Like a collection agency cannot cost you money in an attempt to collect what you owe them and likewise can't call cell lines.
What state is that? My cell# ended up being 'stolen' by some deadbeat and I regularly get collection agencies calling - its to the point I never answer unless I recognize the caller-id and they always leave voice-mail about "an extremely important matter."
Why are people so worried about Google selling them out?
Who said obeying a subpoena is "selling out?"
But, since you brought it up, INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION ASKED, here is the abridged response: Privacy is like pandora's box, once you let your personal information out of your hands you can never, ever put it back - even if circumstances change such what you thought was harmless is no longer harmless. If there is no compelling reason to let your personal information out of your hands, then why do so? For some people a chocolate bar is enough of a compelling reason. For others it is convenience, like ease of using toll roads or shopping at the supermarket. Some of us take our privacy a little bit more seriously than that.
And I think the telcos might be a bit more likely to divulge information than Google.
The telcos, as a rule, do not operate a business that is focused on targeted advertising. They do not have a business incentive to build up profiles of their users that could be vulnerable to subpoena or theft, they make their money by charging their users for services. Google isn't charging you a dime now are they? So it is entirely reasonable to expect them to build up as much of a cache of information about their users as possible because it means more accurately targeted advertising which means more revenue for them.
Do you have a favorite piece(s) of software for doing all this?
eac3to + various filters (some commercial, it comes with the Free ones) to take it apart and mkvmerge to put it together as a matroska file (mkvmerge is part of mkvtoolnix) one caveat is that mkvmerge can not handle dts files more complex than the regular DTS format on dvds, but it can do truehd. I always recompress to flac anyway, tends to be more efficient than either truehd or dts master audio and eac3to can do the recompression automatically.
If you want to keep it in m2ts format than TsRemuxer is pretty good it will allow you to remux to either a single m2ts file or to a bare-bones blu-ray directory format.
All above mentioned tools are easy to find in google.
Maybe for free as in beer, but what about free as in liberty? What is google doing with that email besides forwarding it on? Are they building up a profile or even a full-text history that could be subpoenaed?
When you start ripping your Blue-Ray HD Movies to store on a disk-less HDD share (at about 25GB to 50GB a pop) and then you conveniently convert them into mountable ISO images, you will then know why you bought that 1.5TB HDD.
What a waste. If he spent a little more time and remuxed them down to just the movies he could easily shave off half of that space. For example, the "I am Legend" blu-ray contains two complete copies of the movie, one of the theatrical cut and one of the director's cut - no seamless branching, two full copies that are 99% identical. Toss the theatrical cut, and all of the other junk and that disc which was nearly the full 50GB is down to ~18GB.
Another common space-wasting practice on blu-ray is to include multiple uncompressed (lpcm, not even truehd or dts master audio) soundtracks, good for 5-6GB each, all of which can be tossed except the native track and then you can losslessly compress that down to 1-2GB. And then, of course, there is all the supplements which you watch, maybe once, if that. Throw those out the window, if you ever really want to watch them you can still pull the original disk out of storage.
Another benefit to remuxing is that you can easily play the movie in any variety of free and semi-free players. Sometimes that can be extremely difficult with the original iso -- like animated movies where they actually render the scenes differently depending on the language track in order to localize things like signs and to keep the mouth movements in sync, typically seamless branching is used for these things, but the net effect is 30-40 different snippet files for each specific language that are not necessarily in any obvious order.
And I didn't say that Cheney gave a time period, but the documents did state he was on the payroll for the previous 10 years. Try reading what I said next time.
YOU> And after the invasion, we found documents showing he was on the Iraqi payroll from 1993 to 2003. YOU> Dick Cheney revealed those papers on NPR
What part of "from 1993 to 2003" is not a time period?
For the record, this is what I do for a living. I am an intelligence analyst working in Iraq. My wife is a counter-terrorism analyst, as are most of my friends.
So you directly benefit from the enormous amount of money that started flowing after 9/11? AND your entire life is spent in one big echo chamber that happens to be on the other side of planet from US soil.
In light of all the public information which you can't explain, your attempt at an appeal to authority is laughable. Your attempt to paint me as just a google-dork is just more of the same.
