blackberry. You're an ignoramus who should read something about the laws you're pretending you understand so you look like less of a tool. Or not, because it's FUNNY AS HELL to call you out. =D
Okay, don't defend your stupid notions, they don't deserve it anyway. You're arguing all Presidential information must be and is treated as a security risk. But normal phone lines aren't secure*, and the Secret Service et. al. are okay with that as long as it is not sensitive information being discussed. So clearly they disagree with you.
I knew this concept was too hard for you.
Bottom line: 1) The President is not required to use secure communications or follow data retention rules for personal communications -- read the law, idiot. 2) In accordance with (1), the President can make insecure phone calls and use his Blackberry as long as it is for unofficial business.
* Do you grasp this? You do understand that making a phone call from a Sectera to a normal phone provides zero protection, right? No, of course not. Lack of intelligence is lack of intelligence. And ignorance is ignorance. You're an idiot by birth, and ignorant by design. You can't fix stupid, and you can't fix ignorance in someone who refuses to read things that would educate them. You're pathetic.
There are no expectations low enough that I would not be dissapointed.
you honestly don't believe russia or china engage in espionage?
I do. Do you believe they give an encrypted phone to everyone Obama would ever call, even in Africa? Do you even realize that this would be necessary? Probably not. Anyway, no, they don't. They didn't for any of the Congressmen or potential cabinet appointees whom he called at their homes, either. Obviously the people in charge are not treating every Presidential communication as though it were Top Secret. Because not every Presidential communication is Top Secret, personal communication never is, and if you actually knew what any of those words meant you'd know that.
and i'm the one with an overactice imagination and a thick skull
When you deliberately ignore the actual facts and definitions and procedures used (since they prove you wrong -- I know you didn't read the link to the PRA), and replace it with "Do you honestly believe?!"s that spring from your knowledge-free vacuous pate, then yes, you're the clueless and imaginative one.
oh, how i have been utterly defeated
Yeah, pretty much. You don't have any of the facts on your side. Only your imagination. You are ignorant and wrong about the Presidential Records Act, about how unofficial communication by the President is handled, and about what Obama is actually using. All the facts are out, and you're wrong on everything and you know it, which is why you don't even try to argue the facts at this point. That's pretty much the definition of defeated.
Wow, you're so thick you can't even read your own links, can you? It's funny because of how it repeatedly harps on "the legal issues involved in conducting official government business using partisan email accounts," and how they had to make sure "no e-mails involving official White House business have been destroyed or altered". But those words just keep bouncing of your thick skull.
I'm sure it's too much to ask, but you could try reading and understanding the Presidential Records Act which Bush was running afoul of. Free clue for the clueless: "Personal records" are distinct from "Presidential records" and not subject to the requirements of the law.
The law itself says: You're ignorant and wrong.
But go on, thinking every Presidential communication is considered a national security risk no matter to who or on what subject.
Because obviously any time the President makes a phone call to a friend or relative, even if they are in Africa, just to say hi, the spooks deliver a special encrypted phone to that person prior to the call. Oh wait, no they don't. That's your imagination.
Also, Obama still has his Blackberry, an actual Blackberry.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and are filling in the gaps with an overactive imagination.
because he and his cohorts knew what they were talking about was a political liability. there's not protection from a president who is keeping secrets from his own people. that's an entirely different scenario than a president engaging in personal but politically harmless communications
You're kinda missing the important point: The fact that Bush and other White House staff used RNC mail servers at all was not considered a secret or problem. It was known before the scandal, by people in the government, that Bush used RNC mail for personal use. Which is just fine. It was only when he crossed the line to using it for Official Business that it mattered.
If your Baueresque fantasy had any reality to it, Bush never would have been allowed to use that mail service for anything. But he was.
Your view: Demonstrably wrong.
so there's no dedicated teams in the cia right now gleaning every little snippet of information they can get their hands on any way possible about hu jintao? ahmadinejad? bin laden? putin?
