Evidence? Sure, go read Descartes from start to finish. That is better evidence you get from these alleged scientists inventing theories and inventing scenarios to make their hypothetical theories possible. If you claim that theoretical numbers are "evidence" you really need to look up the definition.
Or so you believe. Perhaps you and the rest of what we call reality were brought into existence as of last Thursday at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I expect as a defense for hypothetical theories that people claim are factual. Broken logic tends to lead to further broken logic, glad to see you play the game so well.
It is telling that you don't understand a very clear question. Maybe read it again, because it has nothing to do with medication you would have to purchase at the pharmacy.
There was a specific reasoning for why your fallacy was called the worst kind of lie, try again without using selective reading. Repeatedly ignoring text you dislike is a pattern for maintaining delusion, not discussing reality.
How do I know? Logic, study, rational thought. Why can't these scientists "prove" their theory either? These thoughts are interesting study for Philosophy, and I have studied and written Philosophy for 35+ years. Oh, wait, let me guess. You are not a Philosopher, and perhaps don't understand why Philosophy is relevant to science.
I appreciate the correction on the Organic, and will take some blame since I realize that the term has become a generic marketing term and could have been more clear.
To the last part, as mentioned before being in poverty is not the same as being tight on funds. I probably have a few years on you, and while in College lived with few funds. That was nothing like living in poverty as a single parent, which I was forced to do for several years. There is a massive amount of difference between living in poverty, and having to be tight with cash.
And please don't mistake my comments for wanting sympathy, I honestly don't. The point was to be clear that in poverty it's easy to be obese. Far easier to be obese than healthy. It was not until I got my life under financial control that I was able to be concerned about eating right, and had the financial means to eat right and exercise.
Even when you consider that some Government programs help you with food, the food choices are extremely poor. With no electricity it didn't matter what aide you had, you could not cook it. If you have electricity and no pans, you are not cooking either.
How many times are people going to publish this same set of crap and call it science? Or is it the same idiots trotting out the same piece of crap trying to convince people it's science? It's simple, Descartes was right and you are wrong. The Universe is not a big computer simulation, and you do exist. I realize that we don't teach Philosophy like we used to, but dang if people should not get a clue.
Actually I do disagree with giving tablets to infants. I never said I did agree with it, I'm just much more rational about it and think it should be left up to the parents to do the parenting and they should be able to do it, baring sexual or physical abuse, without Joe public coming after them, physically or with child services.
Since alcohol is often used as a sedative in old school child rearing, we should allow drip feeders to be sold commercially? I'm all for "freedom" and personal responsibility". There is a very clear distinction between allowing companies to profit off of ignorance at the expense of members of society (which must be enforced by regulation), and "freedom and personal responsibility".
The last paragraph is anecdotal and is intended to demonstrate there are real crazies out there. Visit any animal shelter and you'll see the kind of things pets are put through by crazy people. In this case it was a neighbour instead of the owner.
I did not argue about people being crazy. I'm argued that the sample given was irrational, so is not simply anecdotal. It was intentionally delivered to give the perception that people wanting society to offer protection against other predatory people are lunatics that will cause harm in the name of preventing harm.
There are numerous real examples of people being crazy to prove that point, without inventing fairy tales to suit an agenda.
No, organic is not simply a marketing ploy. The term is being used that way, but that's not what is intended, implied, or desired in my comment. If you buy locally grown pesticide/die free vegetables, they cost more money than what ever they have at the grocery store for general consumption. If you have doubts, buy a bag of each type of carrot and boil them. The end result is extremely obvious (hint, you would not want to drink the water from the died vegetables).
I can buy marketed organic peanut butter which contains HFCS, or real organic peanut butter which contains just peanuts. Reading labels is something I do every time I put something in the cart.
If you were never in poverty, claiming to know what people can and can't do while living in poverty is going to be absolutely false. Talk to people that have been there and take their word for it. Or you could go the extreme, and force yourself to live in poverty for a year or two.
You see no issue with the ipad baby sitter which damages mental and physical growth in infants? Implying or claiming that the people pushing for a recall of the device because of its harmful impact are "bad" people?
Your last paragraph is an appeal to emotion, which reads as a complete fabrication (and of course it's 2nd hand, so not verifiable).
