IOh and a bunch of subject line, including one that was apparently a "draft" letter to the Governator, which might be related to campaign issues and sure, might be official government business.
Are you kidding me? You are being willfully ignorant here. There are well over 15 subject lines from people in her administration that even the most dedicated palin supporters would be hard-pressed to justify as being personal and you just wave it all away.
As for why wikileaks doesn't have the text of the messages? Seems like the cracker was just a dumb kid who apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the information he had stumbled upon.
But contrary to your claims otherwise, there is no restriction on having a Yahoo email account if you are an elected official
WTF? DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. My 'claims' -- my ass.
There's also no restriction on sending an email from a personal account to a government account. As I've already stated, I used to do it all the time. Only reason I stopped, is the government official I knew retired.
What a ridiculous red herring. Are you the governor's chief of staff? Are you the state attorney general? Are you the Governor's press secretary? Director of communications? No, you were not even a part of the government when you 'did it all the time.' That you would even cite your personal example of the actions of a regular citizen as some sort of defense for what Palin and her political appointees were doing shows that you are either completely ignorant of the facts, or a total political tribalist.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's rhetorical, right? Clearly, gangs of Internet hackers is an excellent choice.
Damn straight it is rhetorical. You just don't understand the definition of a rhetorical question.
Furthermore, if there is disclosure to be made, I don't think that falls to some random guy who changes her password. Vigilantism is best left for movies.
That's actually not true. If you take the time to look at the information posted on wikileaks, you'll notice a number of emails have titles such as "Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger / Container Tax", "Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Boards and Commissions", "Re: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues", "Court of Appeals Nominations", "FW: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter".
No, no, no... Those weren't actual messages about government business. They were just spam messages with misleading subject lines crafted to trick a politician into reading them. Governors on yahoo get them ALL the time! You should see the spam she gets now that she is a vp candidate - lots of messages that appear to be from Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Jerry Falwell and Bob Dole.
But open them up, and they are just advertisements for viagra. Wait a second, the ones from Bob Dole probably really are from him.
That comment really makes me wonder, what happens to the person who loans out tools to the gold miners for free ?
Lol, are you really so out of it that you think *that* is how it works? If so, that would probably explain your lack of success in the business.
The majority of software development money is spent on non-cots/non-shrinkwrap software. Nobody loans software, ESPECIALLY to wall-street.
Whether you write it on contract as Free or as proprietary, the important part is to write it on contract so that you get paid for the work you put in.
No, you've confused disinterest with deliberate ignorance.
If you have an opinion on a topic then you have a reason for that opinion and if your reason is nonsensical then that reflects on your ability to reason in general.
When the people who define what is legal and what is not are the ones who are themselves under suspicion then morality easily trumps technicality which is something I'm sure most people can understand.
I would argue that the bootleggers are supplying a service - it is mostly same service that any distributor provides, sans advertising (which, for smaller works, legit distributors don't even bother to do either).
How much do so-called 'legit' distributors take of the cut? I bet it is more, in absolute terms, than bootleggers do. Yes I know the 'legit' guys are supposed to actually pass a percentage of the cut back to the creator, and that gives them at least the appearance of legitimacy, versus the bootleggers who give no part of their revenue to the creator. But if the legit price is, say $15 and the distributor takes $14.50 of that while the bootleg price is $5 and the bootlegger keeps all of that, it means the distributor is taking more, in absolute dollars, per copy than the bootlegger for doing exactly the same job (easier in fact since they don't risk the wrath of the law).
Also, all the people for whom $15 is too high a price, but $5 is feasible are customers the creator would never have seen money from in the first place, but do bring all the benefits of name-recognition that the people for whom $0 is the highest they would pay do too.
All I'm saying is that from a dispassionate view of the market bootleggers are not complete parasites.
Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).
Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs. But it is one HELL of a leap of logic to go from that fact to the supposition that bootlegging funds terrorism. It doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.
Well then, let me be the first to say fuck you for condoning a crime.
