If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
Quit lying. Do you have any idea how many people are beaten to death, clubbed to death, macheted to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, drowned, run down with cars, and so on? Google for multiple homicides in Asia that involve knives? Of course you do, but you'd like to pretend it wasn't so. Or, just take a peek throughout the middle east, where guns are widely available, but you have people using cheaply made home-brew bombs to kill individuals or large numbers of people every single day. Guns used to be more widely and easily available in the US, but are now far less so. This has absolutely nothing to do with murder rates, as can be seen through even a casual review of the facts.
Sure, so long as he can make that determination from outside the house
Or, he could say, "We've got reports of a godawful decomposition smell coming from right around here, and that could mean somebody dead. Can we check your place?"
And then you could say, "No. Besides, I've got no rotting bodies here - check next door. I suppose if you had a warrant, you'd come in anyway, right? Thanks for checking, that really is a bad smell - but it's not me." And then you could not "read the riot act" (per the OP) at the cop and slam the door at him, like a douchebag. A little civility goes a long way. Does the guy in question here think the cop wants to be out at 3:00AM trying to figure out what hunk of meat is rotting in somebody's apartment, smelling like somebody's dead grandma?
There are all kinds of cases where some adult dies, and kids or pets or some mentally not right person are stranded in the place for days with the rotting body. It happens. And cops get to check it out, horrible job that it is. Being an ass to them at your door doesn't seem very constructive, does it?
You don't wait to get a warrant to find out if you're right that there's a dead body on the other side of the door, as phoned in by someone else. You get a warrant to search the house for evidence. You don't need a warrant to find out if you're actually on the scene of a crime (in the dead-body-lying-there sense). You need a warrant if something about that scene tells you you actually need to check out the house for evidence of some sort. It only takes a cop a moment to realize that the overwhelming stench of a reported possible rotting body isn't coming from your house. He doesn't need a warrant to determine that and leave.
you think seeing a gun is probable cause to search without a warrant?
In the context of someone brandishing it, or in the case of it matching one reported stolen and reported as being in the location where it's seen, or any number of similar situations, yes. The mere presence of a gun, by itself, without any sort of alarming context... of course not, obviously. No more so than the presence of a steak knife.
told Miami police to pound sand at 3 AM after they woke me up talking about a dead body smell
Right, because it's so annoying when the cops investigate people's deaths. Don't you hate that? Deaths, and any accompanying odors, should only occur between 9:00AM and 5:00PM on weekdays, right? Regardless, there's no question that instead of saying, "Thanks for investigating, guys" that slamming the door in their faces is a great way to show a little respect for people who put their lives on the line for you, for a living.
with no warrant
If your nose tells you that there might be a dead body rotting, you don't need a warrant - no more than seeing a gun or hearing a scream. Of course, you know that, and you're just adding a little Troll spice to your story.
All you had to do was apologize for hitting the guy's hand, and express a little genuine surprise and concern that it happened, instead of acting like an asshat. Of course, you're not acting, are you?
I'd end up killing people if I had to spend more that 30 seconds working in SSH on a phone.
It's possible you should consider a different line of work. Perhaps landscaping (no chainsaws, though, for you), or something like playing the panflute in one of those fake ethnic bands that work city parks.
Super Logic Science Types have nothing but disdain for anything a little "weird".
No, Super Logic Science Types love weird stuff. What they don't love is being asked to believe that what makes weird stuff happen is magical supernatural hocus pocus stuff that requires a break in causality or a capricious universe that has a personality and some sort of personal axe to grind with certain people based on what they think or whether they burn the right sacrifice and wave their hands around in the right way.
Most people I encounter even have trouble with "postcognition". Yea, I'm looking at you Sarah Palin!
I was thinking, actually, that all of the people (including Palin) who predicted that Obama would turn out to be less or different or worse than the imaginary character that millions of people thought they were votiing for... that that shows a certain level of cognition that a whole lot of post-election-coginition is allowing other people to realize they'd done something silly.
Yup, that pretty much covers it. Liars, or people who are too dim to understand how their own physiology can mess with their perceptions of what's happening to them, near them, or in incorrectly remembered past moment.