Yeah, there are crazy people out there all right. If you were worried about people threatening you, I'm would have to consider that there is at least a bit of delusion involved in that thinking.
The only place I agree with you is that you should not hand out information to people. That kind of goes back to decades of child rearing, where you teach your kids not to talk to strangers.
Most folks call those edited change logs "release notes" in my experience. The list of changes, defect fixes, etc. should at least be a section in overall release notes, but they don't usually have to go into gory detail the way that the OP describes. The change or defect number being fixed is always useful, because then you can lookup the original bug report online for more details if you think it might impact your environment,.
True, and probably a good idea to have this pointed out to them. TFA describes releasing the full change logs to public scrutiny so I'm not sure that they understand the difference.
No two sites work the same with version control, and I have seen both extremes. At the DOD all code was developed inside of Rational/Clearcase so all work, including failed paths, was fully tracked. That is a rare and expensive way to work. Outside of the DOD, I have seen small sites that only put tested code destined for release into version control, and the only tracking of failures is in the change logs.
I'm assuming based on the topic that this person works at the latter type of site.
This is why there are generally 2 sets of change logs (in reality one that derives another set). You have the changelog that is used internally, which is what you are talking about. The other is a list of bug fixes, enhancements, and removed features for customers.
Good internal change logs track not only what was fixed, but what was attempted in the fix process so that you don't replicate these failed paths in later problems/enhancements. Code samples are usually in "good" change logs as well. These things are not needed for a customer, and are probably where you would find the ridicule.
If you are really being told to remove change logs, that is a very broken situation. Those logs are not just to show people you are actively developing your code and fixing things, but also to reduce your overall development costs.
Your point would only be valid if the person had stated to do nothing but haul Clapper away. Putting Clapper in the Pen (not a safe house) would be a starting point. The people doing these things are cowards! It's cowardly to hide their intent, their beliefs, and their actions. You think they would suddenly become heroic when faced with being someone bitch in a real jail? Not a chance of that.
A few of these people in jail would begin a nice series of confessions, and more arrests and people in jail. The problem is getting the start of the chain, not what happens next. Cartels all fall the same way, but it takes a ballsy police agency to start the chain.
I'm not sure we have such an agency in the US any more, but I don't lose hope.
COINTELPRO and Mockingbird were about propaganda, not really prosecution.
No, neither operation were about propaganda. Your ignorance is very glaring on that one.
This document explains why you are absolutely wrong about entrapment as well, but it seems like you are content with your ignorance and just claim facts are wrong so that you can maintain a delusion.
The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.
Emphasis is mine. When the agency recruits a person and provides the material and target, they have gone well beyond their legal scope. Providing illegal materials to the target, is also absolutely illegal even if the target claims "I wanna blow that up." This is why cops can't simply become dope dealers to bust bigger players (check with narcotics officers for how much they have to do). There are numerous circuit court cases where rulings have been against officers, a large quantity during the alcohol prohibition for entrapment.
I know, I should not expect facts to get in the way of your belief.
While perhaps funny, it misses the point. The story here, and with Germany, and with Britain, and with Italy, etc.. is not about those countries spying. The story is about these countries colluding to oppress their own citizens by said spying. The oppression/suppression of OWS is a verifiable example, and there are numerous stories from the UK and Germany that show how law enforcement used the same type of data to squash dissent.
Intelligence gathering on foreign countries is not a shock, and not a surprise. Nobody sane would argue that we can't monitor what happens in the world. It's what we do with that intelligence that matters, and all of the supposedly "Free" countries have failed in their responsibilities to their own citizens.
You are correct, my generalization using the term "EU" did not mean to imply that the European Union brought in these rules. I should have stated "many countries in Europe have solved the problem by the creation of Civil Unions".
By your broken logic then you must also discount that countless other historical figures existed (Socrates, Plato, Homer, The Oracle's of Delphi, the majority of the Egyptian Pharaohs, etc..). This is not simply an argument from ignorance, it denies historical records. Records from Roman courts show that there was such a figure, as well as Jewish and Christian historical records.
You could sanely question the "Son of God" portions of Christian accounts, but not the Philosophical and Philanthropic works of a person recorded very soundly in history.