What's the bigger crime - abusing the system to avoid accountability to the public, or abusing the system to bring the prior to account from the public?
There's also the flip-side. Do you want someone who doesn't believe in any ultimate accountability to be given the power of nuclear weapons? I would want someone who is motivated to do the right thing, no matter what their beliefs about the origins of life.
As if plenty of people who do "believe in ultimate accountability" haven't been the ones to start horrible wars in the first place. The last thing we want is someone who might just decide that the most important factor in their decision is what would their own personal version of God think about it.
Many of its members would say "yes" if asked if they believed in creation over evolution as the origin of man, simply because they've never really thought about it - for non-geeks, it just isn't that interesting of a question.
What you really mean is that for people who are not critical thinkers it isn't that interesting of a question.
I think it's a state-by-state thing. Some want both and some only require one.
In some states, it is a plate-by-plate thing. In Mass if you have an old plate (the kind which hasn't been issued for probably 20 years now) you only need a rear plate (because that's all the required at the time). But if you have new plates, you have to have a front plate too. So people with the old plates take really good care of them in order to re-use them each time they swap up to a newer car.
Oh yeah, almost forgot. The cops don't need a front plate here either, instead they get to display their gang colors - a solid black plate with a horizontal blue line across it.
The rules are routinely broken, probably because all the mindless hysteria the system provokes has just as much effect on the people in charge of not breaking the rules as it does on anyone else. For example - take the "Clark Rockefeller" kidnapping of his daughter "Snooks" - the cops knew it was him from the beginning. Yet they did the song and dance anyway.
Here in california we already have the Amber alert system tied into those highway warning signs and I see about 1 Amber alert every month or two.
Hell, amber alerts are just a bunch of fear-mongering bullshit. The number of children kidnapped each year who actually end up dead or 'permanently' missing is roughly 100 and has been for decades - the amber alert nonsense hasn't dented that statistic. All the others are either custody fights gone extra-legal or runaways, in each case the child is not in any immediate danger that would justify spamming the entire state.
I've never seen one in person, so it seems like a failure to me. But it was clearly an attempt to do something positive and creative. If it really was a failure, especially for reasons other than rejection by the marketplace (of chair jockeys, not distributors), I could see that making him cynical about trying to make a positive difference.
I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular.
Do you know why?
Because the regular explanation of the difference between regular and premium - higher octane - does not explain how you could get 33% better mileage on a car so old (and cheap) that it doesn't have fuel injection, never mind a computer managing the mix.
So now the truth comes out - some anti-iraq cheerleader edited the wikipedia article on Iraq to say that Hussein had massive amounts of WMDs and the spy agencies plagiarized wikipedia and with no actual agents in iraq they just took it at face value.
Upon further investigation it seems the the IP address of the edit that put those claims of WMD in the article on iraq is the same as the one for the Project for the New American Century.
Slashdot Mirror
IOh and a bunch of subject line, including one that was apparently a "draft" letter to the Governator, which might be related to campaign issues and sure, might be official government business.
Are you kidding me? You are being willfully ignorant here. There are well over 15 subject lines from people in her administration that even the most dedicated palin supporters would be hard-pressed to justify as being personal and you just wave it all away.
As for why wikileaks doesn't have the text of the messages? Seems like the cracker was just a dumb kid who apparently didn't realize the magnitude of the information he had stumbled upon.
But contrary to your claims otherwise, there is no restriction on having a Yahoo email account if you are an elected official
WTF? DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. My 'claims' -- my ass.
There's also no restriction on sending an email from a personal account to a government account. As I've already stated, I used to do it all the time. Only reason I stopped, is the government official I knew retired.
What a ridiculous red herring. Are you the governor's chief of staff? Are you the state attorney general? Are you the Governor's press secretary? Director of communications? No, you were not even a part of the government when you 'did it all the time.' That you would even cite your personal example of the actions of a regular citizen as some sort of defense for what Palin and her political appointees were doing shows that you are either completely ignorant of the facts, or a total political tribalist.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's rhetorical, right? Clearly, gangs of Internet hackers is an excellent choice.
