You want to know something more sad, I caught a couple of people trying to break into a car in front of a friends house. I pulled up just in time to see one of them smash a window then they took off running when they noticed my headlights. I followed them to a house down the road a bit and called the cops. When I showed them the car they broke into and pointed out the house, they said they knew it was a meth/heroine house and they arrest a lot of people who frequent there. I asked them why they let it happen and they asked me what do I think they could do about it.
Well, eventually someone they arrested a while back listed it as their address and the parole/probation officer stopped in for a surprise inspection of their charge's living accommodations. They discovered a crap load of drugs and paraphernalia sitting right in the open and called the cops in. There was a big write up in the paper but no one ever got charged for anything above a misdemeanor.
Which makes you wonder if the information on the NSA crap isn't being passed to the DEA. The entire reason the FISA laws were created is because after the courts concluded wire taping phones for domestic law enforcement violated the US constitution and investigators needed to get warrants, they would then go to the CIA and other national security agencies and have them tap the phones without a warrant and pass the information back to them.
So it isn't like it hasn't happened in the past. The Patriot Act has been used on drug enforcement where it was supposed to be for terrorist too. It wouldn't surprise me if the information isn't coming from the government snooping programs.
Who is "they"? Maybe the CIA checked into him and found him full of stuff. Everybody wants to be in the spotlight
David H. Petraeus and the CIA as he testified to congress about. He also said the Libyan security forces agreed with that assessment. Watch the CNN clip posted here.
Any? Not true. Yes, it was under-manned; that has been acknowledged as a mistake. Incidentally, GOP forced a cut in overseas security recently before that as part of their Austerity Tour. They should accept some of the blame.
Any what? What do you think is not true about that statement? I see you are going the route where you blame republicans as if that makes everything else perfectly fine when 4 Americans are dead and 1 who was injured is still hospitalized 10 months later. Does your mind think oh, the republicans are involved so these deaths are justified now or something? Well, here are the facts about those cuts and why you are wrong. And this is not a democrat republican thing, it's a we failed to protect our personnel thing and we need to ensure it doesn't happen ever again thing.
The cut were to proposed increases, not the budget. The administration is charged with dividing the money up and how it is spent on each embassy. Somewhere in the administration, someone failed to acknowledge that we needed more security in a recently war torn area that just had 2 other terrorist attacks and known elements of al qeada were operating within the area on the anniversary of 9/11, three days after being warned by the host country of problems coming our way. Right now, we have closed embassies across the world because half of that information is present. How much extra money does it take to close an embassy for a few days while the threats can be assessed? Why couldn't resources from stable countries be moved to the unstable Benghazi to provide security? Why wasn't the military on standby ready to evacuate the people? Why didn't we work with the Libyan government to get their security forces in place to help with anything that might happen in the lead up to this. All that could be done without massive increased in the budget (the so called republican cuts)
Blaming this on the republicans not increasing the budgets and calling that cuts is an outright lie designed to deflect the focus where it doesn't belong. You may be clueless because of the politician's language when they spout the lie, or you may know full well that it is a lie and decided to repeat it, it doesn't matter that it's a lie and a red herring.
CIA asked to not publish connections to terrorists because they didn't want to tip their hand. It would have been best in my opinion to stay mum and simply say, "We are investigating various leads, and don't wish to give details at the moment to avoid spoiling the leads."
Someone is filling you full of bullcrap or you are confusing the Yemen terror plots with Benghazi. According to Petraeus' testimony to congress, he put together talking points concerning the events including the links to terrorism which was cleared by the intelligence portions of the agencies and all the sudden he sees Susan Rice in TV rambling about a movie on youtube.
BTW, here is the link to the Yemen terrorist and an analysis of them wanting to hold on the information. It appears the conclusion wasn't to strengthen actions against the terrorist, it was so the white house could break the news.
Read your wording again. Circular reasoning or not, when you say get rid of someone once and for all, it gives them reason to fear you.
The rest of your drivel, I glanced over and decided it wasn't worth my time or effort to ponder. It is obviously construed by someone who think they possess a greater value of self worth and intelligence than they actually do. Stay in your little world of make believe all day long for all I care. I'm not the one who fears you or you think fears you.
Problems with your reading comprehension I see. The comment and point was about the subject of WMDs not being a sham- not that the war in Iraq was just. Too many people believed there was or could have been WMDs in Iraq or that Iraq maintained the capabilities of producing them who were completely apposed to the war for it to be made up.
That is completely different from what you and the idiot who replied to you are trying to claim I was saying.