Something tells me that his personal moral code was not brought to bear on each of a quarter million stolen documents. He spread around documents that identify intel sources that are working against the regime in Iran, for example. Does his personal moral code have room in it for things like how that regime will use that knowledge to apply pressure to that ex-pat's family, still in Iran? Either he thinks that things like that are no big deal (which means his moral code is absurd), or he really wasn't using any moral compass as he spewed out everything he could his hands on and deliver to Assange in the interests of getting his 15 minutes of fame... which also means his moral code is broken.
I used the word "stupidly" because he clearly wasn't thinking about the consequences to other people, wasn't thinking about the consequences for himself, or the consequences for his fellow servicemen and women.
Your post fails to differentiate... you just refuse to comment on it
It's all I've been commenting on. Prince Sultan was not on board for the official, stated foremost purpose of "making Muslims feel better about their history." How can you not see the difference? Do you really think that the Saudis would have become involved if we'd said, "You people really need to feel better about yourselves and your history, back when you were actually contributing something to math and science, unlike now, when you don't feel good about it, so how about sending one of your guys for a ride?" There is no face-saving from that sort of thing, but that's exactly what the administration has said is the (or a - do you really think there's a difference in the degree of officially spoken condenscension?) foremost goal of the agency.
We're not talking about some ill-used word coming out of Bush's mouth, or Obama saying there are 57 states, etc. This is policy statement designed specifically to sound condescending, and delivered directly to a huge Muslim audience. It's a clarifying example of the administration's sense of its own superiority and its sense that other people's self worth and esteem are government's job, especially, you know, those Muslim types.
The only reason that this particular statement out of NASA is important is because it's so in keeping with Obama's world view generally. The only way this was a slip of the tongue or a dumb thing to say was in the sense that it too clearly pulled back the curtains on how the administration sees things.
Because it was Muslims he was speaking of when he said this
Are you even listening to yourself? Saying that working toghether on a project will bring two groups together is not the same as saying that the members of a religion need some help from the US government so they won't feel bad about themselves. Perhaps you could acknowlege that that's the actual issue, here?
Obama is not the president of NASA, he is the President of the United States Of America
"No president in NASA's history" means exactly what I said, you buffoon. NASA has a history. During that history, there have been a number of presidents to whom it answers. I can see that you're really struggling, here, to avoid the actual topic (the NASA administrator's description of his new Top Priority).
Really, you want specific quotes? Here: "...
foremost, he [Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
Is that specific enough for you? Do you see, in that foremost (top, most important, in front... choose your own definition for "foremost" which is the word the administration used) purpose as described by them, any call to work with (per Reagan) other people? No, this is to "engage" with them so they can feel good "about their history." You are actually reading the words, right? Implicit in that is the administration's assessment that Muslims feel bad about their history, and that NASA should do something about it. This isn't "the same thing" that other presidents have done. This is exactly the opposite of what they've done, and it couldn't be more paternalistic, dismissive, and humiliating.
Like the one where he says it will take something as vast as space to make us come together
At that's condescending to Muslims, how, exactly?
jeopardizing a missions safety (don't forget challenger) by Adding a Muslim
Wow, you are a bigot, aren't you? Regardless, how were the frozen o-rings on the Challenger's solid rocket boosters, and the Q/A issues involved, a function of which passengers were on board? Please be specific.
a third hand comment
Actually it's a direct, first person quote from the NASA administrator. You can watch the video yourself, any time you want (though of course you already know this). The only third-hand issue is whether or not he's accurately passing along what Obama told him. If he is, then Obama is the one that's being patronizing to Muslims who feel bad about themselves, and if he's not, then it's the NASA administrator who is doing so (and who lied). Do you find either of these OK?
I don't see the mission as being even a teeny tinsy bit different.
Then you're blind. Accommodating a wealthy and important ally is a lot different than telling that ally's entire culture that we know how to make them feel better about themselves.
Every president does this
No, not even Jimmy Carter was this patronizing, and certainly no president in NASA's history has said that NASA's top priority is to work on the self esteem of a religion. Do you have an example to the contrary?
I am however, sure that you are intolerant.
Intolerant of what? Culture-baiting condescension? Religious missions for NASA? Be specific.
What you are doing, in your posts is picking on the current sitting president for doing the same thing that presidents have been using NASA to do since Reagan.
Really? Reagan made "making Muslims feeling better about themselves" his NASA administrator's top priority? Do you understand the differnce between expanding diplomatic, cultural, and economic understanding and opportunities as a happy byproduct of doing your agency's actual mission and making your agency's top mission priority a self-esteem-boosting effort for members of a particular religion that sounds like something right out of an elementary school's guidance councelor's handbook?