But what's really ironic is how you will blow off my other statements and say how I haven't supported them (which I believe I have, at length)
No, all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Anybody can put text on the page. Its funny that you would complain about my 'beliefs supported by facts' when you have not provided a single citation.
I've given you citations, look at the list of joke terrorists. And your strange inability to do either basic math or simple grammar.
I've even went so far as to try divine your citations and found your buddy "Laurie" by researching your claims. Her books have been widely criticized for making unsubstantiated leaps of logic. But then you say her books aren't your sources, but you don't give your sources.
In absence of facts, all that's left is critical thinking. Your claims don't pass the muster of critical analysis and when faced with that critical analysis you shy away and bring up other topics.
But since you brought it up as another diversion, here is how it is done:
YOU> And after the invasion, we found documents showing he was on the Iraqi payroll from 1993 to 2003. YOU> Dick Cheney revealed those papers on NPR and it quickly died after that, because as everyone "knows", YOU> Iraq has no ties to terrorism.
NPR TRANSCRIPT> I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and NPR TRANSCRIPT> the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named NPR TRANSCRIPT> Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center NPR TRANSCRIPT> in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, NPR TRANSCRIPT> safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. Iraq On the Record
60 Minutes TRANSCRIPT> Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. 60 Minutes TRANSCRIPT> He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News 60 Minutes TRANSCRIPT> they put him in prison in 1994. 60 Minutes: The Man Who Got Away
So your claim about what Cheney said is false. He NEVER gave a date range. What he said is technically true, but exceptionally misleading. As the 60 minutes interview shows, Yasin was only a free man for a year following the WTC attack.
The fact that you bought the spin in Cheney's claims and expanded them to fill your predetermined beliefs shows me how much you are dedicated to having beliefs supported by facts: not at all.
Have you no reading comprehension skills? I did not say that the number of attacks was 1/10 of 1%. I said that what you see in the news is 1/10 of 1% of what is happening. I hope you are capable of at least seeing the difference between these two statements.
No I am not capable of seeing the difference. The news reports 3-4 thwarted joke threats per year, you say the news shows 1/10th of 1% of what is happening. Are threats not happening? Are you trying to say that terrorists non-threats are the other 99.9% of what's going on? Who cares about terrorists that aren't threats?
KSM was an AQ senior member as well as having received funding from Iraq.
Oh please, Laurie Mylorie's claims are baloney.
He later almost certainly met Terry Nichols when he visited the Philipines
Undoubtedly... right. The philippines is a big place, and the only one to suggest anything like that claim was McVeigh's lawyer - the one whose job it was to do anything he could to raise doubt about his own client's guilt.
It took years of planning after the Bojinka plot and the 93 WTC, but they did it.
Even if I were to take your tenuous claims at face value, you have not supported your original claim that, "The planning for 9/11 started as early as 92 and was first put together in the 94 Bojinka plot." all you have done is try to say so-and-so is associated with so-and-so.
And now they are planning on blowing up Washigton D.C. with an atomic weapon. Big freaking deal?
Yeah, BFD. A nutjob in the backwoods can say anything. Don't expect us to take it seriously. You paint the picture of highly organized group with unlimited funding able to blend into any society and pull off amazing 007 feats. Even 9/11 does not come anywhere near the magnitude of complexity to nuke DC. A dirty bomb, might just be feasible, but the actual damage would be far less than 9/11.
But my main point in the original post was that the threat was not exagerrated. And I stand by that.
First, the "terrorist special olympics" as you call them are usually just the dupes left behind by the pros.
No they are not. Perhaps you misunderstand the term. I will repost the original examples and more:
1) The "Miami 7" who 'wanted to blow up the sears tower' but did not have enough money for bus fare. There were NO "pros" who left them behind. It was just a bunch of guys talking and an informant who got paid more the more he played up the talk.
2) The guys who "wanted to blow up JFK' but had absolutely no means or even knowledge to effect the plan. Again, NO "pros" just more bad intel and an informant who egged them on in order to justify more money from the police.
3) The "toronto terror plot" where many of the so-called terrorist cell didn't even know each other, and the primary mole both micromanaged the actual purchase of fertilizer and was paid handsomely for what is obviously a frame job.
4) The glasgow doctors who tried to drive a flaming jeep into an airport terminal with a couple of tanks of propane. That's right, no bomb. They just poured gas on the car and propane tanks and lit it before trying to drive it through security barriers that could easily withstand the attack. Clearly if "pros" had been involved they would have (a) made sure there was an actual bomb on board the car and (b) made sure the target could actually be reached by the vehicle.