He and his administration as well as many others made public statements to that fact just years before and after we went into Iraq. Sorry but paying attention is a must.
Still, that's not evidence of a presidential cover-up. Sure, CNN would love to get into the CIA's knickers, but that's usually just wishful thinking.
No one says it has to be a presidential cover up. The only reason the president is involved is because he is out there calling it a phony investigation and refuses to detail the events he participated in the night of the attacks. Now it appears that he is participating in the cover up by either intentional acts through the CIA or by incompetence in administrating the offices he is charged with administrating.
The leader of the group they claim is most likely responsible for the attacks says no government official (Libyan or US) has attempted to contact him and he is living right in the open in Libya talking to reporters. Four Americans are dead and one who was injured is still in the hospital ten months later and for some reason, there is a refusal to go after those who are responsible for this and a refusal to figure out exactly what happened to determine who dropped the ball so it is never repeated again.
The attack that killed 4 people in Benghazi was the third attack in that area (there was two previous bombing attempts) and we didn't have any security for them or any workable contingency plan in case something happened. We were warned by officials in the local and Libyan governments 3 days before the attack that there was a threat in the area. We then concocted some story about it being a spontaneous act concerning an unfinished movie about the illiterate pedophile known as mohomed who is the prophet of islam.
Whoever screwed that one up should never be in a position where they can do it again and whatever failure that allowed it to happen needs to be known and fixed so it will never happen again. Whoever failed to communicate the full story to the lapdogs sent out to give the false narrative needs to explain themselves and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Benghazi is an example: there's still no evidence of specific wrong-doing, yet they keep talking about it with speculation up the whazoo and word-play to make it sound like something sneaky is going on.
Something sneaky is going on there. Whether it is a cover up to hide incompetence (which it was all over), a cover up for political purposes, or something even more insidious, something has happened with it.
Even the liberal CNN or the Clinton News Network as it was/is known because of how much it favored President Clinton in it's reporting, is reporting that there was dozens of CIA operatives in Libya when the attacks happened and that several of their reporters were flooded with operatives wanting to tell what happened then all the sudden they clammed up. CNN is reporting that people who were in the country the night Benghazi happened keep getting reassigned and shuffled around to new geographical locations, alias names are being issued to them making it harder for even representatives to find them, they had to re-sign nondisclosure agreements that they have already signed, and many of them are being given lie detector tests every month or two which other CIA operatives claim is very unusual to have them that frequently.
I'm sorry, but you picked the wrong issue to gripe about there as partisan.
Most blogs are opinions about news, not news in and of itself. A few insider blogs might drum out some news, but the vast majority of them do no such thing.
Nobody who was awake and rational believed the WMD claims for two seconds. The fact that large chunks of our media bought it is a shameful commentary on how frightened, stupid, and credulous our media was after 9/11.
Remain stupid and ignorant all you want, It is well documented that Clinton and his group believed Iraq had WMDs and as I pointed out, the UNSOM and UNMOVIC reports state the possibilities as well. All of which is open and publicly availible on the internet and there is no reason you do not look it up.
The whole aluminum tubes fiasco? The forged yellowcake documents? Claims of huge stockpiles of VX left over from 1992, when VX has a shelf life of six months? The claims that you could somehow hide the entire factory complex required to produce the hundreds of gallons of refined chemical weapons you'd need for a single battlefield use, on the backs of a few trucks?
I know you have your fantasy and that fantasy is shared by a lot of uninformed people who are more politically bent then logically, but as I said, look it up. Or are you somehow going to claim that the entire UN and the weapons inspection teams that opposed the war was in cahoots with Bush and company? As I said, look the information up. The UN still hosts the reports and makes them availible to anyone.
Lying about the weapons inspections and implying that the inspectors were incompetent or lying when they contradicted the government's new line?
You mean when the inspectors said one thing in their official reports that you can read for yourself and another thing in their outside opposition to the war? This is 2013, there is absolutely no reason at all for you or anyone else who give the slightest damn about any of this to be so misinformed.
All you had to do was pay attention and you could see it was a sham, right from the start.
I thinking you are standing in front of a mirror and saying that to yourself. Note that I did not say Iraq had WMDs, I said plenty of people thought they did or could have. We didn't start the war because they had the weapons, we started the war because we couldn't verify they didn't have them and we feared what would happen if they were passed to terrorist. Bush did believe they were there, but that is another story altogether. The botton line is that plenty of people thought Iraq had WMDs or retained the capabilities to produce them before the war. Even Vladimir Putin though this was true but didn't think war was neccesary because Iraq was being contained.