Do you not undertand the difference between working with other cultures so that they'll better understand, appreciate, and engange with us and launching an effort to (again, using the words that Obama's administrator said that Obama used) "make them feel better about themselves"... ? Really? You think that we took along a Saudi prince to make him feel better about himself, or to make him and his family speak and act in better ways about us? You know the answer, and you're just - for some reason that can only be partisan - spinning this as best you can, and pretending that words don't mean anything. And just for fun, you're calling me a racist, so show how utterly clueless you really are.
What are you talking about? They don't leak out on their own. If someone installs a piece of software that grants a third party access to their desktop, then you've just had an insider getting involved. The difference is between an insider doing it stupidly but unintentionally, vs someone like PFC Manning, who stupidly did it on purpose.
just by giving up their windows obsession and using Linux instead
Right, because users never willingly install or run applications on Linux. Oh, but you're going to say that Linux provides granular enough security to prevent that. So does Windows, if you're using a recent version. Doesn't matter. This is an admin issue, and a social hacking issue.
... and they get crossed on/. all the time. But this one has a certain special stink to it. Is Timothy working on some sort of special asshat merit badge or something?
I doubt you could find one who wasn't forced to prioritize traffic
Of course. Because people's usage patterns force them to. A tiny fraction of users push and pull traffic way out of proportion to their numbers, and it's often traffic that doesn't travel the routes the ISPs work the hardest to keep up and fast for their largest numbers of users. Preventing the ISPs from shaping traffic in order to keep the vast majority of their customers happy is absurd.
Well, I guess that removes you from the pool of decent people then, as they would be ashamed to twist words around like you do in order to justify your intolerance.
Intolerance? Let me guess, you think I'm:
1) Picking on Obama because he's black, instead of on his NASA-related policies. Or,
2) Picking on the NASA administrator because he's black, instead of on what he said. Or,
3) Picking on Muslims because the NASA administrator and/or his boss think they can make them feel better about themselves, even though I'm just passing along the fact that he said it, on TV, in an interview with a Muslim-audience network!.
Because, there's just no way that I could be picking on either of those two guys because of the embarassing substance of that patronizing, condescending, holier-than-thou, here-you-poor-Muslims-we'll-tell-you-your-own-history-and-make-you-feel-better remark, and the fact that the administrator characterized it as his space and aeronautics agency's top priority. No, I must surely be a racist, right?
Intolerant? Yes, I am. For empty platitudes like that, and for people who whine about it when others point them out. Yes, I'm talking about you.
Actually, no, I don't feel bad because I'm quoting the guy. He said it, not me. I suppose I do feel bad that the head of such an important agency, and perhaps even the president he takes orders from, think so little of Muslims that they think it's OK to condescendingly say - out loud - that anything NASA can or should do would make them "feel better about themselves." That's the most smarmy, patronizing bunch of BS I can possibly imagine.
Incidentally, this was widely reported, and Obama's main press spokesman was asked about it. He did a ham-handed job of badly spinning it, and said he didn't know why the NASA director said that, blah blah blah. So, either the director said things accurately - which makes Obaman's idea of the top priority for that agency to be a complete disaster - or the director was completely BS-ing, which means he should never have had that job in the first place. Neither is a good scenario.
No, it's because the NASA administrator says that the president has told him that NASA's top priority is to find ways to make Muslims feel better about themselves. So, there's a lot of re-tooling going on, to make that happen.
Or, individuals who've been convinced by a contingency lawyer that they can hit the law suit lottery over every single thing in their entire lives that they don't like.
I won't even deal with you where you imply that any act covering the printing press covers the internet, its simply to ridiculous to dignify with a forml response
Nice dodge! It's not about the medium, it's about the act of stealing classified documents and presenting them to people who should not have them. Do you really think that the physical form of the document makes a bit of difference with regard to the fact that it wasn't meant for public consumption, that stealing it was illegal, and that presenting it to enemies is wrong? Are you really of a mind that the medium and not the act is what matters?
