Say for example they are trying to save some innocent civilians which the US is trying to kill, the NSA tapping their phone lines would compromise that.
The US tries not to kill innocent civilians. Sure it happens, but not for lack of trying.
Otherwise, we'd still be doing WW2-style massed car[et bombing, and not have spent so much money on guided missile/smart weapon systems.
if they can't relax with some phone sex because they know they're being listened in on, they might be too stressed to do their good work.
As if we're the only countries that have ELINT capabilities...
Anyway: if you want privacy, use encryption.
Provide me with a damn good reason why the NSA needs to be eavesdropping on DWB or else fuck off
Doctors can't be spies, agents, traitors, dupes, victims of blackmail, misguided do-gooders?
3: free of deceit [syn: {guileless}, {transparent}]
4: easily understood or seen through (because of a lack of subtlety); "a transparent explanation"; "a transparent lie"
Hiding behind pseudonyms is, by definition, not transparent, and is an invitation to opaque Mantanmoreland-like sock puppetry.
Judd Bagley openly associates with the editors who tried to subject me to police harassment. Given that, the intentions he has in outing editors should be clear.
And if you knew who the identities of the people who were doing this to you, you could point the police back at them.
The neurological process that directs thought, through fingers, into written symbols is a highly sophisticated one. Several academic studies have found that good handwriting skills at a young age can help children express their thoughts better -- a lifelong benefit.
kids tend to respond to sales pitches cynically and negatively
Sure, if they're crass.
But lots of companies have for decades been researching how to convince young skulls full of mush to whine/bleat/demand that their parents buy stuff for them.
The memory management, as an example, was definitely theft from DEC.
Should surprise no one. He did, after all, work on Starlet, in the 1980s there were many books written on VMS internals, and the source code isn't even that difficult to get.
(As an aside: at a VMS tech conference in 2002, we were told by a VMS engineer that Itanium's memory management was purposefully designed to be like that of the VAX.)
according to DEC personnel of that era, he was very much a technical lead, if not the technical lead.
I used to work with someone who was there at the time.
More piffle. He was part of a technical design committee that worked on the FIFTH iteration of the OS/hardware combo, and left the project before v1.0.
Compare that to when I was on site as a consultant at a very large investment bank last year - they had personal wireless access points and laptops all over company network.
With lax internal controls like that, is it any wonder that so many banks have collapsed?
I thought this was rather bizarre because the Tech Support staff had some very bright people, and because many of the Tech Support people understood how those particular systems worked,
Maybe "they" want knowledgeable people on the front line.
I don't think so. They issue RFPs that specify capabilities, and then let LM and Boeing go and design and build test craft. Then NASA validates the mock-ups.
Congress said, "Oxygenate your fuel", so the oil companies oxygenated their fuel. Now they're mad at the oil companies for obeying the law.
orbital photovoltaic
Orbital photovoltaics are one of the least practical ideas ever conceived. There's too much (man-made and natural) junk up there to ever make it workable. Not to mention the cost of boosting all that mass into orbit, and the atmospheric heating and resultant climate change.
fusion
Things that make REALLY BIG BOMBS tend to be difficult to control. Don't hold your breath waiting for economically-viable fusion power.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that you don't know what a misguided do-gooder is?
Say for example they are trying to save some innocent civilians which the US is trying to kill, the NSA tapping their phone lines would compromise that.
The US tries not to kill innocent civilians. Sure it happens, but not for lack of trying.
Otherwise, we'd still be doing WW2-style massed car[et bombing, and not have spent so much money on guided missile/smart weapon systems.
if they can't relax with some phone sex because they know they're being listened in on, they might be too stressed to do their good work.
As if we're the only countries that have ELINT capabilities...
Anyway: if you want privacy, use encryption.
Provide me with a damn good reason why the NSA needs to be eavesdropping on DWB or else fuck off
Doctors can't be spies, agents, traitors, dupes, victims of blackmail, misguided do-gooders?
Sure they can.
Surveying them is unforgivable interference with humanitarian aid.
I call bullshit, unless you provide a damn good reason why clandestine electronic eavesdropping on DWB prevents them from doing their work.
Common sense would dictate that while it might be impossible to never listen in on a US person's phone calls, you would not continually do it.
So what you're saying is that it's impossible for US Persons to break COMSEC protocols during pillow talk?
One word: Honeytrap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(espionage)#Sex.2C_honeypots_and_recruitment
Yet the NSA did.
Good for them.
restricts there
Where?
annal probing into you.
What are they going to do? Excise a bit of my thigh bone and count my tree rings?
Or do you mean:
In the US we stop learning to spell after 6 years at 5 and 6 letter words.
You apparently didn't learn grammar and literate composition, either.
Anyway, one of the words on my 4th graders' current spelling list is opportunities. Significantly longer than 6 letters.
Increased news coverage of child molesters has made parents afraid to let their kids play outside.