Too many people who opposed the Iraq war believed there could have been WMDs and/or the ability to produce them in Iraq for it to just be a threat narrative. The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC quarterly reports discuss this quite well leading up to the war. The head of one of those organizations just before the war was one of the biggest and most cited anti-war critics around.
Your claim that there was never the suspicion of WMDs in Iraq is just completely wrong. You can look up the reports, they are still online and open to the public.
wget shouldn't even be on the machines capable of accessing the classified information. In fact, the reason it was brought up was because it wasn't on the computer and Manning placed it there and then used it to download the files he took. The importance of installing it and using it means that he couldn't have accidentally clicked something and all the sudden had all this information. Manning purposely set out to discover the information, download it to his system, then remove it from the facility and eventually to wikileaks. This is something that had to be intentionally done.
I just grabbed an arbitrary high value that I thought would include not only the worker's pay, but the employment taxes, benefits packages, management costs, insurance, retirement, and so on. The actual employee may only be making 80K or less but the entire cost of the employee is what I was going for.
There are a ton of costs beside the employee's pay that are associated with employing a worker. The entire picture is what I was trying to capture and I was trying to be on the high side of the estimate..
"Suppressed the speech"?? How? But there was what seems to be a clear violation of policy in some of the info that was released to ProPublica.
lol.. you don't think blocking the tax exempt status which creates a huge disadvantage for those donating to them doesn't suppress the amount of or types of speech those organizations had the ability to do? Do you think having to pay taxes in the range of 20% of their intake doesn't mean they have 20% less ability to generate that said speech?
The IRS is an INVESTIGATIVE org and since there was influx of groups on both sides applying for tax-exempt status thanks to the idiotic Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, extra scrutiny is warranted based on a group activities since there are restrictions on the POLITICAL activity for groups granted tax-exempt status.
Lol.. I don't think anyone is disputing that nor do they have a problem with it. The problem is not the extra scrutiny or the investigations. The problem _is_ that it was applied one_sided based on political ideology. Only 30% of the groups with liberal sounding names were sided for extra scrutiny with only 1 of them being denied. All the tea party and conservative groups were flagged with no further processing being done and mounds of irregular information being asked for including names of donors (which was passed to apposing groups) and operational strategies which was also passed to apposing groups.
To reiterate, if a group seeking to be tax-exempt is going to be POLITICAL, then it behooves the IRS to be INVESTIGATIVE.
TO REITERATE, if it was evenly enforced, there wouldn't be a problem. But it wasn't and tea party groups were singled out with vital information that should have remained private being passed on to opposing groups.
That IS a grave concern and serious allegations SHOULD be investigated - but Issa and co appear to have started on the assumption that Obama has the Cincinnati office on speed dial and their "investigation" quickly became a witch hunt and is going up in flames.
The director in charge of the division has made many trips to the white house, this is fact. The Cincinnati division was directed to send the conservative and tea party applications only to Washington for further review. The political train on this does reach Washington- when it reached Obama or not is a completely separate story that I never went into.
Further reading:
I would suggest you start looking at source other than ideological sites like the two you posted links to. They are just like your initial reaction which ignored what was said and went into a defensive mode to protect your ideology and political leaders. Look up the lawsuit and the details on it that has been filed against the IRS. You are only getting hand picked details that support some preconceived notion you possess and it makes you a twit. By the way, look up the definition of twit, it is aptly used here.
I'm not trying to defend WiGLE but it isn't really identifying by IP or any other stock measure. I understand about the geolocation data based on IP addresses but the WiGLE site is mostly user generated by war drivers along with GPS data built by programs like Kismet and netstumbler. It refines the locations by averaging the latitudes and longitudes of the SSIDs gathered using the signal strength (squared) as a weight.
In other words, it relies on users- not out dated published materials who have visited the field and location. Try it yourself and see how accurate it is. Click on the map page, zoom out enough until you can click and drag it to your area, look at the available networks to your computer and then try to zoom in to where you are at and see if they are listed. Someone, or more likely several people, have been at or near your neighborhood and posted their finds. There are aps that run on phones and people can turn them on while driving home from work, riding the bus or subway or while doing anything else too. Imagine the Google street view car mapping access points and making all the information searchable.
Well, it looks like their site might have been slashdoted. It's not showing the SSID's any more and has replaced it with a plot error message. It might take a while for them to get it back up properly. I found my area and it was accurate within football field range. The Chicago example I posted was a random look up trying to be as neutral as possible.
