The letter openers did detect some Nazi spies in America.
They routinely changed the words in telegrams but left the meaning to catch those who were communicating in code. One example I remember was a telegram saying "Father has died." They changed that to "Father has deceased" before sending it on. They knew they had a spy when the reply telegram came back from the puzzled recipient asking "Has Father died or deceased?"
Congratulations on not understanding the myth. The myth is you can split an arrow from end to end on command like Robin Hood did in the myth. They proved that it is effectively impossible. No matter how good you are, you're at the mercy of the grain of the wood of the arrow. So it is impossible to split an arrow from end to end on command.
They used turned dry wood for the arrow shafts which has grain that is never perfectly parallel to the shaft. Back in the day of Robin Hood they would split straight green wood along the grain to produce the rough shafts and dress them afterwards, resulting in shafts with perfectly parallel wood grain. It can be done (and has been done -- ask at any archery club), just not with the items they used.
Look at the "make fire without matches" episode. Had they not known that millions of Boy Scouts had achieved it already, they would have concluded that making fire by rubbing sticks together is "busted" because they failed at every attempt even when using a power drill to drive the active stick!
Yep... and a judge decides what's reasonable, by issuing a warrant. The fourth amendment explicitly denies the executive branch permission to decide what's reasonable.
The last time I boarded an aircraft government agents operating under the authority of the Executive Branch searched my baggage and person. They did not have a warrant.
They did not have a warrant because it is deemed to be a "reasonable" search (and seizure if they find contraband). No warrant needed.
How about this: You show me the section which explicitly denies a right to privacy. Can't do it? Then you lose.
How about the Fourth Amendment? While it denies the government the ability to do "unreasonable" searches and seizures, it allows them to do all the REASONABLE searchin' and seizin' they want. That pretty much limits your privacy to whatever the administration in charge deems to be "reasonable." For instance there is no limit on how intrusive an inspector from Child Protective Services can be. None.
I understand what the report says... I guess I'm just at a loss to understand why the spend time putting these folks under surveillance,
Because the illegally re-entered a closed highly-secure military base after being denied entry. That's what security cops are there for. That's what the NSA security guards did anyway. If you are concerned about the surveillance of them before the came to NSA property then take that up with the Baltimore Police Department. The NSA security guards had nothing to do with that other than receive the report from the Baltimore Police Dept (BPD) and log it. You may not like it but nothing the BPD did was illegal either. They are allowed to observe groups demonstrating and be there to provide security if needed.
and how they gathered all the intel that they did...
Like I said, the documents say that was done by the BPD before the group got to NSA.
Why aren't they people protecting the country like they are supposed to be doing ?
Expelling trespassers from NSA property is what the NSA security guards are supposed to be doing. What else would you have them do if not provide security for NSA property?
Do you feel safer knowing that a dozen helium-ballon-wielding peace activists are under control now ???
Protest groups have a history of inflicting damage to government property. You only know this group was peaceful becasue they were observed. How can you determine if they are peaceful or not unless you observe their activities?
Yeah, um, I don't exactly know where "loony-land [apple.com]" is, but I'm pretty sure it's not on NSA property. Neither is the location under surveillance in the documents [google.com] (zoom out, it's Baltimore). Maybe you should re-read the portion from 0940 to 1155 hours ?
According to the documents from 0940 to 1155 the protestors were observed by the Baltimore Police Dept (the BIU) and that information was forwarded to the NSA Security Office because the protestors were headed toward NSA property. After 1155 all the activity takes place ON NSA PROPERTY, except for when they were expelled from NSA property to adjacent areas (such as the Shell gas station and the Route 32 contruction area) and then returned. All the items in the report dealing with the protestors before they arrived at NSA property come from observations of the Baltimore Police Dept -- not NSA Security Officers. The York Road location was just the staging area they used prior to their movement to NSA property. In no instance that I can find in the document does it list any activity by NSA Security Office off of NSA property other than observing them when they were sent away and they immediately returned. Please point it out if it does.
This is not a violation of anyone's rights. Federal security officers operating on a closed military base have have full rights to restrict access to the base at any time they want. If protestors violate that then they are trespassing. This is nothing new. This is the way closed military bases operate and have operated since the founding of the country (and before).
And the Baltimore Police Department was fully within its rights to inform the NSA Security Office that protestors were headed their way. There's nothing wrong with that.