The US has it's problems, but it's not insane. Yet...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053863/Park-attendants-ordered-interrogate-adults-spotted-children.html
Did that really ever work?
Works for my kids:
The identity of the author, if Wikipedia is doing its job right,
Identity-of-author is part and parcel of transparency.
On one hand, it makes sock puppetry difficult. OTOH, it exposes those who are maliciously attacking/slandering those who try to expose impropriety.
Poetically: sunshine pierces the darkness, driving away those who do evil.
should be irrelevant to your ability to judge the quality of the information presented.
But if I'm not an expert in the field, or have no first-hand knowledge of the topic, how can I judge the quality of the information?
making the process transparent
Like circling the wagons around Mantanmoreland?
Transparency means, among other things:
Hiding behind pseudonyms is, by definition, not transparent, and is an invitation to opaque Mantanmoreland-like sock puppetry.
Judd Bagley openly associates with the editors who tried to subject me to police harassment. Given that, the intentions he has in outing editors should be clear.
And if you knew who the identities of the people who were doing this to you, you could point the police back at them.
made active efforts to out the identities of numerous Wikipedia editors
Good for them! Anonymity is the antithesis of trustworthiness.
I've been using a computer since I was a kid, 25 odd years now. I can't write. I don't believe I ever really learned it.
That's pathetic. Your parents and grammar school teachers should be caned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001475_pf.html
Or the reporter misquoted him...
1 Atmosphere = 14.7 psi.
Pressure increases 1A every 33 feet
36,000 / 33 = 1091 Atmospheres.
1091 * 14.7 = 16038 psi
16,000 ~= 15000
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/water/pressure1.htm
And that is why I won't really consider any branch. Psychological de-sensitization
Except for all that Obama'08 brainwashing...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628151938431340184&ei=sM3mSMPgMoWirALtmrWnCw&q=obama+hope+change+children&vt=lf&hl=en
those tubes can get clogged up
Except that Ted Stevens never said that...
kids tend to respond to sales pitches cynically and negatively
Sure, if they're crass.
But lots of companies have for decades been researching how to convince young skulls full of mush to whine/bleat/demand that their parents buy stuff for them.
The memory management, as an example, was definitely theft from DEC.
Should surprise no one. He did, after all, work on Starlet, in the 1980s there were many books written on VMS internals, and the source code isn't even that difficult to get.
(As an aside: at a VMS tech conference in 2002, we were told by a VMS engineer that Itanium's memory management was purposefully designed to be like that of the VAX.)
according to DEC personnel of that era, he was very much a technical lead, if not the technical lead.
I used to work with someone who was there at the time.
built by David Cutler, on a VMS foundation
What piffle. He took ideas from VMS, that's all.
Cutler was one of the core authors of VMS
More piffle. He was part of a technical design committee that worked on the FIFTH iteration of the OS/hardware combo, and left the project before v1.0.
Compare that to when I was on site as a consultant at a very large investment bank last year - they had personal wireless access points and laptops all over company network.
With lax internal controls like that, is it any wonder that so many banks have collapsed?
I thought this was rather bizarre because the Tech Support staff had some very bright people, and because many of the Tech Support people understood how those particular systems worked,
Maybe "they" want knowledgeable people on the front line.
They have designs
I don't think so. They issue RFPs that specify capabilities, and then let LM and Boeing go and design and build test craft. Then NASA validates the mock-ups.
Fusion makes REALLY BIG BOMBS only in that it's used to kick-start a fission reaction.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
No.
The pressure from the fission bomb is used to fuse together the hydrogen atoms. That's what creates the megaton booms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb
You have to work hard to keep a fusion reactor ... going
Doesn't matter. It's the incredible heat and pressure needed to create the fusion which are uneconomical to control.
Or it would be like Ford motors hiring the ex-volvo designer to redesign their cars. They didn't have the capability so they hired someone who did.
The operative word is capability. Are you capable of designing and building a rocket or car?
Current Ford employees can and do design cars, and other of it's employees build them in really big factories.
Does NASA employee rocket designers and builders? No. (Well, it does employ rocket scientists to verify/validate it's contractors' designs.)
Thus, the US doesn't have a publicly-owned launch capability.
"publicly owned space launch capability"
Buying kit from someone else does not mean that you have the capability to make that kit.
sulfur-spewing
Sulfur doesn't cause mental retardation...
with toxic MTBE
Congress said, "Oxygenate your fuel", so the oil companies oxygenated their fuel. Now they're mad at the oil companies for obeying the law.
orbital photovoltaic
Orbital photovoltaics are one of the least practical ideas ever conceived. There's too much (man-made and natural) junk up there to ever make it workable. Not to mention the cost of boosting all that mass into orbit, and the atmospheric heating and resultant climate change.
fusion
Things that make REALLY BIG BOMBS tend to be difficult to control. Don't hold your breath waiting for economically-viable fusion power.