This creates serious security risks: danger of exploitation of the system by unauthorized users,
And the old telephone system wasn't of interest to hackers why? OH WAIT IT WAS. danger of criminal misuse by trusted insiders,
And the old telephone system wasn't abused by nosey switchboard operators in programs such as I Love Lucy... OH WAIT IT WAS. and danger of misuse by government agents.
And the old tele... I give up. I want my bandwidth back anyway from that PDF.
Do you live in a pro-choice or pro-life state? Because as far as I understand Roe V Wade, the argument essentially came down to "it's up to the individual". In other words, the only reason why you would be afraid of your states laws is if you lived in a state you personally disagreed with.
Every single one of the comments I've read so far is confusing "pardon" with "commute".
The President can either pardon, which is to say that the crime was OK and it effectively did not happen or result in a guilty verdict, or commute, which is to absolve some of the sentence.
Libby still has a fine of nearly $250,000, or more money then the average Slashdot reader will ever make on welfare given the level of reading ability I've seen thus far.
As some here know and as my moniker indeed suggests, I -- a sober, middle-aged lawyer, family guy, and native New Yorker -- am one of those troubling persons who feels convinced that the Official Story of the 9-11 attacks is a huge lie; that the attacks were permitted to happen by BushCo or, even more likely, actively sponsored, planned and abetted by them, and that, accordingly, we are in much deeper doo-doo than we had imagined.
It includes a cute poll. I voted "The Gay Agenda People" because there was plenty of fire in WTC and according to the razor, that means flamers were present.
I'd +1 you for making me laugh but this isn't a scoop based website.
Yes they both think the jews did WTC. It's the only possible explanation for sites which interview and promote loose change and other such garbage. It's so bad Jews are leaving the sites for greener, errr, less antisemitic pastures.
For one: You might as well have linked to any DailyKOS page saying the Jews did WTC. Seriously. Democracy Now thinks so also. Secondly: I expect much better from my "geek news site". This article is flat out crap. Are the editors paying attention or did they just let their personal biases get the better of them to the detriment of the website?
Since gas nozzles are basically standardized and tend to click off at the same point, this isn't a terrible assumption
Actually that's incorrect. The pump relies on the air pressure in the tank to figure out when it's full. As you're filling the gas tank, the pump is pulling the vapors out of your tank. When the pump has a hard enough time pulling the vapors out, it assumes the gasoline is moving slower down the fill neck because the level of the gas in the tank is higher. Obviously this is going to totally be botch depending on the tempeture of the fuel in your tank, the tempeture of the air, the difference between the tempeture inside and outside your tank, the altitude you last filled your tank at, and how safe the owner of the pump wants to be in terms of aggressively filling your tank.
Short of filling your tank until you see gas spraying out, you have no idea what the level of gas in the tank is when it "clicks off".
So if they pave the way with a "chip" which turns clear when the disk is "authorized", how soon until they can order your DVD player to "unauthorized" something? Or how about the return of Divx (the rental service, not the video format)? And the real kicker: This paves the way to prevent copying of the material. If the laser in your DVDR/W drive is a certain wavelength for burning (it has to be a different wavelength than the laser for reading, obviously) the chip can become opaque when it's placed in a data drive. Or it could store information as a key and your new player will refuse to use it unless your DVDR/W disc has the matching chip.
While the obvious solution is to mod the player, something twofold like the wavelength attack combined with the requirement for this chip to be present on the disc and matching the movie would stem piracy quickly. But the real question is: Can the media giants convince people to buy MOAR CRAP after the blu-ray and HDDVD shootout?
Gee, six months ago wasn't the tune, "Don't blame us, blame the UN, the UK, and Clinton-era intel?" to save their own seats for the elections? Now they want to turn around and blame their own government?
So I suppose it boils down to: 1) Claim that they got hoodwinked by the UN/UK/Jews/Whomever and not support this crap 2) Try to claim that "It's all Cheney's Fault" and really hope no-one says "GEE WHY DIDN'T YOU CATCH THIS?"
My guess is #1 is going to win. It's always easier to pass the buck to someone elses government.
When they were bought, my interest rate went from a respectable 7.99% to 20%.
Why?
"It's an APR card, we can fuck around with it any way we want so long as we notify you in writing!"
I really doubt it made any significant contributions after the buyout. My card sits in a safe helping my credit rating while not seeing the light of day. They refused to lower the APR, so I simply stopped using it.
Um, just how stupid are you? First of all, he's not 'obligated to see the permission of Congress for lawmaking', because, duh, he doesn't make laws at all. He can usually find someone in Congress to introduce bills he's written, or, at minimum, ask the VP to introduce them in the House, but technically he has exactly as much legal right to make laws as I do: None at all. We can both write them, and hand them to a Congressman and hope.
