A pardon is within the Queen's power and less politically controversial. I am not sure offhand whether dropping the charges would be within the Queen's power and it would also be more likely to step on toes within the bar or bench.
The problem is that the NSA has been lying to everyone with doublespeak--asking permission for X warrants when the warrants really covered umpteen billion warrants, things like that. So while this press release categorically denies "that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries[,]" it could still be truthful even if any ONE of the facts in that list is false.
For example, "known" flawed random number generator--suppose the NSA knew it was flawed and RSA didn't. This denial does not contradict that.
In the context of a topic where companies and government agencies are lying regularly by using careful diction, even a "strong" "categorical" denial has to eliminate the possibility of loopholes in order for it to be believable.
Not to be all conspiratorial, but I think it's been a while now since politicians were really in charge of this sort of thing.
They are and they aren't. They rarely get involved--but if they really decide to get involved, they can do just about anything they want to the NSA. The problem is that they're not usually motivated to get involved. That's why having the tech lobby on the non-NSA side is important--even if you're in favor of lots of NSA data collection, you need countervailing forces to keep it in check.
he needs to understand that pervasive surveillance is also bad for business.
What makes you think he has a choice? I mean, it's not like we have the kind of robust system in place that would effectively prevent blackmail of political leaders.
Assuming (and it's a big assumption) that it is true, there are several reasons it might not have come up until now:
(1) The judicial review of the constitutionality of the programs means they will have to disclose some serious stuff they've prevented or else they're out of a job.
(2) If the "report" is accurate, which seems unlikely (because it would be a really STUPID thing for China to do unless there is a war), you're talking about an act of war committed by one nuclear power on another. That's not something you dick around with by sharing it with the public, especially not without vetting and appropriate spin from the Chain of Command, all the way up to POTUS.
you just set the precedent and people you never expected will inherit powers to draw lines you never wanted.
This is actually the problem with out intelligence community's overreach right now. It's not that they're bad guys, or that there are bad people in charge--most of them are pretty good--the problem is a combination of systemic bias in an overcriminalized world (i.e. mission creep by government crimefighters when our system has too many laws) and the fact that we can't be sure that the guy who gets the power tomorrow will also be a good guy.
He murdered his uncle for political reasons and doesn't want everyone to know about it, that kind of behaviour predates 1984 by several millennia.
Actually, we don't really know that. We are too far removed from it. It could also be that somebody else had his uncle murdered to show him what could happen to him, or to punish him, or otherwise keep him in line. The Uncle would be an obvious target for that kind of move.
No, it should be higher than that--you have to multiply it enough that it discourages the behavior. That's how legal penalties work, even in a consequentialist rather than retributivist model. That means you have to take into account the probability of getting caught, which is low.
We don't want no evil Canadian paraplegic terrorist to assault our defenseless citizens with kind words.
Meh. Canadian medical privacy is kind of ridiculously done--they put diagnosis (rather than just prescription) on the slips they give the pharmacist, which means for most of small-town Canada, there is near-zero medical privacy. (These are places where the post office knows everyone by name.)
Pro se means that it was done by the individual rather than by a lawyer for the individual. Usually that means by someone without a legal education, so they often do small things wrong (e.g. arial font) or make arguments that have little chance of winning. It is a tricky job to try and deal with pleadings, complaints, or other documents filed by pro se individuals because the court has to find the line in terms of how far out of its way it should go to interpret their arguments to see if there's a legal argument buried somewhere in there.
Of course someone should look past the font in a pro se piece, but skepticism because of the font is understandable and shouldn't really disqualify someone from evaluating the paper. That being said, once you have a public admission of skepticism in the font it undermines confidence in the judicial process (i.e. looks bad), even though it's just being honest and human, so maybe reassignment on appeal is reasonable.
We fight over square miles, and here are whole worlds beyond number, so common that your eye cannot put one from the other.
While I appreciate the sentiment, the fact is those other worlds beyond number are REALLY hard to reach, and not everyone appreciates the sentiment.