Not... really. You might think that the NSA and CIA have super-secret psychological powers that let them glean important character traits from simple emails, but... No, they don't. They're much more concerned with more practical matters like anything that might contain the location of a nuclear plant or something else that would fall under the category of "actionable intelligence" than whether Iran's President has sentimental thoughts about his grandmother. Do you have any reason, other than your quite active imagination, to think otherwise?
i wished i were that clueless and naive. the world would be such a cotton candy place
Lol, okay you call up the Secret Service and tell them how clueless and naive they are, since they have allowed in the past and will continue to allow Presidents to communicate through non-ultra-secured channels when regulations permit.
You're the clueless one. You don't know anything about the regulations regarding protecting government information, what degrees of secrecy require what level of security. Clue SMS received: Not everything a President does qualifies as Top Secret (those words mean something, and not whatever you imagine they do), and only things that are require something as secure as the Sectera.
But man, it must be nice being so clued in and worldly thanks to an education by 24 and Tom Clancy novels. I'll set my DVR so I can know about reality too.
Again, let me repeat: In actual reality Presidents have communicated through non secure channels on a regular basis. Actual reality says you don't know what you're talking about. You disagree with reality. Hmm... who should I believe?
Of course there is such a thing as "personal use", and there are laws regarding security and data retention and use of government resources that delineate the definition and rules regarding personal vs official use.
Your fantasies about foreign spies gaining "fascinating psychological data" from his email that isn't available from his books or non-scripted speaking events is fun, but simply that, fantasy. There is no need nor is there any requirement nor is there any precedent for every single thing the President communicates with being treated as a potential national security risk.
Or weren't you around for the Bush White House using RNC email server scandal, where the alleged problem was that they would have avoided data retention laws by using them for official data, not that he had used unsecured email at all. That's perfectly fine. So is Obama using a Blackberry. You might want to inform the "spooks" that you think differently than they.
1. the sectera has civilian and military network abilities, so it would be doubly redundant to have both a blackberry and sectera, since a sectera is pretty much already a blackberry+
There is nothing absurd at all about the notion that the President would have one device for official government business and another for personal use. In fact, that's the easiest method to comply with the relevant laws.
anyone, anywhere, writing about what obama is using is either guessing or lying.
Ah. Well, you could have just said that first and saved a lot of typing.
And the local public school district is still letting her attend?
Why not? It's not like she could spread a disease to the other kids; they're all vaccinated!
And in fact the kid herself is probably safe, since just about everyone who could give her the diseases is vaccinated. This is called 'herd immunity' and it's pretty effective.
It's okay for some people to not be vaccinated, either due to medical reasons (allergic reactions etc) or the parents simply not wanting their kid vaccinated due to risk of autism or government conspiracy or whatever comes into their heads. Some people. The problem with these anti-vaccination movements is that if they spread and many people are convinced not to vaccinate their children, then the whole situation changes as now there's a significant sub-population for a disease to infect and spread in.
And seriously, these poor deluded bastards have no freaking clue of the hell they'll be unleashing on their children and children's children if they have their way, and something like smallpox makes a comeback. Whatever the small increase in autism rates even the believers put forward doesn't compare to the millions and millions who will die.
I don't know about missed. I think more like "fondly remembered", in that special kind of nostalgic way where you're simultaneously glad it is in fact a memory.
I've been using PalmOS devices since 97, and let me tell you, it wasn't long after the calendar hit 2000 that I stopped having a lot of patience for a non-multitasking OS. If this de-feature had made it stable that'd be one thing, but that's one thing PalmOS never was.
Oh, and before the wikipedia, I used to laugh about all the sci fi shows where they accessed "the ancient database" or somesuch. Now, I think, it might be inevitable if storage becomes cheap enough.
Yeah, but in the sci-fi shows any culture described as "ancient" is also somehow always wise and knowledgeable and dedicated to their cause. Whoever is considering Wikipedia as "the ancient database" sure isn't going to find that to be the case. I can see it now:
"Captain, I've been reading the Ancient Database to discover where they originally developed their super weapon used to defeat the Mk'La'Boof armada, so that perhaps we could find a prototype. Apparently it was developed in a research lab in Kyle Is A Big Fag, Germany."
Though in my quest to find what would prey on an adult goose, I found Predator Bird Services which apparently uses a combination of hawks and frickin eagles to chase them away.
Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I'd guess that falcons just don't hunt geese.