Validation and verification is the point that the states are concerned with, and the majority of the population for that matter. That is also a large part of what the gay community wants. Tax breaks for a couple filing joint taxes just like the straight couple, shared responsibility, dependent insurance benefits, etc...
This is why the EU solved the problem with a Civil Union status across the board, which marriages count as automatically. A select few in the US refused to accept that status (on both sides) so we end up with muck and confusion. Nothing new here, same tactics work in politics all the time to make real issues vanish and people bicker over things that make no difference.
There is very little that the Government needs to regulate when it comes to marriage, and most of that we would think is common sense. The only two to be concerned with are that the couple must be far enough away in the blood line that their kids are not born with defects, and limit the quantity of husbands and wives to ensure society can progress.
Church handles most of that regulation so that the Government does not have to (with Judea Christian's at least/minus Mormons). The fact is, that Government and Church can coexist just fine for society. Perhaps Socrates principle of the Noble Lie is lost on you, maybe it's time to study.
You are implying (intentionally or not) that the historical figure was not a Philosopher. If so, best take back that "idiotic moron" statement and put the label on yourself. Try and use more care with your biases, or you look just as bad as the people you are trying to insult.
You can deny some of the theological impact however you wish, but to deny historical Philosophical and Philanthropic work would be delusion to support bias.
Which Al Qaida are you talking about fearing? The same ones that the US Government is now arming in Syria to overthrow Asad? The ones that we armed as the Mujaheddin to fight Russia? The ones we assisted in overthrowing Gaddafi?
Don't accuse others of lacking perspective with this type of garbage.
By the way, the US has done everything in your list of bad things Al Qaida, Japan, and North Korea has done. A rational intellectual perspective is to put the mirrored shades on your face and take a look at why so many people despise the US currently. Hint: It's not because we are out to help everyone and giving the kids candy. It's because we are killing a whole lot of people, many of them innocent, in the name of a war started on absolutely fabricated information. It's because instead of being a country to be admired for our freedoms, we have turned into a country to fear because of our military.
Wait, you open your last paragraph with "I hope you know more about architecture than you do about security." then cry "ad hominem" when I return it in full? Don't be the first to throw a punch if you can't take one in return.
Steganography can only be effective by controlling the medium, and your implication that no obscurity is required is asinine. Code breaking is not new, and neither is steganography.
No, I'm not going to cite over two centuries of entrapment cases. Up until very recent times, a police agency could not assist a criminal and have a case stand up in court. Having an agent provide a target and working "with" a criminal was called being an agent provocateur at worst and entrapping at best. This is why operations like "COINTENPRO" and "Mockingbird" are kept classified. Why not start by reading those two gems of CIA operations.
I believe it's apparent that I'm way better at both than you.
Hiding secrets in a "letter" which is delivered to a single recipient and written one time is not the same thing as posting a message to a chat which is logged indefinitely. It's more akin to writing your secret message and publishing it in national newspapers across the world.
This may shock you because you seem to lack any logical abilities at all, but the modern equivalent of hiding messages in images is a known technique which is similar to the precursor hiding messages in plain text. If you are a terrorist group you are not going to keep an on-line archive of all of your images. You create the image, send it out and then delete the image. The recipient would know to remove his image when he has deciphered what is needed out of the image.
Claiming that people use chat text which they know is logged, would be in line with thinking that military and terrorist groups would keep an on-line archive of all of these communications. It's idiocy to make such a claim, and does not match reality in the slightest.
Your last shows very clearly that you don't understand the law, or legal concepts in general. Thanks for playing.
Healthy living style requires money, so again we point toward Poverty as the problem. If you have to work 2 jobs and raise a kid, you don't have time to read up on health. You don't usually have time to read nutritional information on packages either. You find what's on the coupon, and buy it. Or, I said previously, you are making a choice off the dollar menu and hoping you have another dollar for dinner.
Claiming that eating healthy costs less money than eating junk is also absolutely false. I spend an easy 200 bucks a week for me and my son to eat, and we eat healthy. Fresh and Organic healthy, so higher quality than "average". As an example of costs, my peanut butter is organic and made with peanuts. I pay 8 times more for that than I would for a name brand peanut butter full of HFCS, additives, and preservatives. I make my own soups, because quite frankly anything in a can today is a chemical cocktail and tastes like water. This costs more money to make, even when I use left overs from meals where possible. Maybe not an 8 times increase in cost for soups, but I also have to invest a lot of time. Time I would not have if I was working 2 jobs. Another prime example is natural cheeses, compared to sliced cheeses which are cheap but full of sugars and chemicals.