Damn straight it is rhetorical. You just don't understand the definition of a rhetorical question.
Anyone who IAAL: care to clear this up?
IAAL: Is An Anal Lawyer?
but it seems that many out there have read every word of the coverage and nobody finds any official business conducted through that account.
Here - glance at this
Furthermore, if there is disclosure to be made, I don't think that falls to some random guy who changes her password.
Vigilantism is best left for movies.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
But she didn't conduct any official business with the yahoo account! All that was in it were family pictures and emails to her friends.
Really? How do you know that?
Do these sound like personal emails to you?
Subject: Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger / Container Tax
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: FW: Motor Fuel Tax Suspension
From: Meghan Stapleton (Press Secretary)
Subject: RE: Using Royalty Oil to Lower the Cost of Fuel for Alaskans
From: Nizich, Michael A (Chief of Staff)
Subject: Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Boards and Commissions
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: RE: Please approve
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: Rural Wireless Service
From: McBride, Rhonda (Rural Advisor)
Subject: FW: DPS Employee Draft
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: Re: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues
From: McAllister, William D (Communciations Director)
Subject: FW: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: Court of Appeals Nominations
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: another records request
From: Nizich, Michael A (Chief of Staff)
Subject: RE: Scheduling - Week of 08.10.08
From: Mason, Janice L (Scheduling Assistant
Subject: FW: Capitalizing on coal reserves, Crow Tribe strikes deal for $7B
From: Nizich, Michael A (Chief of Staff)
Subject: Status report
From: Ruaro, Randall P (Deputy Chief of Staff)
Subject: FW: Special session press release
From: Nizich, Michael A (Chief of Staff)
Subject: Followup.
From: Colberg, Talis J (Alaska Attorney General)
Subject: FW: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter
From: Nizich, Michael A (Chief of Staff)
That's actually not true. If you take the time to look at the information posted on wikileaks, you'll notice a number of emails have titles such as "Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger / Container Tax", "Court of Appeals / Executive Director Parole Board / Boards and Commissions", "Re: DPS Personnel and Budget Issues", "Court of Appeals Nominations", "FW: CONFIDENTIAL Ethics Matter".
No, no, no...
Those weren't actual messages about government business.
They were just spam messages with misleading subject lines crafted to trick a politician into reading them.
Governors on yahoo get them ALL the time!
You should see the spam she gets now that she is a vp candidate - lots of messages that appear to be from Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Jerry Falwell and Bob Dole.
But open them up, and they are just advertisements for viagra. Wait a second, the ones from Bob Dole probably really are from him.
Yeah, this disagree mail segment thing has run it's course.
Kill it.
I suggest that you mail this request in to the slashdot editors. I understand the read their email diligently.
That comment really makes me wonder, what happens to the person who loans out tools to the gold miners for free ?
Lol, are you really so out of it that you think *that* is how it works?
If so, that would probably explain your lack of success in the business.
The majority of software development money is spent on non-cots/non-shrinkwrap software.
Nobody loans software, ESPECIALLY to wall-street.
Whether you write it on contract as Free or as proprietary, the important part is to write it on contract so that you get paid for the work you put in.
Title says it all.
Yeah well, then it is even sillier. Terrorism costs money, drug dealing is a profit center.
That's nice, but I think he's more interested in analysis and management tools rather than actually running a stock market...
In a gold rush, the ones who sell mining tools are the ones who are guaranteed to make a profit.
No, you've confused disinterest with deliberate ignorance.
If you have an opinion on a topic then you have a reason for that opinion and if your reason is nonsensical then that reflects on your ability to reason in general.
The difference is technical but not meaningful.
When the people who define what is legal and what is not are the ones who are themselves under suspicion then morality easily trumps technicality which is something I'm sure most people can understand.
I would argue that the bootleggers are supplying a service - it is mostly same service that any distributor provides, sans advertising (which, for smaller works, legit distributors don't even bother to do either).