Lets say that each unionized employee that would be on site cost the utility $150,000 a year and you need 3 of them at each site to achieve disconnection from the internet. That's only $450K a year per site and lets say it covers 20 sites per company or utility type (lets examine Columbus Ohio which charges a sewage fee based on water usage so the 20 sites would cover both aspects). That's about $900 million a year. A big amount or is it. This is taxes, benefits and all connected with the employment of the people.
Columbus, in their 2012 consumer confidence report (under the power and water reports section) claimed they provide 51 billion gallons of water to 1.1 million people per year. Of course this is all measured in cubic feet x 100 (100 cubic feet) when billing (noted by ccf). 1 ccf of water is equal to 748 gallons of water according to their site. So if we divide the 51 billion gallons by 748, we should get the ccf being billed. What we now have is 68,181,818 ccf or we could shorten that to about 68.1 million ccf. Now, to reach that $900 million/ year, it would take a rate increase of $13.50 per ccf which brings in $920,454,543 extra.
According to Columbus' website, the high side of the charges currently is $1.56 per ccf for water (this is without sewage fees added). The example they give for a non-industiral user shows about 16 ccf per month. This is an increase in a bill for this amount of usage of $216.00 per month or $2,592 per year over what they pay now.
Someone please check my math for errors as it's been a while. I went into this thinking it would only be a couple cents per unit increase and was surprised at how much extra it actually would be.
Sigh, First, stop trying to defend obama and assuming crap was said when nothing of the kind was. The IRS suppressed the speech of political groups and disseminated private information about them to other groups apposed to their views. That in and of itself is cause to worry anyone whether an official from the oval office is involved or not (imagine if they did that to everyone wanting gay marriage to be allowed or whoever spoke against government sponsored religious activities or whatever) Imagine if the IRS was attacking liberal organizations like that.
Second, both sides of the political spectrum were not singled out the same. Once the more liberal groups made their political bent known, their approvals were expedited- 99% of all liberal applicants were approved. Only 30% of applications with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were held up where 100% of the applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names where singled out.
Finally, this isn't about wanting taxes or not. Besides, the IRS is NOT A POLITICAL organization and should not in any way be singling anyone out because of political ideology or political speech. But the IRS was singling out organizations because they wanted to teach about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, advocated the repeal of the affordable care act, talk about election fraud and prevention and so on. All of these are protected by the first amendment and when they allow groups with their bend on ideology to have the tax exempt status and not those they appose, then there is a serious problem that twits like you should be worried about. Imagine what happens when someone opposite your screwed up ideology gets power and the IRS starts coming after you.
A new story about the NSA giving $150 million to the Brits to help spy for them and they're bitching about $2 mil to a US state to house their datacenter?
I don't really care. The $150 million is buying something other then the $2 million would have. Access to information and processing information is not the same things. Besides, the 2 mil could have been save by simply locating somewhere else. Utah found that the benefits of the data center was more then the alternative of a tax and no data center to pay it out.
Well which is it? Not too sophisticated, but the busted into his lame decoys easily enough.
Forcing a door open is not the same as sophisticated lock picking. But nonetheless, the point about sophistication seems to be what they did once they got access. Most did menial tasks while 4 meddled with a specific communication protocol.
He claims to have triangulated where the attacker was based on their wifi card. REALLY? How is that done? He knows where every wifi router in the world is does he? Triangulate!!! All Wifi cards use three routers? Who knew! Each of which has its position known?
I'm not sure your reading comprehension is up to speed here. The web interface that was hacked embedded an exploit framework called BeEF so the researcher could gain access to the attackers system through the browser. What he likely did was query the networks detected by the wifi cards then crossed them to data from sites like WiGLE or perhaps something even more specific.
This is more then enough to get a Geographical location of a person and narrow it down to not only country, but city and even neighborhoods within the city.
Oh, and the triangulation isn't on where the wifi car itself accesses a router, but with the names of the specific networks the wifi cards can see. If you see several distinctly different named networks, the odds of them being in more then one location is low so you know it has to be a location close enough to all of them to be seen at the same time. For instance, if I see the SSIDs duck_butter, shoreline, bbangsoon, and linksys, I can find that I am near the Chicago Water Commissioner's office at Pfc Milton Olive park, near the Chicago harbor. Go ahead and look it up.
Somewhere there are some people chuckling at this guy.
I think that happens to all of us every once in a while. I was laughing pretty good earlier at someone too.