It's like we're in a playground with a lot of bullies and a limited supply of goods, and every year there are more of us and more bullies, but not any more goods--we just occasionally figure out how to use them better. It doesn't matter how big the world is, or how many worlds there are, if we can't breach the walls of our playground and make it across the interstate to the next one.
We should try, of course. But here we are, in the meantime.
"I see The imminent death of twenty thousand men, That for a fantasy and trick of fame Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, Which is not tomb enough and continent To hide the slain"
GM will continue to survive until it is forced to compete in real capitalism.
Never. Going. To. Happen.
GM will compete and be productive, but it will also be propped up by DC for decades beyond its viable life because it is a critical American manufacturer in terms of raw industrial output. And raw industrial output wins almost any prolonged non-WMD war.
Actually, the movement toward computing has tremendously reduced the average medical knowledge in the country. Good secretaries in doctor's offices used to know a huge amount about the doctor's field of medicine because they had to transcribe dictation all the time. Today, they know how to book appointments, but tend to know much less about medicine. (And be less helpful to patients who spend hours in the waiting room).
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
Bullshit. Our society is designed to have too many laws so that police and prosecutors have broad discretion in how to punish people when they do things that are harmful, or that society needs them not to do.
A police officer's job is not to enforce every law. It is to enforce laws that need enforcing and to do it sensibly. It is to use the law *with discretion* to make communities safer. It is *not* to write tickets every time someone breaks a law.
Well if the court system is corrupt or sloppy enough that they can convict you even if you're innocent,
What do you mean, "if?"
Yes, most people who go to court are guilty. But once they decide you are guilty, it doesn't usually matter if you're innocent. In fact, it's even worse if you're innocent--then the system blackmails you into lying. (I.e. when an innocent person takes a plea bargain, they have to swear that they actually committed the crime.)
Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
Time is money. Time passes as new information is acquired or transmitted. Shorter time intervals will therefore always be desirable for making a market more efficient and to accurately reflect reality. The more time it takes to buy and sell, the more risk there is in buying or holding stock, because the stock is less liquid and its value can change dramatically in very little time.
- Flop sweating their asses off - Furiously searching their email for that ass-covering memo to their boss about the pricey "redundant this" or "redundant that" that the boss was too cheap to get - Wondering if there is enough alcohol on earth for what they will need later tonight
This is the stock exchange. "Redundant this" and "Redundant that" were in the budget, and alcohol is plentiful.
But they were not criminals, the lied to the instructor, so the instuctor was training liars not criminals.
Lies to fedgov are not protected by the first amendment, and fedgov makes job applicants waive their rights anyway. It is a crime to lie on a security clearance application, and a crime to lie to a federal agent. Helping someone lie to a federal agent is therefore also a crime.
That is exactly why costs are going up. A bank knows when they make the student loan, that it can't be dispensed in bankruptcy. It is a form of modern day slavery. Make those loans subject to bankruptcy and the prices will eventually drop. If not, when you get out of school, many places are happy to give you credit cards. Take them and use those little checks to pay down or pay off the student loans. Those do go away in bankruptcy.
It's not a form of modern-day slavery. Modern-day slavery sucks and is real and terrible and hurts tens of thousands of people in the United States alone every year.
Bankruptcy doesn't really work for student loans because they *are* student loans--the idea is that students are *supposed* to be bankrupt and work their way up to having money, so regular bankruptcy doesn't make a lot of sense for the government to allow. You could do some sort of compromise system, though, making them dischargable based on the number of years someone is out of school--right now there's forgiveness 20 years out without going through bankruptcy on new grad plus loans, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
A pardon is within the Queen's power and less politically controversial. I am not sure offhand whether dropping the charges would be within the Queen's power and it would also be more likely to step on toes within the bar or bench.
The problem is that the NSA has been lying to everyone with doublespeak--asking permission for X warrants when the warrants really covered umpteen billion warrants, things like that. So while this press release categorically denies "that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries[,]" it could still be truthful even if any ONE of the facts in that list is false.
