> The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.
Clinton was in the middle of a speech -- of a sentence! -- demanding that foreign governments allow their citizens the freedom of expression. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, can you at least appreciate the irony? Did she mean expression should only be protected if it is not disruptive to anybody?
And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).
You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).
I don't know what you mean when you say the police had 'every right', but if you mean legal right then I agree. But that is exactly the hypocrisy the whole fiasco makes apparent: when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!
If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.
Anyway, I think you have healthy skepticism and appreciate your desire not to jump to inaccurate conclusions. I just think the evidence is fairly convincing in this case... and it fits with my pre-conceived notion that governments are prone to hypocrisy:)
> He's a 911 "truther". [911truth.org] He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.
I understand your skepticism, but to dismiss him as a "nutjob" because he holds to theories that you and I find incredible is a rather black-and-white approach to assessing the credibility of the story. Dan Ellsberg is on the list in the link you posted; does that give you serious doubts about the validity of the Pentagon Papers?
> At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man
I agree, and I wish I could find more accounts of the event. It seems that Amy Goodman and Democracy Now was the most mainstream program to cover it. Though much of it was captured on video:
The internets have jaded me to the point that whenever I see someone written off as "a total nut-job" (as the GP did to McGovern) I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."
What I think we need (please point out if someone's taken a good stab at this!) is some similar standard for describing a profile that has good use of public key encryption [...]
But Facebook allows you to have a list of friends, which you can use to grant granular access control to information.
A decentralized, RESTful solution exists as FOAF+SSL.
What would be awesome is if popular social sites like Facebook would generate a FOAF file/Web ID for their users automatically. Then users of those sites would also be part of the open social graph (you know, the World Wide Web) and they would still look at the ads on facebook when they update their statuses or whatever you do on facebook. Win-win.
I don't especially mind the white on teal either. The painful part is the contrast when you scroll down to the comments section and it suddenly switches to black on white.
Whilst a company may hire an expert witness to investigate a case, once they are sworn in they must answer all questions in a completely honest manner, even if it is detrimental to their employers case
In the United States, all* witnesses must answer all questions in an honest manner after being sworn in. That's what the whole "sworn in" part is about.
But expert witness testimony is treated no differently than other evidence, and may be disregarded by the jury if they think it is not credible.
(*except the defendant, who is not required to incriminate herself.)
I doubt it. It depends on the Flash animation you want to view, of course, but YouTube videos don't even play anything close to smoothly on my 500MHz iBook.
Slashdot Mirror
> The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.
Clinton was in the middle of a speech -- of a sentence! -- demanding that foreign governments allow their citizens the freedom of expression. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, can you at least appreciate the irony? Did she mean expression should only be protected if it is not disruptive to anybody?
And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).
You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).
I don't know what you mean when you say the police had 'every right', but if you mean legal right then I agree. But that is exactly the hypocrisy the whole fiasco makes apparent: when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!
If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.
Anyway, I think you have healthy skepticism and appreciate your desire not to jump to inaccurate conclusions. I just think the evidence is fairly convincing in this case... and it fits with my pre-conceived notion that governments are prone to hypocrisy :)
> He's a 911 "truther". [911truth.org] He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.
I understand your skepticism, but to dismiss him as a "nutjob" because he holds to theories that you and I find incredible is a rather black-and-white approach to assessing the credibility of the story. Dan Ellsberg is on the list in the link you posted; does that give you serious doubts about the validity of the Pentagon Papers?
> At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man
I agree, and I wish I could find more accounts of the event. It seems that Amy Goodman and Democracy Now was the most mainstream program to cover it. Though much of it was captured on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18
Ray McGovern is also the guy who stood up to Rumsfeld in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw
The internets have jaded me to the point that whenever I see someone written off as "a total nut-job" (as the GP did to McGovern) I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."
That just shows how much more secure Schneier's site is than Reddit.
What I think we need (please point out if someone's taken a good stab at this!) is some similar standard for describing a profile that has good use of public key encryption [...]
It's called FOAF+SSL :)
But Facebook allows you to have a list of friends, which you can use to grant granular access control to information.
A decentralized, RESTful solution exists as FOAF+SSL.
What would be awesome is if popular social sites like Facebook would generate a FOAF file/Web ID for their users automatically. Then users of those sites would also be part of the open social graph (you know, the World Wide Web) and they would still look at the ads on facebook when they update their statuses or whatever you do on facebook. Win-win.
You mean: Piracy? Yaarrrrgh.
Thanks, that's really what I meant to ask. I found this thread on the IETF namedroppers list:
Re: Some notes on DNSCurve
Is DJB's DNSCurve a viable solution?
If I understand Aaron's post, version 1.4 and on will be released for Mac OS X.
The OS X changes were merged into the main svn branch on Oct. 23: http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/banshee/trunk/banshee
Are you going to vote for John McCain or are you a Marxist?
No. And I'm a Trotskyist, you insensitive clod.
Thanks for the recap there.
> It is ruled by a strong, centralized political apparatus.
Oh yeah, the centralized political apparatus. That one is pretty cool. But my favorite is the uneven bars.
I don't especially mind the white on teal either. The painful part is the contrast when you scroll down to the comments section and it suddenly switches to black on white.
> even if i cant do 100 m under 9 seconds.
Nobody can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres#Fastest_100_metres_runners
Bleeding-edge!
In the United States, all* witnesses must answer all questions in an honest manner after being sworn in. That's what the whole "sworn in" part is about.
But expert witness testimony is treated no differently than other evidence, and may be disregarded by the jury if they think it is not credible.
(*except the defendant, who is not required to incriminate herself.)
I once met a meta troll I liked.
How do you know it wasn't inorganic life?
Thank you!
d'oh: *no* such thing.
You know as well as I do that there is now such thing as irony.
> I use vi+latex to write my papers
Pfft. It's 2008 now, time to use a modern text editor and typesetter. I recommend vim+LaTeX.
Are there any statistics on how many Macs are being utilized as DNS servers?
My Mac mini is being used as a caching DNS server for my home network... but it's running djbdns.
I doubt it. It depends on the Flash animation you want to view, of course, but YouTube videos don't even play anything close to smoothly on my 500MHz iBook.