I didn't bother reading any of the articles shown in the link to the google search you did, but I don't think I need to. The titles of them all seem to say likely or predicts or could it happen not that it is happening. I suspect you didn't read any of them either and glossed over those points.
Taking the what if scenarios as proof that the storms _are_ getting stronger or more frequent is like believing someone is correct and factual who says what if their magic rock in their pocket prevents them from being attacked by a tiger when they take the subway down town and positing the belief that there _are_ magic rocks that _will_ protect you from the tigers on the subway.
In case I butchered that, the point is that are getting stronger means there is proof it is happening where could be or likely to be or predicted to be is simple asking the question without an answer or predicting it might be without the proof yet of it happening yet.
ha ha.. that's a good one. But if you actually believe that, it shows your ignorance. Obama being big or black or scary has nothing to do with them- or more precisely their citizens wanting to secede. It's the legislation and policy that seems to be the problem and that is separate from a government listening post unless it's like the IRS and used against them for political purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to know something more sad, I caught a couple of people trying to break into a car in front of a friends house. I pulled up just in time to see one of them smash a window then they took off running when they noticed my headlights. I followed them to a house down the road a bit and called the cops. When I showed them the car they broke into and pointed out the house, they said they knew it was a meth/heroine house and they arrest a lot of people who frequent there. I asked them why they let it happen and they asked me what do I think they could do about it.
Well, eventually someone they arrested a while back listed it as their address and the parole/probation officer stopped in for a surprise inspection of their charge's living accommodations. They discovered a crap load of drugs and paraphernalia sitting right in the open and called the cops in. There was a big write up in the paper but no one ever got charged for anything above a misdemeanor.
Which makes you wonder if the information on the NSA crap isn't being passed to the DEA. The entire reason the FISA laws were created is because after the courts concluded wire taping phones for domestic law enforcement violated the US constitution and investigators needed to get warrants, they would then go to the CIA and other national security agencies and have them tap the phones without a warrant and pass the information back to them.
So it isn't like it hasn't happened in the past. The Patriot Act has been used on drug enforcement where it was supposed to be for terrorist too. It wouldn't surprise me if the information isn't coming from the government snooping programs.
You mean ignoring American labor for cheap foreign nationals doesn't have anything to do with national origin?
David H. Petraeus and the CIA as he testified to congress about. He also said the Libyan security forces agreed with that assessment. Watch the CNN clip posted here.
http://freebeacon.com/petraeus-knew-almost-immediately-terrorists-responsible-for-benghazi-attack/
Any what? What do you think is not true about that statement? I see you are going the route where you blame republicans as if that makes everything else perfectly fine when 4 Americans are dead and 1 who was injured is still hospitalized 10 months later. Does your mind think oh, the republicans are involved so these deaths are justified now or something? Well, here are the facts about those cuts and why you are wrong. And this is not a democrat republican thing, it's a we failed to protect our personnel thing and we need to ensure it doesn't happen ever again thing.
The cut were to proposed increases, not the budget. The administration is charged with dividing the money up and how it is spent on each embassy. Somewhere in the administration, someone failed to acknowledge that we needed more security in a recently war torn area that just had 2 other terrorist attacks and known elements of al qeada were operating within the area on the anniversary of 9/11, three days after being warned by the host country of problems coming our way. Right now, we have closed embassies across the world because half of that information is present. How much extra money does it take to close an embassy for a few days while the threats can be assessed? Why couldn't resources from stable countries be moved to the unstable Benghazi to provide security? Why wasn't the military on standby ready to evacuate the people? Why didn't we work with the Libyan government to get their security forces in place to help with anything that might happen in the lead up to this. All that could be done without massive increased in the budget (the so called republican cuts)
Blaming this on the republicans not increasing the budgets and calling that cuts is an outright lie designed to deflect the focus where it doesn't belong. You may be clueless because of the politician's language when they spout the lie, or you may know full well that it is a lie and decided to repeat it, it doesn't matter that it's a lie and a red herring.
Someone is filling you full of bullcrap or you are confusing the Yemen terror plots with Benghazi. According to Petraeus' testimony to congress, he put together talking points concerning the events including the links to terrorism which was cleared by the intelligence portions of the agencies and all the sudden he sees Susan Rice in TV rambling about a movie on youtube.
BTW, here is the link to the Yemen terrorist and an analysis of them wanting to hold on the information. It appears the conclusion wasn't to strengthen actions against the terrorist, it was so the white house could break the news.