Like this story says [rawstory.com], the NSA has released documents to federal court admitting to spying on domestic peace groups. Since I've walked in peace rallies, I know I am their target
Don't conflate two very different things. Being the target of the NSA's electronic intelligence appratus and being observed by NSA Security Guards while on NSA property during a protest is not the same thing. Being observed by NSA Security Guards while on NSA property during a protest is hardly "being spied on by NSA."
And most people would agree that searches of comunications being sent to or received from people with links to Al Qaeda are not unreasonable searches at all -- quite reasonable in fact.
The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned. According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.
That's so over the top hysterical as to be off into loony-land. From reading the documents you linked to the protestors (no matter what their affiliation) were ON NSA PROPERTY and of course the NSA security guards monitored their activities ON NSA PROPERTY and forwarded a copy of their activities to the Baltimore Police Dept and somehow you make that seem as if the NSA's Intelligence appratus was targetted on them. It wasn't. The NSA security Guards monitored the protest and forwarded a copy of their report to the local police as standard practice. There's nothing there. You're making another mountain out of an anthill.
Nowhere in that ammendment does it say "unless you're a terrorist or it's important to the security of the nation."
Um, yes it does. It's right there in the word "unreasonable." Only "unreasonable" searches are prohibited. "Reasonable" searches for "terrorists or if it's important to the security of the nation" are wholly allowed. Indeed this is how FDR justified the "Office of Censorship" that searched through all international mail, telegrams, and telephone calls (and even censored them if the Army decided they needed to be censored) before and during WWII.
Modifying the camera gives you true IR photos, something that a Photoshop simulation can't do. It's important to have the true IR if you are doing astrophotography or IR photography that depends on differentiation between IR and visible light such as distinguishing between foliage and water. Most of the IR effect that people think of as IR, such as foggy highlights, doesn't have much to do with IR anyway. It's due to the lack of the anti-halation coating on the IR film stock where the light isn't absorbed by the backing and bleeds over from the highlights into the shadows.
even though nuclear power releases less radioactive material than burning coal
Generally anyway, when things work as they are supposed to. But things happen. People worry about a catastrophic failure of a nuclear plant. A catastrophic failure of a coal-fired electric plant would result in minimal environmental damage and could be easily cleaned up. A catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant on the other hand...
You can name the list?.. I think things have changed since I looked at this feature, when it was introduced, and decided I wouldn't use it for anything important. Doesn't this make the whole article a nonsense though?!
Yes, you can name the list. And yes, you can limit who sees it. And yes, it makes the whole article nonsense. It not the first time people went all hysterical over an ant hill.
I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since:
a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.
They do! Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:" and it gives three choices: "Anyone who searches for me," "Only people I have invited with the 'Share this list' feature," or "Only me."
I don't get it. The sausage is for German cars, the sushi is for Japanese cars, and the baguette is for French cars. I would think American cars would be one of the ones mentioned -- a hamburger perhaps. Or maybe British, Italian, or Korean even. So what's the rectangle thing supposed to be? A Kit-Kat bar? I don't get it.
How about this simple change: In order for a patent to be valid, the entity (person or company) owning the patent must produce at least one (1) working, real, physical example of whatever it is that they are patenting.
That's the way the Patent Office actually worked between 1834 and 1880. In 1880 they dropped the requirement for a model to be submitted along with the patent application and made it "subject to request by the Patent Office if they thought the application was infeasible for some reason or another. The provision for the Patent Office to be able to request a model was even later dropped. So your idea has been used in the past -- a sort of "prior art" if you will.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1988 PREVOST LIBERTY MOTOR HOME, Measuring 40 Feet in Length, also known by Vehicle Identification Number 2P9M33403J, and Bearing Oregon License Plate H998173, Defendant
7 Fifths Old Grand-Dad Whiskey v. U.S., 158 F.2d 34
Pennsylvania v. $7,000 in U.S. Currency, 742 A.2d 711
Mayo v. Satan and His Staff 54 F.R.D. 282 This one is interesting because the judge threw out the case based on the fact that the plaintiff could not prove he served notice to the defendent (that being the aforenamed Mr. Satan and his staff in Hell).
Of course, promoting the GIMP is like climbing Everest with no equipment. I've seen people who were literally afraid to click on an icon labelled "GIMP".