Valid, but keep in mind it's outside the discussion and oversimplified for that purpose.
Secondly, violating FISA is illegal. He doesn't have to 'ask' or 'be denied' permission to violate laws, be they laws against murder or FISA.
Which is where arguments against this fall short. In the other reply, I said that if the FISA authority had found wrongdoing, they would have corrected the situation. Instead they assumed oversight and did not find wrongdoing (unless you're in faraway's camp that you have some kind of secret proof). In the other reply, I made the case that simply because a robber may commit a bank robbery and be tried after the fact, it does not make the robbery legal up to when it is arraigned in court. That being said, the program got FISA's stamp of approval, and arguing minutea is fairly pointless given the fact that everything is still a secret. If there's any fault to be found, it's the blanket authorization. Given that FISA has denied requests in the past and is not prone to rubber-stamping, we can reasonably assume that they felt the program was appropriate. To put it another way: People found out about the program and Bush sought to legitimize the program with the authorities which they did. This simple fact means that either FISA is acting illegally or that the program is and has been legal.
That's a great point! We do know from justice department officials that the program started around 2002 soon after the 2001 attacks. We know FISA didn't get oversight until 2007. That leaves 5 years of intentional breaking of the law - the fourth Amendment, plus the FISA law itself.
You're one of these people who asks every cop they see, "HEY, IS IT OK FOR ME TO BE HERE? I'M GOING TO GET A COFFEE, IS THAT OK ALSO?" See, the whole problem with your argument is that you're making the assumption that the brief is incorrect (you're assigning arguments to the EFF that the EFF did not make -- again, read the brief) and you're ignoring the fact that FISA OK'd it. If it was OK, they would have told Bush and friends to knock it off. Simply because a court tries a bank robber well after the robbery does not mean that the robbery is legal at the time it occurred. If there were wrongdoing, it would have been corrected by FISA. However your argument is moot because FISA said the program was legal.
In other words, I'm done arguing. I've raised points you haven't answered and you know you cannot answer because you know you would be wrong. You're certainly not faraway from the tinfoil hat.
There's two things which stick out in my mind as being THE FUTURE: 1) Companies which allow consumers "a way around" -- of course "unintentionally" -- are going to sell more hardware than anyone else and they surely know it. You can't realisticly expect me to believe that all those DVD players "accidentally" had the region-change firmware features left in there. They coded it themselves, surely they knew people would eventually find it. It may not have been a corporate decision per se, but someone in development Had A Clue. 2) Brush up on your soldering skills: Game consoles already use modchips to play imports, backups, and outright pirate. The old catch-phrase "when they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" certainly applies. When they outlaw imports, only outlaws will have imports.
Heres the facts, since you are wordy and at the same time asking for concise points: 1) The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking. That office is allowed to do things like command the army, poop, and have a beer without congressional oversight. The President does not just sit around waiting for people to hand him papers to sign (unless his name is Clinton who obviously had far too much time on his hands). 2) FISA is a secret court. If they oversaw the program (or not), you and I are not going to know beyond what they choose to release. To claim knowledge of anything else is foolish. However, we do know that FISA did say it oversaw the program. If I told you Intel was going to release Pentium Penis Edition with more Penises than AMD's offering, would you believe my leak and start buying stock in silicon dong distributors or would you take it at the value that it might just be completely and utterly false? Now imagine if you confronted the President of Intel with such foolishness, do you think he might be angry? 3) What we do know is that the EFF doesn't have a clue when the program began (read the brief) and doesn't have a clue what was disclosed. They are working the (weak) angle that AT&T is a public company, which is about the same thing as saying that since a law firm is a public company, we can violate client-attorney privilege and peek into their dealings with whoever we want. It is accusing the administration of wrongdoing, but it's exactly that: Accusation. This is not a statement of fact -- there is no Intel Pentium Penis Edition. In fact, all of page 7 through god-knows-where is redacted from public examination in the brief and the EFF admits in the brief that it only "believes" that the administration overstepped it's bounds and about the actions it conducted. 4) Page 9 of the brief shows that FISA OK'd the program.
So what are you left with? A pile of speculation if you want to point fingers and at very least the idea that FISA said the program was OK and did not overstep the bounds of authority by any measure. Now, I challenge you to the same measure: Show me the facts which say that there was a clear violation of the law. In order to do so, I believe you will have to offer proof that FISA violated federal law in it's approval of the program. Just the facts, ma'am.
