There was a strong pro-German movement in WWI. There were a lot of German Americans who identified with the homeland. We almost entered into WWI on the German side. To have Americans "support" Germany isn't the same as supporting the Nazis, and yes, they have the right to speak their minds without fear of reprisals. I can't do videos where I am (why is it that some blogger speaks his blog on youtube and it's considered more credible?).
Beyond those branches of the progressive movement, do you truly back free speech for even the right, and Republicans?
I have been a registered Republican. I'm not sure why you are bringing in party into this. What have I said that's incompatible with the Republican stance? I should be a bigoted prick if I'm a Republican? Maybe that's why I'm not longer a registered Republican. I'm more libertarian than anything else, and the government should go after *actions*, not thoughts. They didn't. They went after thoughts, because thoughts are scary. Someone could be having one. Right now. And we wouldn't know. Ban them. Ban them all.
And the vast majority of the communist party were non-revolutionary idealists who went to a few meetings to hear new ideas.
They were prosecuted by the US government for thought crimes. Nothing more. If you disagree, prove me wrong. Show me one person investigated by McCarthy in the trials who was noteworthy and performed any *action* of espionage. I wasn't around then, but everything that I've read about it made it seem like a witch-hunt designed to convict people by guilt by association. If that's wrong, correct me. If that's not provably wrong, then there's nothing you can say.
You distort the record.
McCarthy didn't like the Communist Party, so he threw the weight of the US government behind persecuting (not prosecuting) anyone who associated with them, without regard to any actions taken by those people for or against the US. I distort nothing. You are distorting the record. The investigations weren't into any alleged illegal actions by the Communist Party, but a witch hunt to persecute anyone associated with it. I've been a member of the Democratic Party, Republican Party and Libertarian Party. I'm not responsible for the source of funding for all of them. If one of them took payment from China, and received orders from China, why should I be persecuted because I signed a vote roll once for that party?
My issue is that the collections arm found me trivially (with the "secret" information gathered by the USPS, apparently), but the investigations arm never even tried to find me. They *knew* they had the wrong address, and still didn't look. And yes, I'm supposed to update the IRS with my address. With all the other things someone does while moving, it's easy to leave that one out. It'd be much easier if one could notify one department with a change of address and have every department updated, like a USPS change of address form. But when one of the reasons you are moving is that someone in your family is being harrassed, putting a notification in public record kinda defeats the purpose.
Publishing a factual account with the intent to harm is illegal in most countries, and some places in the US. It is the intent to harm that is the problem. The government intending to harm someone over assembly of speech is unconstitutional, even if they publish the account as a factual account.
Then elect Donald Trump. He'd be proud of it. 5+ bankruptcies and still campaigns to remove the ability of "poor" people to bankruptcy themselves out of a bad investment. It takes some serious chutzpah to use something so trivially and still work so hard to prevent others from using it.
On the plus side, someone's dirty laundry being aired as the precursor of a cover-up may backfire on the NSA. It would prove they are gathering all sorts of stuff to blackmail with, and the blackmail would be a bigger issue that the president's mistress or illegitimate son. So long as the president isn't having an affair with Hillary. That would be, well, unacceptable.
You said that those exercising free speech in a manner you don't like deserve no sympathy. I see an equivalence between your statements in defense of persecuting people for associating with "undesirables" and speaking and the person who indicated you have an anti-free-speech stance.
That you don't like your opinion re-stated in a more clear manner indicates a problem with your opinion, not the restatement of it.
That's why the anti-freedom always go after gays, drug users, or other "undesirables" when taking away speech. The government ruining someone's life over speech (even if jail time isn't involved) is an abridgment of free speech. That you didn't like the targeted group doesn't make it any more acceptable.
We've been told we don't have standing to sue, because we can't prove we've been harmed. So either the NSA will lie to Congress, or will say "yes" to the first time to someone they are spying on, then everyone in Congress can sue them, though it would more likely end up in a closed hearing to hear "secrets" about each other and decide what to do about it while excluding the public. Much like Congress gets socialized health care, and has for years, better than any proposal ever made for the rest of us, there are multiple sets of rules. One for the rulers, and one for everyone else.
At the very least, it confirms someone is being spied on, so more formal inquiries can start. That's not "unqualified" that could be a very shrewd move.