5) Related to the incompetents in glasgow were the incompetents who tried to bomb the Tiger-Tiger nightclub in London the day before. Again, no actual bomb. They put a couple of tanks of gas and propane in a car. Tanks that are designed to jet off like a low-powered rocket rather than explode and then there was the teensy-tiny problem of a lack of oxidizer. That's some top-notch professional planning there.
6) Iyman Faris - the man convicted of plotting to take out the Brooklyn Bridge with a single blowtorch. Yeah, that's a plan designed by real pros.
7) The "Fort Dix Six" who were also egged on by a mole - so much so that one of the six actually called the cops to report the mole. The only "pros" here were the police.
8) The german train station plot, where the propane and gasoline 'bombs' also lacked oxidizers. More signs that real professionals were involved, must have been the same ones from London.
9) The list goes on and on...
Second, we will never know how much our eforts have thwarted terrorist attacks. Just like you will never know how many burglaries you've thwarted by locking your doors.
Lame analogy. Locked doors are passive defense that requires no intervention. Terrorist attacks are not thwarted by themselves. It requires ears and eyes on the ground. Furthermore, there is little reason to keep the successes secret. There seems to be no shortage of showboating the joke terrorists as if they were the real thing. So unless you want to argue that the publicity about the joke terrorists is just counter-intel (lol), obviously there is a will to display so called victories.
Third, counter-drug, by and large, IS counter terrorism.
Yeah, I figured you would bite on that. That sort of reasoning leads to basically all forms of crime being terrorism or terrorism-aiding. That level of scope creep is unacceptable in a free society.
You can believe what you want to believe, but what you see on the news is only 1/10 of 1% of what is going on.
All you do is repeat yourself without addressing the points made. Your repetition is meaningless in the face of basic math.
1/10th of 1% is 1 out of a thousand. We see roughly 3-4 showboat cases each year on US soil. That means 3,000 actual threats per year. It is ridiculous to believe that 2,997 of those are prevented each year with out a peep.
As for oplan bojinka, well you showed your hand with that. If you don't understand that difference between what went down in the philippines and what happened on 9/11 then you aren't paying attention.
By the way. Even if they did pull off another 'spectacular attack' big freaking deal. The vast majority of the damage from 9/11 was self-inflicted, by a few orders of magnitude. More people die in car accidents in one month than died in 9/11. My initial point about ratio of deaths due to terrorism vs deaths due to bee stings still holds as an average even with 9/11 included.
Men who live in fear are not free men.
Re:I've seen an effect
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
What part of "commercially successful" do you fail to understand?
The guy's point was that GPL proponents are communists. I claimed that the only seriously money-making projects are GPL licensed. You responded with a list of projects that receive code -- not money -- in return. That's not being commercially successful, if anything that's communism.
As for the other people claiming parts of BSD are used in routers and what-not - those are closed source projects it is the sale of routers and support for them making the money, not the sale of the source code and support contracts for it. FreeBSD and its ilk are barely hanging on, often begging for donations, unlike RedHat.
Now they have said in numerous protests and on their websites that they will not stop until "the flag of Islam flies over the White House." They've told us what they plan to do, if you just listen.
A nutjob in the backwoods can say anything. Don't expect us to take it seriously. You paint the picture of highly organized group with unlimited funding able to blend into any society and pull off amazing 007 feats.
If even the threat was even 1% of what you suggest, we would see daily attacks on US soil.
There's a running joke in the intelligence community about how you'll never see an intelligence success, or how there's only good ops and bad intel.
I don't buy it, because it is a total joke.
Our news headlines are regularly filled with stories of government agencies backslapping themselves over the thwarting of attacks by people who couldn't even win the terrorist special olympics. If what you claimed is true, why are only the joke terrorists the ones being showboated in the news?
Furthermore, do you really expect us to believe that the anti-terrorism keystone cops are so successful that they have stopped every single attempt on US soil since 9/11? If the anti-terrorism showboating we see in the news is 0.1% of what's going on that won't ruin a source or isn't part of an ongoing investigation that would indicate that there are literally thousands of plots on US soil alone. If what you claimed is true, why hasn't there been a single case that slipped through?