Slashdot Mirror
If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
Quit lying. Do you have any idea how many people are beaten to death, clubbed to death, macheted to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, drowned, run down with cars, and so on? Google for multiple homicides in Asia that involve knives? Of course you do, but you'd like to pretend it wasn't so. Or, just take a peek throughout the middle east, where guns are widely available, but you have people using cheaply made home-brew bombs to kill individuals or large numbers of people every single day. Guns used to be more widely and easily available in the US, but are now far less so. This has absolutely nothing to do with murder rates, as can be seen through even a casual review of the facts.
Sure, so long as he can make that determination from outside the house
Or, he could say, "We've got reports of a godawful decomposition smell coming from right around here, and that could mean somebody dead. Can we check your place?"
And then you could say, "No. Besides, I've got no rotting bodies here - check next door. I suppose if you had a warrant, you'd come in anyway, right? Thanks for checking, that really is a bad smell - but it's not me." And then you could not "read the riot act" (per the OP) at the cop and slam the door at him, like a douchebag. A little civility goes a long way. Does the guy in question here think the cop wants to be out at 3:00AM trying to figure out what hunk of meat is rotting in somebody's apartment, smelling like somebody's dead grandma?
There are all kinds of cases where some adult dies, and kids or pets or some mentally not right person are stranded in the place for days with the rotting body. It happens. And cops get to check it out, horrible job that it is. Being an ass to them at your door doesn't seem very constructive, does it?
there is a thing called a warrant
You don't wait to get a warrant to find out if you're right that there's a dead body on the other side of the door, as phoned in by someone else. You get a warrant to search the house for evidence. You don't need a warrant to find out if you're actually on the scene of a crime (in the dead-body-lying-there sense). You need a warrant if something about that scene tells you you actually need to check out the house for evidence of some sort. It only takes a cop a moment to realize that the overwhelming stench of a reported possible rotting body isn't coming from your house. He doesn't need a warrant to determine that and leave.
you think seeing a gun is probable cause to search without a warrant?
... of course not, obviously. No more so than the presence of a steak knife.
In the context of someone brandishing it, or in the case of it matching one reported stolen and reported as being in the location where it's seen, or any number of similar situations, yes. The mere presence of a gun, by itself, without any sort of alarming context
told Miami police to pound sand at 3 AM after they woke me up talking about a dead body smell
Right, because it's so annoying when the cops investigate people's deaths. Don't you hate that? Deaths, and any accompanying odors, should only occur between 9:00AM and 5:00PM on weekdays, right? Regardless, there's no question that instead of saying, "Thanks for investigating, guys" that slamming the door in their faces is a great way to show a little respect for people who put their lives on the line for you, for a living.
with no warrant
If your nose tells you that there might be a dead body rotting, you don't need a warrant - no more than seeing a gun or hearing a scream. Of course, you know that, and you're just adding a little Troll spice to your story.
All you had to do was apologize for hitting the guy's hand, and express a little genuine surprise and concern that it happened, instead of acting like an asshat. Of course, you're not acting, are you?
I'd end up killing people if I had to spend more that 30 seconds working in SSH on a phone.
It's possible you should consider a different line of work. Perhaps landscaping (no chainsaws, though, for you), or something like playing the panflute in one of those fake ethnic bands that work city parks.
Super Logic Science Types have nothing but disdain for anything a little "weird".
No, Super Logic Science Types love weird stuff. What they don't love is being asked to believe that what makes weird stuff happen is magical supernatural hocus pocus stuff that requires a break in causality or a capricious universe that has a personality and some sort of personal axe to grind with certain people based on what they think or whether they burn the right sacrifice and wave their hands around in the right way.
Most people I encounter even have trouble with "postcognition". Yea, I'm looking at you Sarah Palin!
... that that shows a certain level of cognition that a whole lot of post-election-coginition is allowing other people to realize they'd done something silly.
I was thinking, actually, that all of the people (including Palin) who predicted that Obama would turn out to be less or different or worse than the imaginary character that millions of people thought they were votiing for
so I guess everyone is a liar?
Yup, that pretty much covers it. Liars, or people who are too dim to understand how their own physiology can mess with their perceptions of what's happening to them, near them, or in incorrectly remembered past moment.
out of a personal moral code
... which also means his moral code is broken.