The offensivness of that name keeps it off of many corporate workstations. No one wants a lawsuit for creating a hostile work environment.
And how many people under the age of 30 would make any connection between the words "surfing" and "safari" unless they stumbled across (or were forced to listen to) their dad's Beach Boys cassettes/LP's as a kid? I suspect that even for most people who are familiar with that one song, the name Safari is more likely to conjure up images of an African hunting expedition than a longboard.
And that's perfectly appropriate. There is no need to connect surfing with a safari. The idea of a safari is more appropriate to a browser than surfing anyway. With a browser you are actively exploring the web space like someone on safari would be exploring an uncharted region of the world. The idea of surfing is that you are being carried along on the experience, which to me is more indicative of something passive like surfing the TV channels with a remote. "Safari" is a better name.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's China and India on that list? Curious by their absence they are.
They routinely changed the words in telegrams but left the meaning to catch those who were communicating in code. One example I remember was a telegram saying "Father has died." They changed that to "Father has deceased" before sending it on. They knew they had a spy when the reply telegram came back from the puzzled recipient asking "Has Father died or deceased?"
They used turned dry wood for the arrow shafts which has grain that is never perfectly parallel to the shaft. Back in the day of Robin Hood they would split straight green wood along the grain to produce the rough shafts and dress them afterwards, resulting in shafts with perfectly parallel wood grain. It can be done (and has been done -- ask at any archery club), just not with the items they used.
Look at the "make fire without matches" episode. Had they not known that millions of Boy Scouts had achieved it already, they would have concluded that making fire by rubbing sticks together is "busted" because they failed at every attempt even when using a power drill to drive the active stick!
The last time I boarded an aircraft government agents operating under the authority of the Executive Branch searched my baggage and person. They did not have a warrant.
They did not have a warrant because it is deemed to be a "reasonable" search (and seizure if they find contraband). No warrant needed.
How about the Fourth Amendment? While it denies the government the ability to do "unreasonable" searches and seizures, it allows them to do all the REASONABLE searchin' and seizin' they want. That pretty much limits your privacy to whatever the administration in charge deems to be "reasonable." For instance there is no limit on how intrusive an inspector from Child Protective Services can be. None.
Because the illegally re-entered a closed highly-secure military base after being denied entry. That's what security cops are there for. That's what the NSA security guards did anyway. If you are concerned about the surveillance of them before the came to NSA property then take that up with the Baltimore Police Department. The NSA security guards had nothing to do with that other than receive the report from the Baltimore Police Dept (BPD) and log it. You may not like it but nothing the BPD did was illegal either. They are allowed to observe groups demonstrating and be there to provide security if needed.
and how they gathered all the intel that they did...
Like I said, the documents say that was done by the BPD before the group got to NSA.
Why aren't they people protecting the country like they are supposed to be doing ?
Expelling trespassers from NSA property is what the NSA security guards are supposed to be doing. What else would you have them do if not provide security for NSA property?
Do you feel safer knowing that a dozen helium-ballon-wielding peace activists are under control now ???
Protest groups have a history of inflicting damage to government property. You only know this group was peaceful becasue they were observed. How can you determine if they are peaceful or not unless you observe their activities?
For the ultimate loser, Google "goatse tattoo". It might be a photoshop though.
According to the documents from 0940 to 1155 the protestors were observed by the Baltimore Police Dept (the BIU) and that information was forwarded to the NSA Security Office because the protestors were headed toward NSA property. After 1155 all the activity takes place ON NSA PROPERTY, except for when they were expelled from NSA property to adjacent areas (such as the Shell gas station and the Route 32 contruction area) and then returned. All the items in the report dealing with the protestors before they arrived at NSA property come from observations of the Baltimore Police Dept -- not NSA Security Officers. The York Road location was just the staging area they used prior to their movement to NSA property. In no instance that I can find in the document does it list any activity by NSA Security Office off of NSA property other than observing them when they were sent away and they immediately returned. Please point it out if it does.
This is not a violation of anyone's rights. Federal security officers operating on a closed military base have have full rights to restrict access to the base at any time they want. If protestors violate that then they are trespassing. This is nothing new. This is the way closed military bases operate and have operated since the founding of the country (and before).
And the Baltimore Police Department was fully within its rights to inform the NSA Security Office that protestors were headed their way. There's nothing wrong with that.