Additionally, why is it that so much of the anti-terrorism federal funding is going towards non terrorist activities? Like drug interdiction? Why is money ear-marked for anti-terrorism being wasted on non-terrorist threats if there are so many actual threats out there?
As for comparing it to Y2K - that's a load of bull. All of the work that went into the fixing was public knowledge. VERY public knowledge. Anyone who wants to verify what happened has loads and loads of sources of information on the subject. There is nobody waving their hands and saying, "trust me, I know, but I can't tell you else I would have to kill you" about Y2K.
An error (502 Bad Gateway) has occured in response to this request.
> And more people have been killed by bees than have been directly killed by > global warming. Does that mean we shouldn't take measures to prevent global warming?
The threat of terrorism is immediate death and suffering. The threat of global warming is long-term. To compare the two in that way is to show absolute ignorance of both issues.
The post to which I replied suggested the threat is exaggerated, and as an intelligence analyst who's tracked Al Qaeda both inside and out of Iraq, I can say first hand the threat is not exaggerated.
Gee, izzatso? Where's the proof? Where are the successful attacks? Where are the thwarted attacks? All I ever see are people who can't even win the terrorism special olympics, like the JFK 'plotters' who thought you could blow up the airport by putting a match to a gas pipeline a mile away, or the Miami 7 who together didn't even have enough money for bus fare to Chicago where they were 'planning' on blowing up the Sears tower.
World wide, bees kill more people per year than terrorists do. Inside the USA it is even less than that. If these threats are so credible, where are the results? If there are no results, then by definition there are no credible threats.
Tiananmen Square. Mussolini's Italy. Nazi Germany. Soviet Russia.
Why did you cite these?
All of them implemented strict gun control laws. If anything, they are perfect counter-examples to your point. Chile and Argentina may fall into the same category too, I just knew that those four were specious at first glance.
But even if they did, do you think you stand a chance against the military. May I direct your attention to a few recent conflicts of "little guys" versus modern militaries:
Americans in Vietnam Russians in Afghanistan Americans in Iraq
And those are countries where the military was not composed of the friends and relatives of the people it was fighting against.
Unless your country has lots of valuable natural resources, there is little to gain by supressing the population. Even if that were the only reason, I can't think of a more resource rich country than the USA.
FWIW, the copy of those fonts that HP distributed with some versions of HPUX 11.11 did not have that same EULA.
The version of that paragraph included in the README file of/usr/lib/X11/fonts/ms.st/typefaces/README says:
Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be distributed as a standalone product or included with your own product. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sold or distributed for any kind of fee. The difference being that the version of this EULA says you can include them "with your own product" which appears to mean you can charge a fee for your product and include the fonts "for free." It sure seems like that's what HP actually did given that they came with the copy of HPUX that they did charge a fee for.
If you actually have some problem then you can go to a physician and have total confidence that the only person who will know the result is you and him. Hell, you can even withhold it from him if you wish. RRRRRight.
With all the paperwork for insurance companies (both your health insurance and the doc's liability insurance) nobody takes your privacy seriously in the medical profession. Sure they claim to adhere to HIPPA, but that's not the same thing. True privacy would mean that:
1) The fact that you requested a test is never recorded 2) The sample being tested is not associated with you in any way 3) The results of the test are not recorded with any identifiable information 4) You can retrieve the results without disclosing any identifiable information
All of these sound relatively easy to do, but just try it. Go to a doctor, tell them you want to pay cash for such a test (or any test, like even for strep throat) and that you want to remain anonymous (and no you can't just lie about your identity, that's just avoiding the problem, not eliminating it). 99% of them will treat you like a bug-eyed martian, the other 1% will understand your concerns but will say that they just aren't set up to provide absolute privacy.
Remember folks, if its written down, it can be disclosed. What's against the law to disclose today may not be against the law tomorrow and what is against the law today can be waived voluntarily (job interview, they want your medical history, you need a job so you waive your right to privacy, when the choice is between starvation for you and your family 'voluntary' is really mandatory) nor can any law of man prevent 'accidental disclosure.'
Slashdot Mirror
Like a collection agency cannot cost you money in an attempt to collect what you owe them and likewise can't call cell lines.