How much do so-called 'legit' distributors take of the cut? I bet it is more, in absolute terms, than bootleggers do. Yes I know the 'legit' guys are supposed to actually pass a percentage of the cut back to the creator, and that gives them at least the appearance of legitimacy, versus the bootleggers who give no part of their revenue to the creator. But if the legit price is, say $15 and the distributor takes $14.50 of that while the bootleg price is $5 and the bootlegger keeps all of that, it means the distributor is taking more, in absolute dollars, per copy than the bootlegger for doing exactly the same job (easier in fact since they don't risk the wrath of the law).
Also, all the people for whom $15 is too high a price, but $5 is feasible are customers the creator would never have seen money from in the first place, but do bring all the benefits of name-recognition that the people for whom $0 is the highest they would pay do too.
All I'm saying is that from a dispassionate view of the market bootleggers are not complete parasites.
Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).
Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs.
But it is one HELL of a leap of logic to go from that fact to the supposition that bootlegging funds terrorism.
It doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.
Well then, let me be the first to say fuck you for condoning a crime.
What's the bigger crime - abusing the system to avoid accountability to the public, or abusing the system to bring the prior to account from the public?
There's also the flip-side. Do you want someone who doesn't believe in any ultimate accountability to be given the power of nuclear weapons?
I would want someone who is motivated to do the right thing, no matter what their beliefs about the origins of life.
As if plenty of people who do "believe in ultimate accountability" haven't been the ones to start horrible wars in the first place. The last thing we want is someone who might just decide that the most important factor in their decision is what would their own personal version of God think about it.
Many of its members would say "yes" if asked if they believed in creation over evolution as the origin of man, simply because they've never really thought about it - for non-geeks, it just isn't that interesting of a question.
What you really mean is that for people who are not critical thinkers it isn't that interesting of a question.
I think it's a state-by-state thing. Some want both and some only require one.
In some states, it is a plate-by-plate thing. In Mass if you have an old plate (the kind which hasn't been issued for probably 20 years now) you only need a rear plate (because that's all the required at the time). But if you have new plates, you have to have a front plate too. So people with the old plates take really good care of them in order to re-use them each time they swap up to a newer car.
Oh yeah, almost forgot. The cops don't need a front plate here either, instead they get to display their gang colors - a solid black plate with a horizontal blue line across it.
Amber Alerts are not allowed for custody battles.
The rules are routinely broken, probably because all the mindless hysteria the system provokes has just as much effect on the people in charge of not breaking the rules as it does on anyone else. For example - take the "Clark Rockefeller" kidnapping of his daughter "Snooks" - the cops knew it was him from the beginning. Yet they did the song and dance anyway.
Here in california we already have the Amber alert system tied into those highway warning signs and I see about 1 Amber alert every month or two.
Hell, amber alerts are just a bunch of fear-mongering bullshit. The number of children kidnapped each year who actually end up dead or 'permanently' missing is roughly 100 and has been for decades - the amber alert nonsense hasn't dented that statistic. All the others are either custody fights gone extra-legal or runaways, in each case the child is not in any immediate danger that would justify spamming the entire state.
Spelled it wrong (might be a marketing problem right there) - Dilberito.
Any idea how his dilbrito idea is doing?
I've never seen one in person, so it seems like a failure to me.
But it was clearly an attempt to do something positive and creative. If it really was a failure, especially for reasons other than rejection by the marketplace (of chair jockeys, not distributors), I could see that making him cynical about trying to make a positive difference.
Also known as, "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."
I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular.
Do you know why?
Because the regular explanation of the difference between regular and premium - higher octane - does not explain how you could get 33% better mileage on a car so old (and cheap) that it doesn't have fuel injection, never mind a computer managing the mix.
So now the truth comes out - some anti-iraq cheerleader edited the wikipedia article on Iraq to say that Hussein had massive amounts of WMDs and the spy agencies plagiarized wikipedia and with no actual agents in iraq they just took it at face value.
Upon further investigation it seems the the IP address of the edit that put those claims of WMD in the article on iraq is the same as the one for the Project for the New American Century.