I treat people like children who speak like children and think like children.
I shall explain it to you as I would explain it to a child: The 9th Circuit will probably end up abducating (this means not passing judgement) because even if it were to persue the issue, the witnesses required for testimony would most likely be arrested, or not US citizens so not under compulsion to testify. At very least, they may have simply fled the US. On the other hand, they may try to subpoena the FISA judges or the AT&T people. However, since the FISA records would certainly be sealed (which also protects AT&T), as they have been since the inception of the court in 1978.
Yes, you're being treated like a child since you clearly were too young to remember when FISA was established... 1978. Bush has nothing to do with this, FISA has been around for almost 30 years and has just as much case law standing behind it.
The article as it is written wants to say, "AT&T tapped people without judicial oversight". This is not the case. The case is that FISA, which is a court, asked AT&T to tap people.
Since FISA is a secret (a better word would probably be "confidential") court, but a court none-the-less, the real case is if the venues that the EFF seeks to sue AT&T in are higher powers than FISA.
Slashdot Mirror
Iran is without internet access. Of course it's safer!
Oh, I thought he meant he had feathers and carried the message in a small tape around his leg.
amiright?
I, for one, propose civil disobedience in the form of smoke signals. Lets see you tap my lines for that message, jerks.
This creates serious security risks: danger of exploitation of the system by unauthorized users,
And the old telephone system wasn't of interest to hackers why? OH WAIT IT WAS.
danger of criminal misuse by trusted insiders,
And the old telephone system wasn't abused by nosey switchboard operators in programs such as I Love Lucy... OH WAIT IT WAS.
and danger of misuse by government agents.
And the old tele... I give up. I want my bandwidth back anyway from that PDF.
Do you live in a pro-choice or pro-life state? Because as far as I understand Roe V Wade, the argument essentially came down to "it's up to the individual". In other words, the only reason why you would be afraid of your states laws is if you lived in a state you personally disagreed with.
Every single one of the comments I've read so far is confusing "pardon" with "commute".
The President can either pardon, which is to say that the crime was OK and it effectively did not happen or result in a guilty verdict, or commute, which is to absolve some of the sentence.
Libby still has a fine of nearly $250,000, or more money then the average Slashdot reader will ever make on welfare given the level of reading ability I've seen thus far.
Tags: 9-11, Terrorism, FOX News, Loose Change (all tags)
No, no, I don't see it in there. Seems most of the dKos people were OK with it.
It includes a cute poll. I voted "The Gay Agenda People" because there was plenty of fire in WTC and according to the razor, that means flamers were present.
LOLOLOL
Yes they both think the jews did WTC. It's the only possible explanation for sites which interview and promote loose change and other such garbage. It's so bad Jews are leaving the sites for greener, errr, less antisemitic pastures.
For one: You might as well have linked to any DailyKOS page saying the Jews did WTC. Seriously. Democracy Now thinks so also.
Secondly: I expect much better from my "geek news site". This article is flat out crap. Are the editors paying attention or did they just let their personal biases get the better of them to the detriment of the website?
Actually that's incorrect. The pump relies on the air pressure in the tank to figure out when it's full. As you're filling the gas tank, the pump is pulling the vapors out of your tank. When the pump has a hard enough time pulling the vapors out, it assumes the gasoline is moving slower down the fill neck because the level of the gas in the tank is higher. Obviously this is going to totally be botch depending on the tempeture of the fuel in your tank, the tempeture of the air, the difference between the tempeture inside and outside your tank, the altitude you last filled your tank at, and how safe the owner of the pump wants to be in terms of aggressively filling your tank.
Short of filling your tank until you see gas spraying out, you have no idea what the level of gas in the tank is when it "clicks off".
So if they pave the way with a "chip" which turns clear when the disk is "authorized", how soon until they can order your DVD player to "unauthorized" something? Or how about the return of Divx (the rental service, not the video format)? And the real kicker: This paves the way to prevent copying of the material. If the laser in your DVDR/W drive is a certain wavelength for burning (it has to be a different wavelength than the laser for reading, obviously) the chip can become opaque when it's placed in a data drive. Or it could store information as a key and your new player will refuse to use it unless your DVDR/W disc has the matching chip.
While the obvious solution is to mod the player, something twofold like the wavelength attack combined with the requirement for this chip to be present on the disc and matching the movie would stem piracy quickly. But the real question is: Can the media giants convince people to buy MOAR CRAP after the blu-ray and HDDVD shootout?
I mean, why hold bank robbers liable for larceny and murder for robbing banks and shooting the tellers? It's madness I tell you!