What state is that? My cell# ended up being 'stolen' by some deadbeat and I regularly get collection agencies calling - its to the point I never answer unless I recognize the caller-id and they always leave voice-mail about "an extremely important matter."
Why are people so worried about Google selling them out?
Who said obeying a subpoena is "selling out?"
But, since you brought it up, INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION ASKED, here is the abridged response: Privacy is like pandora's box, once you let your personal information out of your hands you can never, ever put it back - even if circumstances change such what you thought was harmless is no longer harmless. If there is no compelling reason to let your personal information out of your hands, then why do so? For some people a chocolate bar is enough of a compelling reason. For others it is convenience, like ease of using toll roads or shopping at the supermarket. Some of us take our privacy a little bit more seriously than that.
And I think the telcos might be a bit more likely to divulge information than Google.
The telcos, as a rule, do not operate a business that is focused on targeted advertising. They do not have a business incentive to build up profiles of their users that could be vulnerable to subpoena or theft, they make their money by charging their users for services. Google isn't charging you a dime now are they? So it is entirely reasonable to expect them to build up as much of a cache of information about their users as possible because it means more accurately targeted advertising which means more revenue for them.
All this sounds like it might be quite time consuming.
Only if you babysit it. Kick it off and go time is usually less than 5 minutes for each step.
Do you have a favorite piece(s) of software for doing all this?
eac3to + various filters (some commercial, it comes with the Free ones) to take it apart and
mkvmerge to put it together as a matroska file (mkvmerge is part of mkvtoolnix)
one caveat is that mkvmerge can not handle dts files more complex than the regular DTS format on dvds, but it can do truehd. I always recompress to flac anyway, tends to be more efficient than either truehd or dts master audio and eac3to can do the recompression automatically.
If you want to keep it in m2ts format than TsRemuxer is pretty good it will allow you to remux to either a single m2ts file or to a bare-bones blu-ray directory format.
All above mentioned tools are easy to find in google.
For free... :-)
Maybe for free as in beer, but what about free as in liberty?
What is google doing with that email besides forwarding it on?
Are they building up a profile or even a full-text history that could be subpoenaed?
When you start ripping your Blue-Ray HD Movies to store on a disk-less HDD share (at about 25GB to 50GB a pop) and then you conveniently convert them into mountable ISO images, you will then know why you bought that 1.5TB HDD.
What a waste. If he spent a little more time and remuxed them down to just the movies he could easily shave off half of that space. For example, the "I am Legend" blu-ray contains two complete copies of the movie, one of the theatrical cut and one of the director's cut - no seamless branching, two full copies that are 99% identical. Toss the theatrical cut, and all of the other junk and that disc which was nearly the full 50GB is down to ~18GB.
Another common space-wasting practice on blu-ray is to include multiple uncompressed (lpcm, not even truehd or dts master audio) soundtracks, good for 5-6GB each, all of which can be tossed except the native track and then you can losslessly compress that down to 1-2GB. And then, of course, there is all the supplements which you watch, maybe once, if that. Throw those out the window, if you ever really want to watch them you can still pull the original disk out of storage.
Another benefit to remuxing is that you can easily play the movie in any variety of free and semi-free players. Sometimes that can be extremely difficult with the original iso -- like animated movies where they actually render the scenes differently depending on the language track in order to localize things like signs and to keep the mouth movements in sync, typically seamless branching is used for these things, but the net effect is 30-40 different snippet files for each specific language that are not necessarily in any obvious order.
/.: the only place where one gets a broken heart from a hard drive instead of the opposite sex.
Wait! There are places where a hard drive will get you someone of the opposite sex?
And I didn't say that Cheney gave a time period, but the documents did state he was on the payroll for the previous 10 years. Try reading what I said next time.
YOU> And after the invasion, we found documents showing he was on the Iraqi payroll from 1993 to 2003.
YOU> Dick Cheney revealed those papers on NPR
What part of "from 1993 to 2003" is not a time period?
For the record, this is what I do for a living. I am an intelligence analyst working in Iraq. My wife is a counter-terrorism analyst, as are most of my friends.
So you directly benefit from the enormous amount of money that started flowing after 9/11? AND your entire life is spent in one big echo chamber that happens to be on the other side of planet from US soil.
In light of all the public information which you can't explain, your attempt at an appeal to authority is laughable. Your attempt to paint me as just a google-dork is just more of the same.