I only work 9-10 hours a day on average, so can spend time reading articles and recipes. I have time to plan my menus. Ten years ago I didn't have that much time, my menu was poor and my and my kids health was not "good" even though we rarely ate fast foods.
Your lazy still does not fit with the real world. If you have not experienced poverty, good for you. Coming from poverty, I see the world from a different perspective.
I smell another CF like shill. No you would not use plain text logged chats as a communication method for terrorism. An eight year old gets that they would be caught using this method of communication. So you are either less intelligent than an eight year old, or a liar.
I think you should look at entrapment and how it's defined versus what we are currently allowing (which a very short time ago was illegal under entrapment). Just because it's being overlooked does not make it legal, or morally right. If you are so ignorant you can't understand that, well, see the 8 year old analogy above.
More rubbish from the shill CF. Let me break down your list of trash: The Underwear bomber was pushed onto a plane by 3 letter agencies against all better judgement including a protesting police officer. A court case in Michigan proves that it was wrong doing by the 3 letter agencies and NOT some brilliant terrorist. All of the other cases of busted terrorists, every one, deals with a patsy working with a 3 letter agency who provided both the target and the materials. We used to call this entrapment, and should do so again.
Boston, you have a 3 letter agency that kills a friend of a suspect cold blooded, and lots of questions regarding the rest. The naked unarmed teenager that was allegedly shooting at police from a boat for example. I'm not claiming the brothers are innocent, but that we don't know what happened from truthful eyes. We have proof that the supposedly "good" guys are out murdering innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. Scratch that one from the list.
Remove the mass shootings from your list, because they are NOT terrorist attacks. Those are cases of allegedly sick individuals that allegedly committed crimes.
You have nothing on your list that is an actual "terrorist" attack. Nothing!
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence? Sure, go read Descartes from start to finish. That is better evidence you get from these alleged scientists inventing theories and inventing scenarios to make their hypothetical theories possible. If you claim that theoretical numbers are "evidence" you really need to look up the definition.
Or so you believe. Perhaps you and the rest of what we call reality were brought into existence as of last Thursday at the behest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I expect as a defense for hypothetical theories that people claim are factual. Broken logic tends to lead to further broken logic, glad to see you play the game so well.
It is telling that you don't understand a very clear question. Maybe read it again, because it has nothing to do with medication you would have to purchase at the pharmacy.
There was a specific reasoning for why your fallacy was called the worst kind of lie, try again without using selective reading. Repeatedly ignoring text you dislike is a pattern for maintaining delusion, not discussing reality.
How do I know? Logic, study, rational thought. Why can't these scientists "prove" their theory either? These thoughts are interesting study for Philosophy, and I have studied and written Philosophy for 35+ years. Oh, wait, let me guess. You are not a Philosopher, and perhaps don't understand why Philosophy is relevant to science.
I appreciate the correction on the Organic, and will take some blame since I realize that the term has become a generic marketing term and could have been more clear.
To the last part, as mentioned before being in poverty is not the same as being tight on funds. I probably have a few years on you, and while in College lived with few funds. That was nothing like living in poverty as a single parent, which I was forced to do for several years. There is a massive amount of difference between living in poverty, and having to be tight with cash.
And please don't mistake my comments for wanting sympathy, I honestly don't. The point was to be clear that in poverty it's easy to be obese. Far easier to be obese than healthy. It was not until I got my life under financial control that I was able to be concerned about eating right, and had the financial means to eat right and exercise.
Even when you consider that some Government programs help you with food, the food choices are extremely poor. With no electricity it didn't matter what aide you had, you could not cook it. If you have electricity and no pans, you are not cooking either.
How many times are people going to publish this same set of crap and call it science? Or is it the same idiots trotting out the same piece of crap trying to convince people it's science? It's simple, Descartes was right and you are wrong. The Universe is not a big computer simulation, and you do exist. I realize that we don't teach Philosophy like we used to, but dang if people should not get a clue.