Not too simplistic at all. It's pretty easy to see why, too, when you realize that the Peregrine Falcon, which is a pretty big falcon, has up to a 40 inch wingspan and weights up to about 3 lbs, while a Canada Goose has up to a 70 in wingspan and weights up to 12 lbs.
They mostly eat medium-sized birds like pigeons or ducks. Geese are big birds.
They've had this in rough form for a while now. But recent advancements have resulted in a 65% reduction in incidents of the prosthetic arm attempting to strangle the user to death.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what the original article said (the site is thoroughly slashdotted), but finding life based on alternative chemistry won't "alter the odds" - it will just alter our computation of the odds. That immediately raises my suspicions since it suggests that the article was written by a journalist rather than a scientist, and consequently that it might be severely distorted.
Ugh, no. Because when a scientist says "this alters the odds", they know that this inherently means "alters the conditional probability based on knowledge".
I.e.:
"What is the probability that Bob has cancer?" -- P(BC) = cancer rate in the population of large.
"What is the probability that Bob has cancer, given indicator gene X?" -- P(BC) = cancer rate of people with gene X.
"What is the probability that Bob has cancer, given a positive result on a biopsy?" -- P(BC) = 1 - false positive rate of biopsy.
Did doing a gene map on BoB to find Indicator X increase his odds of getting cancer? No, it means what we think the odds are changed, based on knowledge. All probability is conditional on knowledge. This doesn't mean the odds change -- at the end of the day, Bob either has cancer or doesn't. Odds are always about measuring our expectations based on knowledge.
So in short, an actual scientist who was not prepared for the pedantry of /.ers would say "alter the odds", expecting that everyone would automatically understand that what he really meant was "alter our computation of the odds based on conditional knowledge".
Fire is not "spontaneously created" any more than humans or mules are.
Oh yes it is, at least much more than humans or mules are. All you need is 1) something capable of undergoing combustion and 2) sufficient heat.
The only thing which can make a human or a mule are human or mule ancestors. "Spontaneous" doesn't mean "for no reason" in this context. It means "without the aid of pre-existing fire".
That fire appears to "reproduce" is simply an artifact of how fire functions. It is not actually reproducing, it's causing further combustion reactions to occur that could have just as easily occurred as a result of lightning or a magnifying glass.
It would explain the terrible characterization of people around me!
I won't make grand claims about the effects on anyone else, but I know I don't want my 3-year old son playing violent games.
I'm sure there will be other obvious points made, so instead I'll say I agree with you on this one completely. By a certain relatively early, say pre-teen, I think most minds have a solid enough grip on reality vs fantasy and right and wrong to be able to handle normal levels of violence in movies and video games. Very young children are such blank slates though that they really can be influenced by just about anything.
My younger step brother was a huge Power Rangers fan when he was in the 4-5 range. He got into the very unfortunate habit of kicking and punching people in emulation of the show. He thought it was great fun. He kinda didn't understand the difference between kung-fu on screen and punching his dad in the leg. So needless to say that show was banned. Only a few years later, he understood real vs pretend violence well enough to participate in tae kwon do classes.
To me half the problem with the whole "do video games cause violence in children" debate is that people use "children" to include everyone under the age of majority. Sorry, but if your high schooler goes out and steals a car because they played GTA, then they were already a delinquent. But children children? Yeah, I am totally on board with being careful about what they're allowed to consume for entertainment.
Plus, "species" is sort of a fuzzy and debated term with lots of funny edge cases - much to the consternation of people who need to label everything :)
That's true, but using the definition of "cannot crossbreed and produce viable offspring" is useful for drawing a hard line around "not the same species" among all sexually reproducing animals since genetic crossover is essentially impossible. There's lots of gray area in, say, classifying certain birds. On the other hand horses and donkeys can breed, but produce mules which cannot reproduce themselves, ergo donkeys and horses are definitely different species.
I'm the one staying on subject, even lining it up in bullet points nice and simple for anyone to understand... if they could/would read.
You're the one with the spleen venting rant about your poor socialization and your persecution complex.
Arguing at your mirror image sounds like a good time... if you're a sociopath. Have fun with that, I'm out.
Wow you really are crap at following a discussion and understanding arguments, aren't you? Maybe you should try reading posts before hammering out your responses? Or at least pretend you read them rather than just admitting you don't, so it won't be so obvious who is responsible for the disconnect. LOL.