Don't conflate two very different things. Being the target of the NSA's electronic intelligence appratus and being observed by NSA Security Guards while on NSA property during a protest is not the same thing. Being observed by NSA Security Guards while on NSA property during a protest is hardly "being spied on by NSA."
And most people would agree that searches of comunications being sent to or received from people with links to Al Qaeda are not unreasonable searches at all -- quite reasonable in fact.
That's so over the top hysterical as to be off into loony-land. From reading the documents you linked to the protestors (no matter what their affiliation) were ON NSA PROPERTY and of course the NSA security guards monitored their activities ON NSA PROPERTY and forwarded a copy of their activities to the Baltimore Police Dept and somehow you make that seem as if the NSA's Intelligence appratus was targetted on them. It wasn't. The NSA security Guards monitored the protest and forwarded a copy of their report to the local police as standard practice. There's nothing there. You're making another mountain out of an anthill.
Um, yes it does. It's right there in the word "unreasonable." Only "unreasonable" searches are prohibited. "Reasonable" searches for "terrorists or if it's important to the security of the nation" are wholly allowed. Indeed this is how FDR justified the "Office of Censorship" that searched through all international mail, telegrams, and telephone calls (and even censored them if the Army decided they needed to be censored) before and during WWII.
Modifying the camera gives you true IR photos, something that a Photoshop simulation can't do. It's important to have the true IR if you are doing astrophotography or IR photography that depends on differentiation between IR and visible light such as distinguishing between foliage and water. Most of the IR effect that people think of as IR, such as foggy highlights, doesn't have much to do with IR anyway. It's due to the lack of the anti-halation coating on the IR film stock where the light isn't absorbed by the backing and bleeds over from the highlights into the shadows.
The most common digital camera that is modified for IR is the Canon Rebel. Here's a web page with details.
Generally anyway, when things work as they are supposed to. But things happen. People worry about a catastrophic failure of a nuclear plant. A catastrophic failure of a coal-fired electric plant would result in minimal environmental damage and could be easily cleaned up. A catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant on the other hand ...
Yes, you can name the list. And yes, you can limit who sees it. And yes, it makes the whole article nonsense. It not the first time people went all hysterical over an ant hill.
a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.
They do! Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:" and it gives three choices: "Anyone who searches for me," "Only people I have invited with the 'Share this list' feature," or "Only me."
That's what juries are for.
Ahh, OK. Thanks. I'll have to eat at Ikea more I guess. I didn't get the connection.
I don't get it. The sausage is for German cars, the sushi is for Japanese cars, and the baguette is for French cars. I would think American cars would be one of the ones mentioned -- a hamburger perhaps. Or maybe British, Italian, or Korean even. So what's the rectangle thing supposed to be? A Kit-Kat bar? I don't get it.
That's the way the Patent Office actually worked between 1834 and 1880. In 1880 they dropped the requirement for a model to be submitted along with the patent application and made it "subject to request by the Patent Office if they thought the application was infeasible for some reason or another. The provision for the Patent Office to be able to request a model was even later dropped. So your idea has been used in the past -- a sort of "prior art" if you will.
One Hundred & Ninety-Nine Barrels of Whiskey v. United States, 94 U.S. 86
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1988 PREVOST LIBERTY MOTOR HOME, Measuring 40 Feet in Length, also known by Vehicle Identification Number 2P9M33403J, and Bearing Oregon License Plate H998173, Defendant
7 Fifths Old Grand-Dad Whiskey v. U.S., 158 F.2d 34
Pennsylvania v. $7,000 in U.S. Currency, 742 A.2d 711
Mayo v. Satan and His Staff 54 F.R.D. 282 This one is interesting because the judge threw out the case based on the fact that the plaintiff could not prove he served notice to the defendent (that being the aforenamed Mr. Satan and his staff in Hell).
PowerLeap, maker of Intel CPU upgrade kits, should sue.
The offensivness of that name keeps it off of many corporate workstations. No one wants a lawsuit for creating a hostile work environment.
And that's perfectly appropriate. There is no need to connect surfing with a safari. The idea of a safari is more appropriate to a browser than surfing anyway. With a browser you are actively exploring the web space like someone on safari would be exploring an uncharted region of the world. The idea of surfing is that you are being carried along on the experience, which to me is more indicative of something passive like surfing the TV channels with a remote. "Safari" is a better name.