Actually I do disagree with giving tablets to infants. I never said I did agree with it, I'm just much more rational about it and think it should be left up to the parents to do the parenting and they should be able to do it, baring sexual or physical abuse, without Joe public coming after them, physically or with child services.
Since alcohol is often used as a sedative in old school child rearing, we should allow drip feeders to be sold commercially? I'm all for "freedom" and personal responsibility". There is a very clear distinction between allowing companies to profit off of ignorance at the expense of members of society (which must be enforced by regulation), and "freedom and personal responsibility".
The last paragraph is anecdotal and is intended to demonstrate there are real crazies out there. Visit any animal shelter and you'll see the kind of things pets are put through by crazy people. In this case it was a neighbour instead of the owner.
I did not argue about people being crazy. I'm argued that the sample given was irrational, so is not simply anecdotal. It was intentionally delivered to give the perception that people wanting society to offer protection against other predatory people are lunatics that will cause harm in the name of preventing harm.
There are numerous real examples of people being crazy to prove that point, without inventing fairy tales to suit an agenda.
In other words, it was the worst kind of lie.
No, organic is not simply a marketing ploy. The term is being used that way, but that's not what is intended, implied, or desired in my comment. If you buy locally grown pesticide/die free vegetables, they cost more money than what ever they have at the grocery store for general consumption. If you have doubts, buy a bag of each type of carrot and boil them. The end result is extremely obvious (hint, you would not want to drink the water from the died vegetables).
I can buy marketed organic peanut butter which contains HFCS, or real organic peanut butter which contains just peanuts. Reading labels is something I do every time I put something in the cart.
If you were never in poverty, claiming to know what people can and can't do while living in poverty is going to be absolutely false. Talk to people that have been there and take their word for it. Or you could go the extreme, and force yourself to live in poverty for a year or two.
You see no issue with the ipad baby sitter which damages mental and physical growth in infants? Implying or claiming that the people pushing for a recall of the device because of its harmful impact are "bad" people?
Your last paragraph is an appeal to emotion, which reads as a complete fabrication (and of course it's 2nd hand, so not verifiable).
Yeah, there are crazy people out there all right. If you were worried about people threatening you, I'm would have to consider that there is at least a bit of delusion involved in that thinking.
The only place I agree with you is that you should not hand out information to people. That kind of goes back to decades of child rearing, where you teach your kids not to talk to strangers.
Most folks call those edited change logs "release notes" in my experience. The list of changes, defect fixes, etc. should at least be a section in overall release notes, but they don't usually have to go into gory detail the way that the OP describes. The change or defect number being fixed is always useful, because then you can lookup the original bug report online for more details if you think it might impact your environment,.
True, and probably a good idea to have this pointed out to them. TFA describes releasing the full change logs to public scrutiny so I'm not sure that they understand the difference.
No two sites work the same with version control, and I have seen both extremes. At the DOD all code was developed inside of Rational/Clearcase so all work, including failed paths, was fully tracked. That is a rare and expensive way to work. Outside of the DOD, I have seen small sites that only put tested code destined for release into version control, and the only tracking of failures is in the change logs.
I'm assuming based on the topic that this person works at the latter type of site.
This is why there are generally 2 sets of change logs (in reality one that derives another set). You have the changelog that is used internally, which is what you are talking about. The other is a list of bug fixes, enhancements, and removed features for customers.
Good internal change logs track not only what was fixed, but what was attempted in the fix process so that you don't replicate these failed paths in later problems/enhancements. Code samples are usually in "good" change logs as well. These things are not needed for a customer, and are probably where you would find the ridicule.
If you are really being told to remove change logs, that is a very broken situation. Those logs are not just to show people you are actively developing your code and fixing things, but also to reduce your overall development costs.
Or the results are not what someone wanted to see, so they can the project.
Your point would only be valid if the person had stated to do nothing but haul Clapper away. Putting Clapper in the Pen (not a safe house) would be a starting point. The people doing these things are cowards! It's cowardly to hide their intent, their beliefs, and their actions. You think they would suddenly become heroic when faced with being someone bitch in a real jail? Not a chance of that.