In your first reply to me, you said "when you are president of the united states there is no such thing as personal use", and "his communication with [his family] by extension is vulnerable to interception, manipulation, etc. all sorts of fascinating psychological data about the president can be gleaned form his "private" communication". With the practical upshot that: "i would be incredibly surprised if obama was allowed to use any common carrier or protocol... you really think they would let him do that? you really think obama himself isn't mindful of this threat?"
And THAT is what I'm arguing against. There is such a thing as personal use, both in law and in practical reality. Obama is allowed to use a common carrier for personal use, because his personal communications with family are not considered serious national security risks by government agencies. I was demonstrating this through simple counterexample, showing that he was allowed to use unsecured channels for personal use, which would not be the case if they were considered risky. The secure phone (not a blackberry, lol, i was thinking encrypted land line) given to relatives in Africa, or rather its absence, was an extreme example. Not something you were literally arguing for (lol), something whose non-existence demonstrates that the Secret Service et. al. does not consider phone calls to relatives to be security risks. Obama's use of a standard Blackberry is the most obvious counterexample, and something you obviously felt couldn't happen as a consequence of your way of thinking, since that is exactly why you were arguing Obama couldn't be using a Blackberry.
But you were wrong about that, and you're wrong that personal phone calls are national security risks -- if they were, the Secret Service would require Obama always uses secure channels. But they don't. It's not complicated logic. I spelled it out for you in simple logical steps, but, you know, that whole "not reading what other people post" thing gets you every time. Well that and idiocy.
So instead rather than read, comprehend, and then respond to arguments, you go on retarded rants about persecution and socialization? LOL, DUDE you have serious -- but hilarious -- issues. It's obvious who has the socialization issue. Your vehement -- but completely incoherent -- responses demonstrate you were at least as stubbornly clinging to your side, but so lacking in intellectual honesty that you don't even bother reading what you're responding to (ever click that PRA link, lol?). Don't try to attribute to me what is your basic mode of operation. You're projecting, and it's sad, but very very funny at the same time.
Anyway, since you've at least admitted you were utterly wrong about the Blackberry, and you will at least at some point come to understand the logic that means you were wrong about everything else too, and I highly doubt you could craft a more hilariously self-revealing screed than what you did here, I consider my job here done. Bye!
How can they develop a vaccine that doesn't have the side effects if the side effects don't exist? And since the people we're talking about can't be convinced that the current set of vaccines are safe despite the evidence, what good would it do? They would just think the government was trying to trick them again.
Bottom line facts:
1) Obama has a Blackberry for personal use, and a Sectera for official use. He's been seen with both.
2) This is because neither law nor agency treats every Presidential communication as a national security risk.
3) Obama has a Blackberry.
4) You are wrong and stupid.
Logic:
1) You argue all Presidential communications are a national security risk, and that gov. agencies agree.
2) Conversations which involve national security risks are not conducted through insecure channels.
3) Obama can and has communicated through insecure channels.
4) Therefore, not all Presidential communication is considered a national security risk.
5) Therefore, you are wrong and stupid.
Q.E.D.
It's funny how you'd try to take me to task for being stubbornly right in the face of your equally stubborn ignorance. But that's what this has all been. It's very fun pointing out how stupid and wrong you are, proving it, then watching you do backflips trying to avoid the inevitable.
TLDR version: Obama has a blackberry. You're an ignoramus who should read something about the laws you're pretending you understand so you look like less of a tool. Or not, because it's FUNNY AS HELL to call you out. =D
Okay, don't defend your stupid notions, they don't deserve it anyway. You're arguing all Presidential information must be and is treated as a security risk. But normal phone lines aren't secure*, and the Secret Service et. al. are okay with that as long as it is not sensitive information being discussed. So clearly they disagree with you.
I knew this concept was too hard for you.
Bottom line:
1) The President is not required to use secure communications or follow data retention rules for personal communications -- read the law, idiot.
2) In accordance with (1), the President can make insecure phone calls and use his Blackberry as long as it is for unofficial business.