Parties break the Constitution. The intent was to have the President and Congress fighting each other. If congress passes a law the president doesn't like, it doesn't get enforced. If the judiciary or people don't like it, it fails in court. The default was to question every act by every other branch. Selective laws, and selective enforcement of them was a good thing. It makes for a smaller government. "We aren't enforcing those laws this year" is sufficient to make it so, and results in a smaller government with more power to the people.
But with parties, you get political appointements to judiciary and with the same party in President and Congress, you have insufficient contention between the two. Change the system to be less party-favorable, and many of our problems will decrease, possibly go away. But those with the power to do so are already in a party. So it won't happen until a single 3rd party exceeds the power of the other two. Or, "never".
No, he wasn't. He didn't aim for foreign spies (the ones that did real harm) but instead popular sympathizers. If you were a popular figure (musician, teacher, actor) and supported worker's rights, you were an enemy of the state. If you were a Russian national working on the atomic bomb and selling secrets to the Russians, that was someone else's problem. That's the real failure of McCarthy. He couldn't see the spies for the communists.
What is the president's clearance? If the president walked into the NSA and said "open all your files" would they? Could they? Since that's likely more than any one person could make it through, what about presidential aids? At this point, the only peaceful solution I see is if we elect a complete outsider, like Jesse Ventura, who then goes through agencies one at a time and pulls out their darkest secrets.
It is spying if it's "secret" data. I moved. I didn't make it a secret to the USPS. The IRS had an issue with a deduction and tried to reach me by sending me a letter. It bounced. After the legal minimum time, they made a summary judgment against me. The collections arm of the IRS asked for my current address, and was given it. The IRS could have reached me at any time, but the "secret" data was withheld from the disputes division so they had plausible deniability when I got the default judgment against me. But readily given to the collections arm when they asked. Who else knows or can get to the "secret" data? How can I find or edit the information about me? I've moved since then, and to another address not served by the USPS (as was the previous not served by the USPS, who still collected it, probably from friends and family who still correspond through postal email.
"Well, so long as you don't include GPS tracking of your cell phone, hacking your computers to read the contents, and human asset spying, then no we haven't targeted any congressmen for any 'spying' activity"
Funny that tapping the lines to read the content is "spying" but hacking into the personal computer and reading the contents while not in transit isn't spying. Nor does location tracking, or remote microphone activation of a cell phone count as spying. When you list the methods so explicitly you miss the truth. Much like Clinton correctly answered "no" to whether he had sexual relations, but because the question was framed so poorly, he was impeached for telling the truth.
Why start with a with an easily verifiable untruth?
Great, then show me a copy of it in its current form. My understanding is that there are discussions that might, one day, turn into TPP, but that at this moment, TPP doesn't exist. If it's to provably false. Do so, and link us a copy of the current TPP.
Only in the very very very narrow case of the law actually being unconstitutional and having been found so by SCOTUS- will the treaty law not usurp the existing law.
As treaties are rarely written like law, they are never treated as such. They are an agreement to a framework for laws, and alone, are unenforceable. Much like the Constitution is unenforceable as a law (except for a few specific clauses that are directly mimicked in law to remove this issue, like for treason), but is instead a framework the laws are written around.
Once the treaty is approved, the laws will be written to that effect, but a treaty is the Law of the Land, but not law.
We've found a number of "impossible" things to be possible, such as gene leakage cross-species (spliced genes ending up in unrelated but nearby plants, with unknown, untested results). How do you assure us of 100% safety for eternity when genes mutate and organisms evolve? Those types of unknowns are why slower is better. We aren't smart enough to know all the unintended consequences.
TPP doesn't exist. So it's hard to refute unsubstantiated speculation. TPP won't supercede any law. Perhaps you need to read up on treaties. They, along with the laws of the legislature and the Constitution, are the Law of the Land, but none is presented as "above" any other (probably from a limitation of the founders not predicting that legislators would deliberately pass laws they believed to be unconstitutional, if they had, they'd have modified the definition of "traitor" appropriately).
Interesting, have you researched this exhaustively or am I to expect the usual/. rigorous standard was used before you posted that?
Did you do any research before posting a contradiction? If not, then you are no better than him. If so, what link have you found between GMO and health issues?
No, it is parsed. Of course, computer illiterate people couldn't tell the difference.
Oh, so all the people who say "execute that script" or "execute that cron job" are all illiterate? After all, a batch file (what autorun is based off) is a script file, is it not?