But what's really ironic is how you will blow off my other statements and say how I haven't supported them (which I believe I have, at length)
No, all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Anybody can put text on the page. Its funny that you would complain about my 'beliefs supported by facts' when you have not provided a single citation.
I've given you citations, look at the list of joke terrorists. And your strange inability to do either basic math or simple grammar.
I've even went so far as to try divine your citations and found your buddy "Laurie" by researching your claims. Her books have been widely criticized for making unsubstantiated leaps of logic. But then you say her books aren't your sources, but you don't give your sources.
In absence of facts, all that's left is critical thinking. Your claims don't pass the muster of critical analysis and when faced with that critical analysis you shy away and bring up other topics.
But since you brought it up as another diversion, here is how it is done:
YOU> And after the invasion, we found documents showing he was on the Iraqi payroll from 1993 to 2003.
YOU> Dick Cheney revealed those papers on NPR and it quickly died after that, because as everyone "knows",
YOU> Iraq has no ties to terrorism.
NPR TRANSCRIPT> I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and
NPR TRANSCRIPT> the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named
NPR TRANSCRIPT> Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center
NPR TRANSCRIPT> in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house,
NPR TRANSCRIPT> safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now.
Iraq On the Record
60 Minutes TRANSCRIPT> Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
60 Minutes TRANSCRIPT> He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News
60 Minutes TRANSCRIPT> they put him in prison in 1994.
60 Minutes: The Man Who Got Away
So your claim about what Cheney said is false. He NEVER gave a date range. What he said is technically true, but exceptionally misleading. As the 60 minutes interview shows, Yasin was only a free man for a year following the WTC attack.
The fact that you bought the spin in Cheney's claims and expanded them to fill your predetermined beliefs shows me how much you are dedicated to having beliefs supported by facts: not at all.
Have you no reading comprehension skills? I did not say that the number of attacks was 1/10 of 1%. I said that what you see in the news is 1/10 of 1% of what is happening. I hope you are capable of at least seeing the difference between these two statements.
No I am not capable of seeing the difference. The news reports 3-4 thwarted joke threats per year, you say the news shows 1/10th of 1% of what is happening. Are threats not happening? Are you trying to say that terrorists non-threats are the other 99.9% of what's going on? Who cares about terrorists that aren't threats?
KSM was an AQ senior member as well as having received funding from Iraq.
Oh please, Laurie Mylorie's claims are baloney.
He later almost certainly met Terry Nichols when he visited the Philipines
Undoubtedly... right. The philippines is a big place, and the only one to suggest anything like that claim was McVeigh's lawyer - the one whose job it was to do anything he could to raise doubt about his own client's guilt.
It took years of planning after the Bojinka plot and the 93 WTC, but they did it.
Even if I were to take your tenuous claims at face value, you have not supported your original claim that, "The planning for 9/11 started as early as 92 and was first put together in the 94 Bojinka plot." all you have done is try to say so-and-so is associated with so-and-so.
And now they are planning on blowing up Washigton D.C. with an atomic weapon. Big freaking deal?
Yeah, BFD. A nutjob in the backwoods can say anything. Don't expect us to take it seriously. You paint the picture of highly organized group with unlimited funding able to blend into any society and pull off amazing 007 feats. Even 9/11 does not come anywhere near the magnitude of complexity to nuke DC. A dirty bomb, might just be feasible, but the actual damage would be far less than 9/11.
But my main point in the original post was that the threat was not exagerrated. And I stand by that.
Stand or sit, you have not supported it.
First, the "terrorist special olympics" as you call them are usually just the dupes left behind by the pros.
No they are not. Perhaps you misunderstand the term. I will repost the original examples and more:
1) The "Miami 7" who 'wanted to blow up the sears tower' but did not have enough money for bus fare. There were NO "pros" who left them behind. It was just a bunch of guys talking and an informant who got paid more the more he played up the talk.
2) The guys who "wanted to blow up JFK' but had absolutely no means or even knowledge to effect the plan. Again, NO "pros" just more bad intel and an informant who egged them on in order to justify more money from the police.
3) The "toronto terror plot" where many of the so-called terrorist cell didn't even know each other, and the primary mole both micromanaged the actual purchase of fertilizer and was paid handsomely for what is obviously a frame job.