* Do you grasp this? You do understand that making a phone call from a Sectera to a normal phone provides zero protection, right? No, of course not. Lack of intelligence is lack of intelligence. And ignorance is ignorance. You're an idiot by birth, and ignorant by design. You can't fix stupid, and you can't fix ignorance in someone who refuses to read things that would educate them. You're pathetic.
There are no expectations low enough that I would not be dissapointed.
you honestly don't believe russia or china engage in espionage?
I do. Do you believe they give an encrypted phone to everyone Obama would ever call, even in Africa? Do you even realize that this would be necessary? Probably not. Anyway, no, they don't. They didn't for any of the Congressmen or potential cabinet appointees whom he called at their homes, either. Obviously the people in charge are not treating every Presidential communication as though it were Top Secret. Because not every Presidential communication is Top Secret, personal communication never is, and if you actually knew what any of those words meant you'd know that.
and i'm the one with an overactice imagination and a thick skull
When you deliberately ignore the actual facts and definitions and procedures used (since they prove you wrong -- I know you didn't read the link to the PRA), and replace it with "Do you honestly believe?!"s that spring from your knowledge-free vacuous pate, then yes, you're the clueless and imaginative one.
oh, how i have been utterly defeated
Yeah, pretty much. You don't have any of the facts on your side. Only your imagination. You are ignorant and wrong about the Presidential Records Act, about how unofficial communication by the President is handled, and about what Obama is actually using. All the facts are out, and you're wrong on everything and you know it, which is why you don't even try to argue the facts at this point. That's pretty much the definition of defeated.
Wow, you're so thick you can't even read your own links, can you? It's funny because of how it repeatedly harps on "the legal issues involved in conducting official government business using partisan email accounts," and how they had to make sure "no e-mails involving official White House business have been destroyed or altered". But those words just keep bouncing of your thick skull.
I'm sure it's too much to ask, but you could try reading and understanding the Presidential Records Act which Bush was running afoul of. Free clue for the clueless: "Personal records" are distinct from "Presidential records" and not subject to the requirements of the law.
The law itself says: You're ignorant and wrong.
But go on, thinking every Presidential communication is considered a national security risk no matter to who or on what subject.
Because obviously any time the President makes a phone call to a friend or relative, even if they are in Africa, just to say hi, the spooks deliver a special encrypted phone to that person prior to the call. Oh wait, no they don't. That's your imagination.
Also, Obama still has his Blackberry, an actual Blackberry.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and are filling in the gaps with an overactive imagination.
because he and his cohorts knew what they were talking about was a political liability. there's not protection from a president who is keeping secrets from his own people. that's an entirely different scenario than a president engaging in personal but politically harmless communications
You're kinda missing the important point: The fact that Bush and other White House staff used RNC mail servers at all was not considered a secret or problem. It was known before the scandal, by people in the government, that Bush used RNC mail for personal use. Which is just fine. It was only when he crossed the line to using it for Official Business that it mattered.
If your Baueresque fantasy had any reality to it, Bush never would have been allowed to use that mail service for anything. But he was.
Your view: Demonstrably wrong.
so there's no dedicated teams in the cia right now gleaning every little snippet of information they can get their hands on any way possible about hu jintao? ahmadinejad? bin laden? putin?
Not... really. You might think that the NSA and CIA have super-secret psychological powers that let them glean important character traits from simple emails, but... No, they don't. They're much more concerned with more practical matters like anything that might contain the location of a nuclear plant or something else that would fall under the category of "actionable intelligence" than whether Iran's President has sentimental thoughts about his grandmother. Do you have any reason, other than your quite active imagination, to think otherwise?
i wished i were that clueless and naive. the world would be such a cotton candy place
Lol, okay you call up the Secret Service and tell them how clueless and naive they are, since they have allowed in the past and will continue to allow Presidents to communicate through non-ultra-secured channels when regulations permit.
You're the clueless one. You don't know anything about the regulations regarding protecting government information, what degrees of secrecy require what level of security. Clue SMS received: Not everything a President does qualifies as Top Secret (those words mean something, and not whatever you imagine they do), and only things that are require something as secure as the Sectera.
But man, it must be nice being so clued in and worldly thanks to an education by 24 and Tom Clancy novels. I'll set my DVR so I can know about reality too.