A few of these people in jail would begin a nice series of confessions, and more arrests and people in jail. The problem is getting the start of the chain, not what happens next. Cartels all fall the same way, but it takes a ballsy police agency to start the chain.
I'm not sure we have such an agency in the US any more, but I don't lose hope.
COINTELPRO and Mockingbird were about propaganda, not really prosecution.
No, neither operation were about propaganda. Your ignorance is very glaring on that one.
This document explains why you are absolutely wrong about entrapment as well, but it seems like you are content with your ignorance and just claim facts are wrong so that you can maintain a delusion.
The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.
Emphasis is mine. When the agency recruits a person and provides the material and target, they have gone well beyond their legal scope. Providing illegal materials to the target, is also absolutely illegal even if the target claims "I wanna blow that up." This is why cops can't simply become dope dealers to bust bigger players (check with narcotics officers for how much they have to do). There are numerous circuit court cases where rulings have been against officers, a large quantity during the alcohol prohibition for entrapment.
I know, I should not expect facts to get in the way of your belief.
While perhaps funny, it misses the point. The story here, and with Germany, and with Britain, and with Italy, etc.. is not about those countries spying. The story is about these countries colluding to oppress their own citizens by said spying. The oppression/suppression of OWS is a verifiable example, and there are numerous stories from the UK and Germany that show how law enforcement used the same type of data to squash dissent.
Intelligence gathering on foreign countries is not a shock, and not a surprise. Nobody sane would argue that we can't monitor what happens in the world. It's what we do with that intelligence that matters, and all of the supposedly "Free" countries have failed in their responsibilities to their own citizens.
You are correct, my generalization using the term "EU" did not mean to imply that the European Union brought in these rules. I should have stated "many countries in Europe have solved the problem by the creation of Civil Unions".
By your broken logic then you must also discount that countless other historical figures existed (Socrates, Plato, Homer, The Oracle's of Delphi, the majority of the Egyptian Pharaohs, etc..). This is not simply an argument from ignorance, it denies historical records. Records from Roman courts show that there was such a figure, as well as Jewish and Christian historical records.
You could sanely question the "Son of God" portions of Christian accounts, but not the Philosophical and Philanthropic works of a person recorded very soundly in history.
Validation and verification is the point that the states are concerned with, and the majority of the population for that matter. That is also a large part of what the gay community wants. Tax breaks for a couple filing joint taxes just like the straight couple, shared responsibility, dependent insurance benefits, etc...
This is why the EU solved the problem with a Civil Union status across the board, which marriages count as automatically. A select few in the US refused to accept that status (on both sides) so we end up with muck and confusion. Nothing new here, same tactics work in politics all the time to make real issues vanish and people bicker over things that make no difference.
There is very little that the Government needs to regulate when it comes to marriage, and most of that we would think is common sense. The only two to be concerned with are that the couple must be far enough away in the blood line that their kids are not born with defects, and limit the quantity of husbands and wives to ensure society can progress.
Church handles most of that regulation so that the Government does not have to (with Judea Christian's at least/minus Mormons). The fact is, that Government and Church can coexist just fine for society. Perhaps Socrates principle of the Noble Lie is lost on you, maybe it's time to study.
You are implying (intentionally or not) that the historical figure was not a Philosopher. If so, best take back that "idiotic moron" statement and put the label on yourself. Try and use more care with your biases, or you look just as bad as the people you are trying to insult.
You can deny some of the theological impact however you wish, but to deny historical Philosophical and Philanthropic work would be delusion to support bias.
Which Al Qaida are you talking about fearing? The same ones that the US Government is now arming in Syria to overthrow Asad? The ones that we armed as the Mujaheddin to fight Russia? The ones we assisted in overthrowing Gaddafi?
Don't accuse others of lacking perspective with this type of garbage.
By the way, the US has done everything in your list of bad things Al Qaida, Japan, and North Korea has done. A rational intellectual perspective is to put the mirrored shades on your face and take a look at why so many people despise the US currently. Hint: It's not because we are out to help everyone and giving the kids candy. It's because we are killing a whole lot of people, many of them innocent, in the name of a war started on absolutely fabricated information. It's because instead of being a country to be admired for our freedoms, we have turned into a country to fear because of our military.
Wait, you open your last paragraph with "I hope you know more about architecture than you do about security." then cry "ad hominem" when I return it in full? Don't be the first to throw a punch if you can't take one in return.