When you can address the issues, rather than trying to twist them into insults, let me know. Though I have no doubt, you'll reply until the end of time, and if I ever stop replying, you'll dance around in your mom's basement whispering "I won" (whispering because Mom doesn't like when you shout).
ATMs should not run a proprietary garbage consumer OS Why on earth are you defending this utterly stupid practice?
I'm not defending the practice. I denounced it 15 years ago when most ATMs (as far as I could tell) used OS/2, and I have multiple photos on my phone of MS OS failures on industrial machines, some of which I upload to places to poke fun of people that use them. Such as Wells Fargo's ATM at Minnesota and Benson that was blue-screened once, and WinCE on the entertainment systems on an airline, rebooting the 200+ entertainment terminals when the system crashed. It's a stupid practice, and I would join you in denouncing it, if I weren't distracted by correcting your lies about the OSs. They are bad enough if you tell the truth, so why must you lie about them? It distracts from your message. This is your 30th (or so) post on this, and the first time you mentioned it. Why? Too busy defending your obvious lies? Just stop being an unethical ignorant liar, and people might listen to you Or was your change of topic as close to "You are right, I'm a liar, please accept my apology" as you can ever come, and I should have just ignored your reply, rather than taking your words seriously?
autorun.inf *is* executed. Usually, the point of it is to call other files, but you can run it without calling any other files at all. The file "run" in this case was *not* autorun, but may have been mis-stated by someone else as a file called by autorun.
It's common to set up systems to call other files via some method other than autorun. That lets the system be in charge of what's run. autorun is untrusted, but if you only run "atm_service.exe" upon detecting a new device, then you have appropriately abused security by obsurity, which is how the description of this hack was done. It was also stated that the defeating of the physical security required inside information, so that matches with a defeating of the obscuring factor.
autorun was not enabled. That makes your entire line of posts on here wrong, worthless and useless. That was the only point of correction I was trying to offer, as you kept insisting facts contradicting the reports.
Interestingly the dropping of autorun (as being on by default) wasn't too far off the dropping of extensions (as being on by default), so interesting that you pick the worst of both, and not the 2000 or 2010 versions of both. That lack of consistency tends to indicate a deliberate and irrational bias, not a genuine complaint.
Slashdot Mirror
'Cause nobody saw that movie because it sucked...
Beyond those branches of the progressive movement, do you truly back free speech for even the right, and Republicans?
I have been a registered Republican. I'm not sure why you are bringing in party into this. What have I said that's incompatible with the Republican stance? I should be a bigoted prick if I'm a Republican? Maybe that's why I'm not longer a registered Republican. I'm more libertarian than anything else, and the government should go after *actions*, not thoughts. They didn't. They went after thoughts, because thoughts are scary. Someone could be having one. Right now. And we wouldn't know. Ban them. Ban them all.
They were prosecuted by the US government for thought crimes. Nothing more. If you disagree, prove me wrong. Show me one person investigated by McCarthy in the trials who was noteworthy and performed any *action* of espionage. I wasn't around then, but everything that I've read about it made it seem like a witch-hunt designed to convict people by guilt by association. If that's wrong, correct me. If that's not provably wrong, then there's nothing you can say.
You distort the record.
McCarthy didn't like the Communist Party, so he threw the weight of the US government behind persecuting (not prosecuting) anyone who associated with them, without regard to any actions taken by those people for or against the US. I distort nothing. You are distorting the record. The investigations weren't into any alleged illegal actions by the Communist Party, but a witch hunt to persecute anyone associated with it. I've been a member of the Democratic Party, Republican Party and Libertarian Party. I'm not responsible for the source of funding for all of them. If one of them took payment from China, and received orders from China, why should I be persecuted because I signed a vote roll once for that party?
My issue is that the collections arm found me trivially (with the "secret" information gathered by the USPS, apparently), but the investigations arm never even tried to find me. They *knew* they had the wrong address, and still didn't look. And yes, I'm supposed to update the IRS with my address. With all the other things someone does while moving, it's easy to leave that one out. It'd be much easier if one could notify one department with a change of address and have every department updated, like a USPS change of address form. But when one of the reasons you are moving is that someone in your family is being harrassed, putting a notification in public record kinda defeats the purpose.
Publishing a factual account with the intent to harm is illegal in most countries, and some places in the US. It is the intent to harm that is the problem. The government intending to harm someone over assembly of speech is unconstitutional, even if they publish the account as a factual account.