Something tells me that his personal moral code was not brought to bear on each of a quarter million stolen documents. He spread around documents that identify intel sources that are working against the regime in Iran, for example. Does his personal moral code have room in it for things like how that regime will use that knowledge to apply pressure to that ex-pat's family, still in Iran? Either he thinks that things like that are no big deal (which means his moral code is absurd), or he really wasn't using any moral compass as he spewed out everything he could his hands on and deliver to Assange in the interests of getting his 15 minutes of fame
I used the word "stupidly" because he clearly wasn't thinking about the consequences to other people, wasn't thinking about the consequences for himself, or the consequences for his fellow servicemen and women.
Your post fails to differentiate ... you just refuse to comment on it
It's all I've been commenting on. Prince Sultan was not on board for the official, stated foremost purpose of "making Muslims feel better about their history." How can you not see the difference? Do you really think that the Saudis would have become involved if we'd said, "You people really need to feel better about yourselves and your history, back when you were actually contributing something to math and science, unlike now, when you don't feel good about it, so how about sending one of your guys for a ride?" There is no face-saving from that sort of thing, but that's exactly what the administration has said is the (or a - do you really think there's a difference in the degree of officially spoken condenscension?) foremost goal of the agency.
We're not talking about some ill-used word coming out of Bush's mouth, or Obama saying there are 57 states, etc. This is policy statement designed specifically to sound condescending, and delivered directly to a huge Muslim audience. It's a clarifying example of the administration's sense of its own superiority and its sense that other people's self worth and esteem are government's job, especially, you know, those Muslim types.
The only reason that this particular statement out of NASA is important is because it's so in keeping with Obama's world view generally. The only way this was a slip of the tongue or a dumb thing to say was in the sense that it too clearly pulled back the curtains on how the administration sees things.
Because it was Muslims he was speaking of when he said this
... choose your own definition for "foremost" which is the word the administration used) purpose as described by them, any call to work with (per Reagan) other people? No, this is to "engage" with them so they can feel good "about their history." You are actually reading the words, right? Implicit in that is the administration's assessment that Muslims feel bad about their history, and that NASA should do something about it. This isn't "the same thing" that other presidents have done. This is exactly the opposite of what they've done, and it couldn't be more paternalistic, dismissive, and humiliating.
Are you even listening to yourself? Saying that working toghether on a project will bring two groups together is not the same as saying that the members of a religion need some help from the US government so they won't feel bad about themselves. Perhaps you could acknowlege that that's the actual issue, here?
Obama is not the president of NASA, he is the President of the United States Of America
"No president in NASA's history" means exactly what I said, you buffoon. NASA has a history. During that history, there have been a number of presidents to whom it answers. I can see that you're really struggling, here, to avoid the actual topic (the NASA administrator's description of his new Top Priority).
Really, you want specific quotes? Here: "... foremost, he [Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
Is that specific enough for you? Do you see, in that foremost (top, most important, in front
Like the one where he says it will take something as vast as space to make us come together
At that's condescending to Muslims, how, exactly?
jeopardizing a missions safety (don't forget challenger) by Adding a Muslim
Wow, you are a bigot, aren't you? Regardless, how were the frozen o-rings on the Challenger's solid rocket boosters, and the Q/A issues involved, a function of which passengers were on board? Please be specific.
a third hand comment
Actually it's a direct, first person quote from the NASA administrator. You can watch the video yourself, any time you want (though of course you already know this). The only third-hand issue is whether or not he's accurately passing along what Obama told him. If he is, then Obama is the one that's being patronizing to Muslims who feel bad about themselves, and if he's not, then it's the NASA administrator who is doing so (and who lied). Do you find either of these OK?
I don't see the mission as being even a teeny tinsy bit different.
Then you're blind. Accommodating a wealthy and important ally is a lot different than telling that ally's entire culture that we know how to make them feel better about themselves.
Every president does this
No, not even Jimmy Carter was this patronizing, and certainly no president in NASA's history has said that NASA's top priority is to work on the self esteem of a religion. Do you have an example to the contrary?
I am however, sure that you are intolerant.
Intolerant of what? Culture-baiting condescension? Religious missions for NASA? Be specific.
What you are doing, in your posts is picking on the current sitting president for doing the same thing that presidents have been using NASA to do since Reagan.
... ? Really? You think that we took along a Saudi prince to make him feel better about himself, or to make him and his family speak and act in better ways about us? You know the answer, and you're just - for some reason that can only be partisan - spinning this as best you can, and pretending that words don't mean anything. And just for fun, you're calling me a racist, so show how utterly clueless you really are.