Read your wording again. Circular reasoning or not, when you say get rid of someone once and for all, it gives them reason to fear you.
The rest of your drivel, I glanced over and decided it wasn't worth my time or effort to ponder. It is obviously construed by someone who think they possess a greater value of self worth and intelligence than they actually do. Stay in your little world of make believe all day long for all I care. I'm not the one who fears you or you think fears you.
Problems with your reading comprehension I see. The comment and point was about the subject of WMDs not being a sham- not that the war in Iraq was just. Too many people believed there was or could have been WMDs in Iraq or that Iraq maintained the capabilities of producing them who were completely apposed to the war for it to be made up.
That is completely different from what you and the idiot who replied to you are trying to claim I was saying.
He and his administration as well as many others made public statements to that fact just years before and after we went into Iraq. Sorry but paying attention is a must.
No one says it has to be a presidential cover up. The only reason the president is involved is because he is out there calling it a phony investigation and refuses to detail the events he participated in the night of the attacks. Now it appears that he is participating in the cover up by either intentional acts through the CIA or by incompetence in administrating the offices he is charged with administrating.
The leader of the group they claim is most likely responsible for the attacks says no government official (Libyan or US) has attempted to contact him and he is living right in the open in Libya talking to reporters. Four Americans are dead and one who was injured is still in the hospital ten months later and for some reason, there is a refusal to go after those who are responsible for this and a refusal to figure out exactly what happened to determine who dropped the ball so it is never repeated again.
The attack that killed 4 people in Benghazi was the third attack in that area (there was two previous bombing attempts) and we didn't have any security for them or any workable contingency plan in case something happened. We were warned by officials in the local and Libyan governments 3 days before the attack that there was a threat in the area. We then concocted some story about it being a spontaneous act concerning an unfinished movie about the illiterate pedophile known as mohomed who is the prophet of islam.
Whoever screwed that one up should never be in a position where they can do it again and whatever failure that allowed it to happen needs to be known and fixed so it will never happen again. Whoever failed to communicate the full story to the lapdogs sent out to give the false narrative needs to explain themselves and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Something sneaky is going on there. Whether it is a cover up to hide incompetence (which it was all over), a cover up for political purposes, or something even more insidious, something has happened with it.
Even the liberal CNN or the Clinton News Network as it was/is known because of how much it favored President Clinton in it's reporting, is reporting that there was dozens of CIA operatives in Libya when the attacks happened and that several of their reporters were flooded with operatives wanting to tell what happened then all the sudden they clammed up. CNN is reporting that people who were in the country the night Benghazi happened keep getting reassigned and shuffled around to new geographical locations, alias names are being issued to them making it harder for even representatives to find them, they had to re-sign nondisclosure agreements that they have already signed, and many of them are being given lie detector tests every month or two which other CIA operatives claim is very unusual to have them that frequently.
I'm sorry, but you picked the wrong issue to gripe about there as partisan.
Most blogs are opinions about news, not news in and of itself. A few insider blogs might drum out some news, but the vast majority of them do no such thing.
I'm curious how much more of a loss it would be if you calculated inflation. $70 million would purchase a lot more in 1993 then it would today.
Remain stupid and ignorant all you want, It is well documented that Clinton and his group believed Iraq had WMDs and as I pointed out, the UNSOM and UNMOVIC reports state the possibilities as well. All of which is open and publicly availible on the internet and there is no reason you do not look it up.
I know you have your fantasy and that fantasy is shared by a lot of uninformed people who are more politically bent then logically, but as I said, look it up. Or are you somehow going to claim that the entire UN and the weapons inspection teams that opposed the war was in cahoots with Bush and company? As I said, look the information up. The UN still hosts the reports and makes them availible to anyone.
You mean when the inspectors said one thing in their official reports that you can read for yourself and another thing in their outside opposition to the war? This is 2013, there is absolutely no reason at all for you or anyone else who give the slightest damn about any of this to be so misinformed.
I thinking you are standing in front of a mirror and saying that to yourself. Note that I did not say Iraq had WMDs, I said plenty of people thought they did or could have. We didn't start the war because they had the weapons, we started the war because we couldn't verify they didn't have them and we feared what would happen if they were passed to terrorist. Bush did believe they were there, but that is another story altogether. The botton line is that plenty of people thought Iraq had WMDs or retained the capabilities to produce them before the war. Even Vladimir Putin though this was true but didn't think war was neccesary because Iraq was being contained.