For example, "known" flawed random number generator--suppose the NSA knew it was flawed and RSA didn't. This denial does not contradict that.
In the context of a topic where companies and government agencies are lying regularly by using careful diction, even a "strong" "categorical" denial has to eliminate the possibility of loopholes in order for it to be believable.
The Sartorial Tragedy! We must send a tuxedo.
Not to be all conspiratorial, but I think it's been a while now since politicians were really in charge of this sort of thing.
They are and they aren't. They rarely get involved--but if they really decide to get involved, they can do just about anything they want to the NSA. The problem is that they're not usually motivated to get involved. That's why having the tech lobby on the non-NSA side is important--even if you're in favor of lots of NSA data collection, you need countervailing forces to keep it in check.
he needs to understand that pervasive surveillance is also bad for business.
What makes you think he has a choice? I mean, it's not like we have the kind of robust system in place that would effectively prevent blackmail of political leaders.
Assuming (and it's a big assumption) that it is true, there are several reasons it might not have come up until now:
(1) The judicial review of the constitutionality of the programs means they will have to disclose some serious stuff they've prevented or else they're out of a job.
(2) If the "report" is accurate, which seems unlikely (because it would be a really STUPID thing for China to do unless there is a war), you're talking about an act of war committed by one nuclear power on another. That's not something you dick around with by sharing it with the public, especially not without vetting and appropriate spin from the Chain of Command, all the way up to POTUS.
you just set the precedent and people you never expected will inherit powers to draw lines you never wanted.
This is actually the problem with out intelligence community's overreach right now. It's not that they're bad guys, or that there are bad people in charge--most of them are pretty good--the problem is a combination of systemic bias in an overcriminalized world (i.e. mission creep by government crimefighters when our system has too many laws) and the fact that we can't be sure that the guy who gets the power tomorrow will also be a good guy.
Because it would cause a backlash with their viewers. It certainly wouldnt get them arrested, though it might get them fired.
Surely you see the difference between the two?
Yup. If you get arrested, you get government healthcare.
Putin. Kaderov. Omar al-Bashir. To name three in power at the moment.
He murdered his uncle for political reasons and doesn't want everyone to know about it, that kind of behaviour predates 1984 by several millennia.
Actually, we don't really know that. We are too far removed from it. It could also be that somebody else had his uncle murdered to show him what could happen to him, or to punish him, or otherwise keep him in line. The Uncle would be an obvious target for that kind of move.
No, it should be higher than that--you have to multiply it enough that it discourages the behavior. That's how legal penalties work, even in a consequentialist rather than retributivist model. That means you have to take into account the probability of getting caught, which is low.
We don't want no evil Canadian paraplegic terrorist to assault our defenseless citizens with kind words.
Meh. Canadian medical privacy is kind of ridiculously done--they put diagnosis (rather than just prescription) on the slips they give the pharmacist, which means for most of small-town Canada, there is near-zero medical privacy. (These are places where the post office knows everyone by name.)
Pro se means that it was done by the individual rather than by a lawyer for the individual. Usually that means by someone without a legal education, so they often do small things wrong (e.g. arial font) or make arguments that have little chance of winning. It is a tricky job to try and deal with pleadings, complaints, or other documents filed by pro se individuals because the court has to find the line in terms of how far out of its way it should go to interpret their arguments to see if there's a legal argument buried somewhere in there.
Of course someone should look past the font in a pro se piece, but skepticism because of the font is understandable and shouldn't really disqualify someone from evaluating the paper. That being said, once you have a public admission of skepticism in the font it undermines confidence in the judicial process (i.e. looks bad), even though it's just being honest and human, so maybe reassignment on appeal is reasonable.
We fight over square miles, and here are whole worlds beyond number, so common that your eye cannot put one from the other.
While I appreciate the sentiment, the fact is those other worlds beyond number are REALLY hard to reach, and not everyone appreciates the sentiment.