Steganography can only be effective by controlling the medium, and your implication that no obscurity is required is asinine. Code breaking is not new, and neither is steganography.
No, I'm not going to cite over two centuries of entrapment cases. Up until very recent times, a police agency could not assist a criminal and have a case stand up in court. Having an agent provide a target and working "with" a criminal was called being an agent provocateur at worst and entrapping at best. This is why operations like "COINTENPRO" and "Mockingbird" are kept classified. Why not start by reading those two gems of CIA operations.
I believe it's apparent that I'm way better at both than you.
Hiding secrets in a "letter" which is delivered to a single recipient and written one time is not the same thing as posting a message to a chat which is logged indefinitely. It's more akin to writing your secret message and publishing it in national newspapers across the world.
This may shock you because you seem to lack any logical abilities at all, but the modern equivalent of hiding messages in images is a known technique which is similar to the precursor hiding messages in plain text. If you are a terrorist group you are not going to keep an on-line archive of all of your images. You create the image, send it out and then delete the image. The recipient would know to remove his image when he has deciphered what is needed out of the image.
Claiming that people use chat text which they know is logged, would be in line with thinking that military and terrorist groups would keep an on-line archive of all of these communications. It's idiocy to make such a claim, and does not match reality in the slightest.
Your last shows very clearly that you don't understand the law, or legal concepts in general. Thanks for playing.
Healthy living style requires money, so again we point toward Poverty as the problem. If you have to work 2 jobs and raise a kid, you don't have time to read up on health. You don't usually have time to read nutritional information on packages either. You find what's on the coupon, and buy it. Or, I said previously, you are making a choice off the dollar menu and hoping you have another dollar for dinner.
Claiming that eating healthy costs less money than eating junk is also absolutely false. I spend an easy 200 bucks a week for me and my son to eat, and we eat healthy. Fresh and Organic healthy, so higher quality than "average". As an example of costs, my peanut butter is organic and made with peanuts. I pay 8 times more for that than I would for a name brand peanut butter full of HFCS, additives, and preservatives. I make my own soups, because quite frankly anything in a can today is a chemical cocktail and tastes like water. This costs more money to make, even when I use left overs from meals where possible. Maybe not an 8 times increase in cost for soups, but I also have to invest a lot of time. Time I would not have if I was working 2 jobs. Another prime example is natural cheeses, compared to sliced cheeses which are cheap but full of sugars and chemicals.
I only work 9-10 hours a day on average, so can spend time reading articles and recipes. I have time to plan my menus. Ten years ago I didn't have that much time, my menu was poor and my and my kids health was not "good" even though we rarely ate fast foods.
Your lazy still does not fit with the real world. If you have not experienced poverty, good for you. Coming from poverty, I see the world from a different perspective.
I smell another CF like shill. No you would not use plain text logged chats as a communication method for terrorism. An eight year old gets that they would be caught using this method of communication. So you are either less intelligent than an eight year old, or a liar.
I think you should look at entrapment and how it's defined versus what we are currently allowing (which a very short time ago was illegal under entrapment). Just because it's being overlooked does not make it legal, or morally right. If you are so ignorant you can't understand that, well, see the 8 year old analogy above.
More rubbish from the shill CF. Let me break down your list of trash: The Underwear bomber was pushed onto a plane by 3 letter agencies against all better judgement including a protesting police officer. A court case in Michigan proves that it was wrong doing by the 3 letter agencies and NOT some brilliant terrorist. All of the other cases of busted terrorists, every one, deals with a patsy working with a 3 letter agency who provided both the target and the materials. We used to call this entrapment, and should do so again.
Boston, you have a 3 letter agency that kills a friend of a suspect cold blooded, and lots of questions regarding the rest. The naked unarmed teenager that was allegedly shooting at police from a boat for example. I'm not claiming the brothers are innocent, but that we don't know what happened from truthful eyes. We have proof that the supposedly "good" guys are out murdering innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. Scratch that one from the list.
Remove the mass shootings from your list, because they are NOT terrorist attacks. Those are cases of allegedly sick individuals that allegedly committed crimes.
You have nothing on your list that is an actual "terrorist" attack. Nothing!