So you are asserting that the checks and balances are being used as intended?
That it can be violated so often and so trivially indicates it is broken.
Then elect Donald Trump. He'd be proud of it. 5+ bankruptcies and still campaigns to remove the ability of "poor" people to bankruptcy themselves out of a bad investment. It takes some serious chutzpah to use something so trivially and still work so hard to prevent others from using it.
On the plus side, someone's dirty laundry being aired as the precursor of a cover-up may backfire on the NSA. It would prove they are gathering all sorts of stuff to blackmail with, and the blackmail would be a bigger issue that the president's mistress or illegitimate son. So long as the president isn't having an affair with Hillary. That would be, well, unacceptable.
You said that those exercising free speech in a manner you don't like deserve no sympathy. I see an equivalence between your statements in defense of persecuting people for associating with "undesirables" and speaking and the person who indicated you have an anti-free-speech stance.
That you don't like your opinion re-stated in a more clear manner indicates a problem with your opinion, not the restatement of it.
That's why the anti-freedom always go after gays, drug users, or other "undesirables" when taking away speech. The government ruining someone's life over speech (even if jail time isn't involved) is an abridgment of free speech. That you didn't like the targeted group doesn't make it any more acceptable.
So free speech should be crushed, if you don't like the message or messenger? I disagree.
We've been told we don't have standing to sue, because we can't prove we've been harmed. So either the NSA will lie to Congress, or will say "yes" to the first time to someone they are spying on, then everyone in Congress can sue them, though it would more likely end up in a closed hearing to hear "secrets" about each other and decide what to do about it while excluding the public. Much like Congress gets socialized health care, and has for years, better than any proposal ever made for the rest of us, there are multiple sets of rules. One for the rulers, and one for everyone else.
At the very least, it confirms someone is being spied on, so more formal inquiries can start. That's not "unqualified" that could be a very shrewd move.
Parties break the Constitution. The intent was to have the President and Congress fighting each other. If congress passes a law the president doesn't like, it doesn't get enforced. If the judiciary or people don't like it, it fails in court. The default was to question every act by every other branch. Selective laws, and selective enforcement of them was a good thing. It makes for a smaller government. "We aren't enforcing those laws this year" is sufficient to make it so, and results in a smaller government with more power to the people.
But with parties, you get political appointements to judiciary and with the same party in President and Congress, you have insufficient contention between the two. Change the system to be less party-favorable, and many of our problems will decrease, possibly go away. But those with the power to do so are already in a party. So it won't happen until a single 3rd party exceeds the power of the other two. Or, "never".
No, he wasn't. He didn't aim for foreign spies (the ones that did real harm) but instead popular sympathizers. If you were a popular figure (musician, teacher, actor) and supported worker's rights, you were an enemy of the state. If you were a Russian national working on the atomic bomb and selling secrets to the Russians, that was someone else's problem. That's the real failure of McCarthy. He couldn't see the spies for the communists.
What is the president's clearance? If the president walked into the NSA and said "open all your files" would they? Could they? Since that's likely more than any one person could make it through, what about presidential aids? At this point, the only peaceful solution I see is if we elect a complete outsider, like Jesse Ventura, who then goes through agencies one at a time and pulls out their darkest secrets.
It is spying if it's "secret" data. I moved. I didn't make it a secret to the USPS. The IRS had an issue with a deduction and tried to reach me by sending me a letter. It bounced. After the legal minimum time, they made a summary judgment against me. The collections arm of the IRS asked for my current address, and was given it. The IRS could have reached me at any time, but the "secret" data was withheld from the disputes division so they had plausible deniability when I got the default judgment against me. But readily given to the collections arm when they asked. Who else knows or can get to the "secret" data? How can I find or edit the information about me? I've moved since then, and to another address not served by the USPS (as was the previous not served by the USPS, who still collected it, probably from friends and family who still correspond through postal email.
"Well, so long as you don't include GPS tracking of your cell phone, hacking your computers to read the contents, and human asset spying, then no we haven't targeted any congressmen for any 'spying' activity"
Funny that tapping the lines to read the content is "spying" but hacking into the personal computer and reading the contents while not in transit isn't spying. Nor does location tracking, or remote microphone activation of a cell phone count as spying. When you list the methods so explicitly you miss the truth. Much like Clinton correctly answered "no" to whether he had sexual relations, but because the question was framed so poorly, he was impeached for telling the truth.