Too many people who opposed the Iraq war believed there could have been WMDs and/or the ability to produce them in Iraq for it to just be a threat narrative. The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC quarterly reports discuss this quite well leading up to the war. The head of one of those organizations just before the war was one of the biggest and most cited anti-war critics around.
Your claim that there was never the suspicion of WMDs in Iraq is just completely wrong. You can look up the reports, they are still online and open to the public.
wget shouldn't even be on the machines capable of accessing the classified information. In fact, the reason it was brought up was because it wasn't on the computer and Manning placed it there and then used it to download the files he took. The importance of installing it and using it means that he couldn't have accidentally clicked something and all the sudden had all this information. Manning purposely set out to discover the information, download it to his system, then remove it from the facility and eventually to wikileaks. This is something that had to be intentionally done.
And you wonder why they fear you.
Didn't the Los Angeles city council try to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide once too?
I just grabbed an arbitrary high value that I thought would include not only the worker's pay, but the employment taxes, benefits packages, management costs, insurance, retirement, and so on. The actual employee may only be making 80K or less but the entire cost of the employee is what I was going for.
There are a ton of costs beside the employee's pay that are associated with employing a worker. The entire picture is what I was trying to capture and I was trying to be on the high side of the estimate..
lol.. you don't think blocking the tax exempt status which creates a huge disadvantage for those donating to them doesn't suppress the amount of or types of speech those organizations had the ability to do? Do you think having to pay taxes in the range of 20% of their intake doesn't mean they have 20% less ability to generate that said speech?
Lol.. I don't think anyone is disputing that nor do they have a problem with it. The problem is not the extra scrutiny or the investigations. The problem _is_ that it was applied one_sided based on political ideology. Only 30% of the groups with liberal sounding names were sided for extra scrutiny with only 1 of them being denied. All the tea party and conservative groups were flagged with no further processing being done and mounds of irregular information being asked for including names of donors (which was passed to apposing groups) and operational strategies which was also passed to apposing groups.
TO REITERATE, if it was evenly enforced, there wouldn't be a problem. But it wasn't and tea party groups were singled out with vital information that should have remained private being passed on to opposing groups.
The director in charge of the division has made many trips to the white house, this is fact. The Cincinnati division was directed to send the conservative and tea party applications only to Washington for further review. The political train on this does reach Washington- when it reached Obama or not is a completely separate story that I never went into.
I would suggest you start looking at source other than ideological sites like the two you posted links to. They are just like your initial reaction which ignored what was said and went into a defensive mode to protect your ideology and political leaders. Look up the lawsuit and the details on it that has been filed against the IRS. You are only getting hand picked details that support some preconceived notion you possess and it makes you a twit. By the way, look up the definition of twit, it is aptly used here.
I'm not trying to defend WiGLE but it isn't really identifying by IP or any other stock measure. I understand about the geolocation data based on IP addresses but the WiGLE site is mostly user generated by war drivers along with GPS data built by programs like Kismet and netstumbler. It refines the locations by averaging the latitudes and longitudes of the SSIDs gathered using the signal strength (squared) as a weight.
In other words, it relies on users- not out dated published materials who have visited the field and location. Try it yourself and see how accurate it is. Click on the map page, zoom out enough until you can click and drag it to your area, look at the available networks to your computer and then try to zoom in to where you are at and see if they are listed. Someone, or more likely several people, have been at or near your neighborhood and posted their finds. There are aps that run on phones and people can turn them on while driving home from work, riding the bus or subway or while doing anything else too. Imagine the Google street view car mapping access points and making all the information searchable.
Well, it looks like their site might have been slashdoted. It's not showing the SSID's any more and has replaced it with a plot error message. It might take a while for them to get it back up properly. I found my area and it was accurate within football field range. The Chicago example I posted was a random look up trying to be as neutral as possible.
Lets explore this concept a bit.
Lets say that each unionized employee that would be on site cost the utility $150,000 a year and you need 3 of them at each site to achieve disconnection from the internet. That's only $450K a year per site and lets say it covers 20 sites per company or utility type (lets examine Columbus Ohio which charges a sewage fee based on water usage so the 20 sites would cover both aspects). That's about $900 million a year. A big amount or is it. This is taxes, benefits and all connected with the employment of the people.
Columbus, in their 2012 consumer confidence report (under the power and water reports section) claimed they provide 51 billion gallons of water to 1.1 million people per year. Of course this is all measured in cubic feet x 100 (100 cubic feet) when billing (noted by ccf). 1 ccf of water is equal to 748 gallons of water according to their site. So if we divide the 51 billion gallons by 748, we should get the ccf being billed. What we now have is 68,181,818 ccf or we could shorten that to about 68.1 million ccf. Now, to reach that $900 million/ year, it would take a rate increase of $13.50 per ccf which brings in $920,454,543 extra.