4) The glasgow doctors who tried to drive a flaming jeep into an airport terminal with a couple of tanks of propane. That's right, no bomb. They just poured gas on the car and propane tanks and lit it before trying to drive it through security barriers that could easily withstand the attack. Clearly if "pros" had been involved they would have (a) made sure there was an actual bomb on board the car and (b) made sure the target could actually be reached by the vehicle.
5) Related to the incompetents in glasgow were the incompetents who tried to bomb the Tiger-Tiger nightclub in London the day before. Again, no actual bomb. They put a couple of tanks of gas and propane in a car. Tanks that are designed to jet off like a low-powered rocket rather than explode and then there was the teensy-tiny problem of a lack of oxidizer. That's some top-notch professional planning there.
6) Iyman Faris - the man convicted of plotting to take out the Brooklyn Bridge with a single blowtorch. Yeah, that's a plan designed by real pros.
7) The "Fort Dix Six" who were also egged on by a mole - so much so that one of the six actually called the cops to report the mole. The only "pros" here were the police.
8) The german train station plot, where the propane and gasoline 'bombs' also lacked oxidizers. More signs that real professionals were involved, must have been the same ones from London.
9) The list goes on and on...
Second, we will never know how much our eforts have thwarted terrorist attacks. Just like you will never know how many burglaries you've thwarted by locking your doors.
Lame analogy. Locked doors are passive defense that requires no intervention. Terrorist attacks are not thwarted by themselves. It requires ears and eyes on the ground. Furthermore, there is little reason to keep the successes secret. There seems to be no shortage of showboating the joke terrorists as if they were the real thing. So unless you want to argue that the publicity about the joke terrorists is just counter-intel (lol), obviously there is a will to display so called victories.
Third, counter-drug, by and large, IS counter terrorism.
Yeah, I figured you would bite on that. That sort of reasoning leads to basically all forms of crime being terrorism or terrorism-aiding. That level of scope creep is unacceptable in a free society.
You can believe what you want to believe, but what you see on the news is only 1/10 of 1% of what is going on.
All you do is repeat yourself without addressing the points made. Your repetition is meaningless in the face of basic math.
1/10th of 1% is 1 out of a thousand. We see roughly 3-4 showboat cases each year on US soil. That means 3,000 actual threats per year. It is ridiculous to believe that 2,997 of those are prevented each year with out a peep.
As for oplan bojinka, well you showed your hand with that. If you don't understand that difference between what went down in the philippines and what happened on 9/11 then you aren't paying attention.
By the way. Even if they did pull off another 'spectacular attack' big freaking deal. The vast majority of the damage from 9/11 was self-inflicted, by a few orders of magnitude. More people die in car accidents in one month than died in 9/11. My initial point about ratio of deaths due to terrorism vs deaths due to bee stings still holds as an average even with 9/11 included.
Men who live in fear are not free men.
What part of "commercially successful" do you fail to understand?
The guy's point was that GPL proponents are communists.
I claimed that the only seriously money-making projects are GPL licensed.
You responded with a list of projects that receive code -- not money -- in return. That's not being commercially successful, if anything that's communism.
As for the other people claiming parts of BSD are used in routers and what-not - those are closed source projects it is the sale of routers and support for them making the money, not the sale of the source code and support contracts for it. FreeBSD and its ilk are barely hanging on, often begging for donations, unlike RedHat.
Now they have said in numerous protests and on their websites that they will not stop until "the flag of Islam flies over the White House." They've told us what they plan to do, if you just listen.
A nutjob in the backwoods can say anything. Don't expect us to take it seriously. You paint the picture of highly organized group with unlimited funding able to blend into any society and pull off amazing 007 feats.
If even the threat was even 1% of what you suggest, we would see daily attacks on US soil.
There's a running joke in the intelligence community about how you'll never see an intelligence success, or how there's only good ops and bad intel.
I don't buy it, because it is a total joke.
Our news headlines are regularly filled with stories of government agencies backslapping themselves over the thwarting of attacks by people who couldn't even win the terrorist special olympics. If what you claimed is true, why are only the joke terrorists the ones being showboated in the news?
Furthermore, do you really expect us to believe that the anti-terrorism keystone cops are so successful that they have stopped every single attempt on US soil since 9/11? If the anti-terrorism showboating we see in the news is 0.1% of what's going on that won't ruin a source or isn't part of an ongoing investigation that would indicate that there are literally thousands of plots on US soil alone. If what you claimed is true, why hasn't there been a single case that slipped through?