Why start with a with an easily verifiable untruth?
Great, then show me a copy of it in its current form. My understanding is that there are discussions that might, one day, turn into TPP, but that at this moment, TPP doesn't exist. If it's to provably false. Do so, and link us a copy of the current TPP.
Only in the very very very narrow case of the law actually being unconstitutional and having been found so by SCOTUS- will the treaty law not usurp the existing law.
As treaties are rarely written like law, they are never treated as such. They are an agreement to a framework for laws, and alone, are unenforceable. Much like the Constitution is unenforceable as a law (except for a few specific clauses that are directly mimicked in law to remove this issue, like for treason), but is instead a framework the laws are written around.
Once the treaty is approved, the laws will be written to that effect, but a treaty is the Law of the Land, but not law.
We've found a number of "impossible" things to be possible, such as gene leakage cross-species (spliced genes ending up in unrelated but nearby plants, with unknown, untested results). How do you assure us of 100% safety for eternity when genes mutate and organisms evolve? Those types of unknowns are why slower is better. We aren't smart enough to know all the unintended consequences.
TPP doesn't exist. So it's hard to refute unsubstantiated speculation. TPP won't supercede any law. Perhaps you need to read up on treaties. They, along with the laws of the legislature and the Constitution, are the Law of the Land, but none is presented as "above" any other (probably from a limitation of the founders not predicting that legislators would deliberately pass laws they believed to be unconstitutional, if they had, they'd have modified the definition of "traitor" appropriately).
So gene splicing is the same as natural selection (or unnatural selection)?
Interesting, have you researched this exhaustively or am I to expect the usual /. rigorous standard was used before you posted that?
Did you do any research before posting a contradiction? If not, then you are no better than him. If so, what link have you found between GMO and health issues?
No, it is parsed. Of course, computer illiterate people couldn't tell the difference.
Oh, so all the people who say "execute that script" or "execute that cron job" are all illiterate? After all, a batch file (what autorun is based off) is a script file, is it not?
When you can address the issues, rather than trying to twist them into insults, let me know. Though I have no doubt, you'll reply until the end of time, and if I ever stop replying, you'll dance around in your mom's basement whispering "I won" (whispering because Mom doesn't like when you shout).
ATMs should not run a proprietary garbage consumer OS Why on earth are you defending this utterly stupid practice?
I'm not defending the practice. I denounced it 15 years ago when most ATMs (as far as I could tell) used OS/2, and I have multiple photos on my phone of MS OS failures on industrial machines, some of which I upload to places to poke fun of people that use them. Such as Wells Fargo's ATM at Minnesota and Benson that was blue-screened once, and WinCE on the entertainment systems on an airline, rebooting the 200+ entertainment terminals when the system crashed. It's a stupid practice, and I would join you in denouncing it, if I weren't distracted by correcting your lies about the OSs. They are bad enough if you tell the truth, so why must you lie about them? It distracts from your message. This is your 30th (or so) post on this, and the first time you mentioned it. Why? Too busy defending your obvious lies? Just stop being an unethical ignorant liar, and people might listen to you Or was your change of topic as close to "You are right, I'm a liar, please accept my apology" as you can ever come, and I should have just ignored your reply, rather than taking your words seriously?
autorun.inf *is* executed. Usually, the point of it is to call other files, but you can run it without calling any other files at all. The file "run" in this case was *not* autorun, but may have been mis-stated by someone else as a file called by autorun.
It's common to set up systems to call other files via some method other than autorun. That lets the system be in charge of what's run. autorun is untrusted, but if you only run "atm_service.exe" upon detecting a new device, then you have appropriately abused security by obsurity, which is how the description of this hack was done. It was also stated that the defeating of the physical security required inside information, so that matches with a defeating of the obscuring factor.
autorun was not enabled. That makes your entire line of posts on here wrong, worthless and useless. That was the only point of correction I was trying to offer, as you kept insisting facts contradicting the reports.
Interestingly the dropping of autorun (as being on by default) wasn't too far off the dropping of extensions (as being on by default), so interesting that you pick the worst of both, and not the 2000 or 2010 versions of both. That lack of consistency tends to indicate a deliberate and irrational bias, not a genuine complaint.
When did they remove the tax deduction for medical expenses?