According to Columbus' website, the high side of the charges currently is $1.56 per ccf for water (this is without sewage fees added). The example they give for a non-industiral user shows about 16 ccf per month. This is an increase in a bill for this amount of usage of $216.00 per month or $2,592 per year over what they pay now.
Someone please check my math for errors as it's been a while. I went into this thinking it would only be a couple cents per unit increase and was surprised at how much extra it actually would be.
Sigh, First, stop trying to defend obama and assuming crap was said when nothing of the kind was. The IRS suppressed the speech of political groups and disseminated private information about them to other groups apposed to their views. That in and of itself is cause to worry anyone whether an official from the oval office is involved or not (imagine if they did that to everyone wanting gay marriage to be allowed or whoever spoke against government sponsored religious activities or whatever) Imagine if the IRS was attacking liberal organizations like that.
Second, both sides of the political spectrum were not singled out the same. Once the more liberal groups made their political bent known, their approvals were expedited- 99% of all liberal applicants were approved. Only 30% of applications with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were held up where 100% of the applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names where singled out.
Finally, this isn't about wanting taxes or not. Besides, the IRS is NOT A POLITICAL organization and should not in any way be singling anyone out because of political ideology or political speech. But the IRS was singling out organizations because they wanted to teach about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, advocated the repeal of the affordable care act, talk about election fraud and prevention and so on. All of these are protected by the first amendment and when they allow groups with their bend on ideology to have the tax exempt status and not those they appose, then there is a serious problem that twits like you should be worried about. Imagine what happens when someone opposite your screwed up ideology gets power and the IRS starts coming after you.
I don't really care. The $150 million is buying something other then the $2 million would have. Access to information and processing information is not the same things. Besides, the 2 mil could have been save by simply locating somewhere else. Utah found that the benefits of the data center was more then the alternative of a tax and no data center to pay it out.
Forcing a door open is not the same as sophisticated lock picking. But nonetheless, the point about sophistication seems to be what they did once they got access. Most did menial tasks while 4 meddled with a specific communication protocol.
I'm not sure your reading comprehension is up to speed here. The web interface that was hacked embedded an exploit framework called BeEF so the researcher could gain access to the attackers system through the browser. What he likely did was query the networks detected by the wifi cards then crossed them to data from sites like WiGLE or perhaps something even more specific.
This is more then enough to get a Geographical location of a person and narrow it down to not only country, but city and even neighborhoods within the city.
Oh, and the triangulation isn't on where the wifi car itself accesses a router, but with the names of the specific networks the wifi cards can see. If you see several distinctly different named networks, the odds of them being in more then one location is low so you know it has to be a location close enough to all of them to be seen at the same time. For instance, if I see the SSIDs duck_butter, shoreline, bbangsoon, and linksys, I can find that I am near the Chicago Water Commissioner's office at Pfc Milton Olive park, near the Chicago harbor. Go ahead and look it up.
I think that happens to all of us every once in a while. I was laughing pretty good earlier at someone too.
I didn't bother reading any of the articles shown in the link to the google search you did, but I don't think I need to. The titles of them all seem to say likely or predicts or could it happen not that it is happening. I suspect you didn't read any of them either and glossed over those points.
Taking the what if scenarios as proof that the storms _are_ getting stronger or more frequent is like believing someone is correct and factual who says what if their magic rock in their pocket prevents them from being attacked by a tiger when they take the subway down town and positing the belief that there _are_ magic rocks that _will_ protect you from the tigers on the subway.
In case I butchered that, the point is that are getting stronger means there is proof it is happening where could be or likely to be or predicted to be is simple asking the question without an answer or predicting it might be without the proof yet of it happening yet.
ha ha.. that's a good one. But if you actually believe that, it shows your ignorance. Obama being big or black or scary has nothing to do with them- or more precisely their citizens wanting to secede. It's the legislation and policy that seems to be the problem and that is separate from a government listening post unless it's like the IRS and used against them for political purposes.
It appears they only shut down 2 hours before the strong winds approach (between 70 and 75 mph).
http://www.foronuclear.org/consultas-en/ask-the-expert/how-do-nuclear-power-plants-withstand-hurricanes-
I never thought about it until it was just brought up. Interesting.