Additionally, why is it that so much of the anti-terrorism federal funding is going towards non terrorist activities? Like drug interdiction? Why is money ear-marked for anti-terrorism being wasted on non-terrorist threats if there are so many actual threats out there?
As for comparing it to Y2K - that's a load of bull. All of the work that went into the fixing was public knowledge. VERY public knowledge. Anyone who wants to verify what happened has loads and loads of sources of information on the subject. There is nobody waving their hands and saying, "trust me, I know, but I can't tell you else I would have to kill you" about Y2K.
> http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terrorism2002_2005.htm
An error (502 Bad Gateway) has occured in response to this request.
> And more people have been killed by bees than have been directly killed by
> global warming. Does that mean we shouldn't take measures to prevent global warming?
The threat of terrorism is immediate death and suffering. The threat of global warming is long-term. To compare the two in that way is to show absolute ignorance of both issues.
and the one very important point the GPL camp misses is that only a communist would lay claim to that code.
That is an odd claim to make when you consider that all of the commercially successful open-source software products are GNU licensed.
The post to which I replied suggested the threat is exaggerated, and as an intelligence analyst who's tracked Al Qaeda both inside and out of Iraq, I can say first hand the threat is not exaggerated.
Gee, izzatso? Where's the proof? Where are the successful attacks? Where are the thwarted attacks? All I ever see are people who can't even win the terrorism special olympics, like the JFK 'plotters' who thought you could blow up the airport by putting a match to a gas pipeline a mile away, or the Miami 7 who together didn't even have enough money for bus fare to Chicago where they were 'planning' on blowing up the Sears tower.
World wide, bees kill more people per year than terrorists do. Inside the USA it is even less than that. If these threats are so credible, where are the results? If there are no results, then by definition there are no credible threats.
Tiananmen Square.
Mussolini's Italy.
Nazi Germany.
Soviet Russia.
Why did you cite these?
All of them implemented strict gun control laws.
If anything, they are perfect counter-examples to your point.
Chile and Argentina may fall into the same category too, I just knew that those four were specious at first glance.
Americans in Vietnam
Russians in Afghanistan
Americans in Iraq
And those are countries where the military was not composed of the friends and relatives of the people it was fighting against.
Unless your country has lots of valuable natural resources, there is little to gain by supressing the population. Even if that were the only reason, I can't think of a more resource rich country than the USA.Obligatory XKCD:
http://www.xkcd.com/440/
FWIW, the copy of those fonts that HP distributed with some versions of HPUX 11.11 did not have that same EULA.
The version of that paragraph included in the README file of /usr/lib/X11/fonts/ms.st/typefaces/README says:
Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distributean unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided
that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all
copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a
copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be
distributed as a standalone product or included with your own
product. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sold or
distributed for any kind of fee. The difference being that the version of this EULA says you can include them "with your own product" which appears to mean you can charge a fee for your product and include the fonts "for free." It sure seems like that's what HP actually did given that they came with the copy of HPUX that they did charge a fee for.
With all the paperwork for insurance companies (both your health insurance and the doc's liability insurance) nobody takes your privacy seriously in the medical profession. Sure they claim to adhere to HIPPA, but that's not the same thing. True privacy would mean that:
1) The fact that you requested a test is never recorded
2) The sample being tested is not associated with you in any way
3) The results of the test are not recorded with any identifiable information
4) You can retrieve the results without disclosing any identifiable information
All of these sound relatively easy to do, but just try it. Go to a doctor, tell them you want to pay cash for such a test (or any test, like even for strep throat) and that you want to remain anonymous (and no you can't just lie about your identity, that's just avoiding the problem, not eliminating it). 99% of them will treat you like a bug-eyed martian, the other 1% will understand your concerns but will say that they just aren't set up to provide absolute privacy.
Remember folks, if its written down, it can be disclosed. What's against the law to disclose today may not be against the law tomorrow and what is against the law today can be waived voluntarily (job interview, they want your medical history, you need a job so you waive your right to privacy, when the choice is between starvation for you and your family 'voluntary' is really mandatory) nor can any law of man prevent 'accidental disclosure.'