It's like we're in a playground with a lot of bullies and a limited supply of goods, and every year there are more of us and more bullies, but not any more goods--we just occasionally figure out how to use them better. It doesn't matter how big the world is, or how many worlds there are, if we can't breach the walls of our playground and make it across the interstate to the next one.
We should try, of course. But here we are, in the meantime.
"I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That for a fantasy and trick of fame
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain"
Hamlet, Act IV, Scene 4.
GM will continue to survive until it is forced to compete in real capitalism.
Never. Going. To. Happen.
GM will compete and be productive, but it will also be propped up by DC for decades beyond its viable life because it is a critical American manufacturer in terms of raw industrial output. And raw industrial output wins almost any prolonged non-WMD war.
> the simple solution is not to be a bad person.
They're putting up *ALL* booking photos. Even those who are innocent. Your solution would work if nobody was ever wrongly arrested.
And if the consequences to sharing the arrests of the guilty were always commensurate to the alleged crime.
Actually, the movement toward computing has tremendously reduced the average medical knowledge in the country. Good secretaries in doctor's offices used to know a huge amount about the doctor's field of medicine because they had to transcribe dictation all the time. Today, they know how to book appointments, but tend to know much less about medicine. (And be less helpful to patients who spend hours in the waiting room).
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
Bullshit. Our society is designed to have too many laws so that police and prosecutors have broad discretion in how to punish people when they do things that are harmful, or that society needs them not to do.
A police officer's job is not to enforce every law. It is to enforce laws that need enforcing and to do it sensibly. It is to use the law *with discretion* to make communities safer. It is *not* to write tickets every time someone breaks a law.
Well if the court system is corrupt or sloppy enough that they can convict you even if you're innocent,
What do you mean, "if?"
Yes, most people who go to court are guilty. But once they decide you are guilty, it doesn't usually matter if you're innocent. In fact, it's even worse if you're innocent--then the system blackmails you into lying. (I.e. when an innocent person takes a plea bargain, they have to swear that they actually committed the crime.)
Hacking websites = terrorism now ?
Everything is terrorism now. See, e.g., "terroristic threatening."
Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
Time is money. Time passes as new information is acquired or transmitted. Shorter time intervals will therefore always be desirable for making a market more efficient and to accurately reflect reality. The more time it takes to buy and sell, the more risk there is in buying or holding stock, because the stock is less liquid and its value can change dramatically in very little time.
- Flop sweating their asses off
- Furiously searching their email for that ass-covering memo to their boss about the pricey "redundant this" or "redundant that" that the boss was too cheap to get
- Wondering if there is enough alcohol on earth for what they will need later tonight
This is the stock exchange. "Redundant this" and "Redundant that" were in the budget, and alcohol is plentiful.
It depends on the job interview. If the person interviewing you is a federal agent, it's a crime.
But they were not criminals, the lied to the instructor, so the instuctor was training liars not criminals.
Lies to fedgov are not protected by the first amendment, and fedgov makes job applicants waive their rights anyway. It is a crime to lie on a security clearance application, and a crime to lie to a federal agent. Helping someone lie to a federal agent is therefore also a crime.
That is exactly why costs are going up. A bank knows when they make the student loan, that it can't be dispensed in bankruptcy. It is a form of modern day slavery. Make those loans subject to bankruptcy and the prices will eventually drop. If not, when you get out of school, many places are happy to give you credit cards. Take them and use those little checks to pay down or pay off the student loans. Those do go away in bankruptcy.
It's not a form of modern-day slavery. Modern-day slavery sucks and is real and terrible and hurts tens of thousands of people in the United States alone every year.
Bankruptcy doesn't really work for student loans because they *are* student loans--the idea is that students are *supposed* to be bankrupt and work their way up to having money, so regular bankruptcy doesn't make a lot of sense for the government to allow. You could do some sort of compromise system, though, making them dischargable based on the number of years someone is out of school--right now there's forgiveness 20 years out without going through bankruptcy on new grad plus loans, for example.