Really? Reagan made "making Muslims feeling better about themselves" his NASA administrator's top priority? Do you understand the differnce between expanding diplomatic, cultural, and economic understanding and opportunities as a happy byproduct of doing your agency's actual mission and making your agency's top mission priority a self-esteem-boosting effort for members of a particular religion that sounds like something right out of an elementary school's guidance councelor's handbook?
Do you not undertand the difference between working with other cultures so that they'll better understand, appreciate, and engange with us and launching an effort to (again, using the words that Obama's administrator said that Obama used) "make them feel better about themselves"
without the intervantion of an insider?
What are you talking about? They don't leak out on their own. If someone installs a piece of software that grants a third party access to their desktop, then you've just had an insider getting involved. The difference is between an insider doing it stupidly but unintentionally, vs someone like PFC Manning, who stupidly did it on purpose.
just by giving up their windows obsession and using Linux instead
Right, because users never willingly install or run applications on Linux. Oh, but you're going to say that Linux provides granular enough security to prevent that. So does Windows, if you're using a recent version. Doesn't matter. This is an admin issue, and a social hacking issue.
How the fuck does a swimming pool have a polarity?
Obviously it's a holodeck swimming pool. Fool.
I doubt you could find one who wasn't forced to prioritize traffic
Of course. Because people's usage patterns force them to. A tiny fraction of users push and pull traffic way out of proportion to their numbers, and it's often traffic that doesn't travel the routes the ISPs work the hardest to keep up and fast for their largest numbers of users. Preventing the ISPs from shaping traffic in order to keep the vast majority of their customers happy is absurd.
Well, I guess that removes you from the pool of decent people then, as they would be ashamed to twist words around like you do in order to justify your intolerance.
Intolerance? Let me guess, you think I'm:
1) Picking on Obama because he's black, instead of on his NASA-related policies. Or,
2) Picking on the NASA administrator because he's black, instead of on what he said. Or,
3) Picking on Muslims because the NASA administrator and/or his boss think they can make them feel better about themselves, even though I'm just passing along the fact that he said it, on TV, in an interview with a Muslim-audience network!.
Because, there's just no way that I could be picking on either of those two guys because of the embarassing substance of that patronizing, condescending, holier-than-thou, here-you-poor-Muslims-we'll-tell-you-your-own-history-and-make-you-feel-better remark, and the fact that the administrator characterized it as his space and aeronautics agency's top priority. No, I must surely be a racist, right?
Intolerant? Yes, I am. For empty platitudes like that, and for people who whine about it when others point them out. Yes, I'm talking about you.
Don't you feel bad about being so dishonest?
Actually, no, I don't feel bad because I'm quoting the guy. He said it, not me. I suppose I do feel bad that the head of such an important agency, and perhaps even the president he takes orders from, think so little of Muslims that they think it's OK to condescendingly say - out loud - that anything NASA can or should do would make them "feel better about themselves." That's the most smarmy, patronizing bunch of BS I can possibly imagine.
Incidentally, this was widely reported, and Obama's main press spokesman was asked about it. He did a ham-handed job of badly spinning it, and said he didn't know why the NASA director said that, blah blah blah. So, either the director said things accurately - which makes Obaman's idea of the top priority for that agency to be a complete disaster - or the director was completely BS-ing, which means he should never have had that job in the first place. Neither is a good scenario.
now I know why we never returned to the moon
No, it's because the NASA administrator says that the president has told him that NASA's top priority is to find ways to make Muslims feel better about themselves . So, there's a lot of re-tooling going on, to make that happen.
Who hires them? Big business.
Or, individuals who've been convinced by a contingency lawyer that they can hit the law suit lottery over every single thing in their entire lives that they don't like.
I won't even deal with you where you imply that any act covering the printing press covers the internet, its simply to ridiculous to dignify with a forml response
Nice dodge! It's not about the medium, it's about the act of stealing classified documents and presenting them to people who should not have them. Do you really think that the physical form of the document makes a bit of difference with regard to the fact that it wasn't meant for public consumption, that stealing it was illegal, and that presenting it to enemies is wrong? Are you really of a mind that the medium and not the act is what matters?
Its one more stab to the heart of free speech.
How so? In what way is it protected free speech to fraudulently impersonate someone with the intention of causing harm?