Again, let me repeat: In actual reality Presidents have communicated through non secure channels on a regular basis. Actual reality says you don't know what you're talking about. You disagree with reality. Hmm... who should I believe?
Of course there is such a thing as "personal use", and there are laws regarding security and data retention and use of government resources that delineate the definition and rules regarding personal vs official use.
Your fantasies about foreign spies gaining "fascinating psychological data" from his email that isn't available from his books or non-scripted speaking events is fun, but simply that, fantasy. There is no need nor is there any requirement nor is there any precedent for every single thing the President communicates with being treated as a potential national security risk.
Or weren't you around for the Bush White House using RNC email server scandal, where the alleged problem was that they would have avoided data retention laws by using them for official data, not that he had used unsecured email at all. That's perfectly fine. So is Obama using a Blackberry. You might want to inform the "spooks" that you think differently than they.
1. the sectera has civilian and military network abilities, so it would be doubly redundant to have both a blackberry and sectera, since a sectera is pretty much already a blackberry+
There is nothing absurd at all about the notion that the President would have one device for official government business and another for personal use. In fact, that's the easiest method to comply with the relevant laws.
anyone, anywhere, writing about what obama is using is either guessing or lying.
Ah. Well, you could have just said that first and saved a lot of typing.
Sugar does not cause hyperactivity!
Geeze, alright it doesn't, lay off the sugar already.
And the local public school district is still letting her attend?
Why not? It's not like she could spread a disease to the other kids; they're all vaccinated!
And in fact the kid herself is probably safe, since just about everyone who could give her the diseases is vaccinated. This is called 'herd immunity' and it's pretty effective.
It's okay for some people to not be vaccinated, either due to medical reasons (allergic reactions etc) or the parents simply not wanting their kid vaccinated due to risk of autism or government conspiracy or whatever comes into their heads. Some people. The problem with these anti-vaccination movements is that if they spread and many people are convinced not to vaccinate their children, then the whole situation changes as now there's a significant sub-population for a disease to infect and spread in.
And seriously, these poor deluded bastards have no freaking clue of the hell they'll be unleashing on their children and children's children if they have their way, and something like smallpox makes a comeback. Whatever the small increase in autism rates even the believers put forward doesn't compare to the millions and millions who will die.
I have used palm OS for almost ten years.
Rest in Peace my friend, you will be missed.
I don't know about missed. I think more like "fondly remembered", in that special kind of nostalgic way where you're simultaneously glad it is in fact a memory.
I've been using PalmOS devices since 97, and let me tell you, it wasn't long after the calendar hit 2000 that I stopped having a lot of patience for a non-multitasking OS. If this de-feature had made it stable that'd be one thing, but that's one thing PalmOS never was.
As opposed to some other earliest primate.
Yes, exactly.
??
I think it was called "The Plane With Serpents In It".
Oh, and before the wikipedia, I used to laugh about all the sci fi shows where they accessed "the ancient database" or somesuch. Now, I think, it might be inevitable if storage becomes cheap enough.
Yeah, but in the sci-fi shows any culture described as "ancient" is also somehow always wise and knowledgeable and dedicated to their cause. Whoever is considering Wikipedia as "the ancient database" sure isn't going to find that to be the case. I can see it now:
"Captain, I've been reading the Ancient Database to discover where they originally developed their super weapon used to defeat the Mk'La'Boof armada, so that perhaps we could find a prototype. Apparently it was developed in a research lab in Kyle Is A Big Fag, Germany."
Oldest known human hair.
Oldest known person eaten by a hyena!
Though in my quest to find what would prey on an adult goose, I found Predator Bird Services which apparently uses a combination of hawks and frickin eagles to chase them away.
Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I'd guess that falcons just don't hunt geese.
Not too simplistic at all. It's pretty easy to see why, too, when you realize that the Peregrine Falcon, which is a pretty big falcon, has up to a 40 inch wingspan and weights up to about 3 lbs, while a Canada Goose has up to a 70 in wingspan and weights up to 12 lbs.
They mostly eat medium-sized birds like pigeons or ducks. Geese are big birds.
They've had this in rough form for a while now. But recent advancements have resulted in a 65% reduction in incidents of the prosthetic arm attempting to strangle the user to death.