Gee, six months ago wasn't the tune, "Don't blame us, blame the UN, the UK, and Clinton-era intel?" to save their own seats for the elections? Now they want to turn around and blame their own government?
So I suppose it boils down to:
1) Claim that they got hoodwinked by the UN/UK/Jews/Whomever and not support this crap
2) Try to claim that "It's all Cheney's Fault" and really hope no-one says "GEE WHY DIDN'T YOU CATCH THIS?"
My guess is #1 is going to win. It's always easier to pass the buck to someone elses government.
When they were bought, my interest rate went from a respectable 7.99% to 20%.
Why?
"It's an APR card, we can fuck around with it any way we want so long as we notify you in writing!"
I really doubt it made any significant contributions after the buyout. My card sits in a safe helping my credit rating while not seeing the light of day. They refused to lower the APR, so I simply stopped using it.
In other words, I'm done arguing. I've raised points you haven't answered and you know you cannot answer because you know you would be wrong. You're certainly not faraway from the tinfoil hat.
There's two things which stick out in my mind as being THE FUTURE:
1) Companies which allow consumers "a way around" -- of course "unintentionally" -- are going to sell more hardware than anyone else and they surely know it. You can't realisticly expect me to believe that all those DVD players "accidentally" had the region-change firmware features left in there. They coded it themselves, surely they knew people would eventually find it. It may not have been a corporate decision per se, but someone in development Had A Clue.
2) Brush up on your soldering skills: Game consoles already use modchips to play imports, backups, and outright pirate. The old catch-phrase "when they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" certainly applies. When they outlaw imports, only outlaws will have imports.
Heres the facts, since you are wordy and at the same time asking for concise points:
1) The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking. That office is allowed to do things like command the army, poop, and have a beer without congressional oversight. The President does not just sit around waiting for people to hand him papers to sign (unless his name is Clinton who obviously had far too much time on his hands).
2) FISA is a secret court. If they oversaw the program (or not), you and I are not going to know beyond what they choose to release. To claim knowledge of anything else is foolish. However, we do know that FISA did say it oversaw the program. If I told you Intel was going to release Pentium Penis Edition with more Penises than AMD's offering, would you believe my leak and start buying stock in silicon dong distributors or would you take it at the value that it might just be completely and utterly false? Now imagine if you confronted the President of Intel with such foolishness, do you think he might be angry?
3) What we do know is that the EFF doesn't have a clue when the program began (read the brief) and doesn't have a clue what was disclosed. They are working the (weak) angle that AT&T is a public company, which is about the same thing as saying that since a law firm is a public company, we can violate client-attorney privilege and peek into their dealings with whoever we want. It is accusing the administration of wrongdoing, but it's exactly that: Accusation. This is not a statement of fact -- there is no Intel Pentium Penis Edition. In fact, all of page 7 through god-knows-where is redacted from public examination in the brief and the EFF admits in the brief that it only "believes" that the administration overstepped it's bounds and about the actions it conducted.
4) Page 9 of the brief shows that FISA OK'd the program.
So what are you left with? A pile of speculation if you want to point fingers and at very least the idea that FISA said the program was OK and did not overstep the bounds of authority by any measure. Now, I challenge you to the same measure: Show me the facts which say that there was a clear violation of the law. In order to do so, I believe you will have to offer proof that FISA violated federal law in it's approval of the program. Just the facts, ma'am.
LOL PLAINTEXT PROTOCOL.
I treat people like children who speak like children and think like children.
I shall explain it to you as I would explain it to a child: The 9th Circuit will probably end up abducating (this means not passing judgement) because even if it were to persue the issue, the witnesses required for testimony would most likely be arrested, or not US citizens so not under compulsion to testify. At very least, they may have simply fled the US. On the other hand, they may try to subpoena the FISA judges or the AT&T people. However, since the FISA records would certainly be sealed (which also protects AT&T), as they have been since the inception of the court in 1978.
Yes, you're being treated like a child since you clearly were too young to remember when FISA was established... 1978. Bush has nothing to do with this, FISA has been around for almost 30 years and has just as much case law standing behind it.
The article as it is written wants to say, "AT&T tapped people without judicial oversight". This is not the case. The case is that FISA, which is a court, asked AT&T to tap people.
Since FISA is a secret (a better word would probably be "confidential") court, but a court none-the-less, the real case is if the venues that the EFF seeks to sue AT&T in are higher powers than FISA.
The party of power at the time of the purchase was the Democratic party.
I highly suggest voting for Joe Pebkac this election. He seems a bit naive, but can be trusted.
Then fire-up your sniffer of choice and post back here.