I'm all for your parents forcing you into intense cognitive therapy, and taking away your computer until you learn how to communicate like a sensible and decent human being.
There are a lot of schools scamming everyone. The FTC and various state governments spend an inordinate amount of time investigating what amounts to a student loan fraud racket.
The idea of giving veterans a leg up is hardly new, and in and of itself I can't imagine why it would be controversial. Now whether it should just be making more educational opportunities available, or trying to target specific occupations is a matter of debate.
As I sidenote, many years ago, at the dawn of my professional IT career, I installed and maintained POS software that had been developed by a fellow who got his start in programming via GI benefits after his tour of duty in Vietnam. He did pretty darned well for himself, and the last I had heard he'd sold his company for a pretty tidy sum. Now that is admittedly anecdotal, but it does suggest there are good sound benefits to help vets find career opportunities.
What person reaches the age of maturity and idolizes a politician? That suggests that some people never actually reach the age of maturity.
I'm pretty damned realistic about politicians. I don't expect they'll keep half their promises, in part because they don't intend to, and in part because they won't be able to. The other half are promises that I probably will end up wishing they hadn't kept. What you're really doing is electing the people that will run your government, and they will be flawed individuals who will fail on occasion. Many of them are going to have less than stellar person lives, just like everyone else.
I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to make it pretty clear the Russians are involved. And I don't really give a fuck whether you accept that or not. The fact that they're not even making a secret of Le Pen being their preferred candidate is enough evidence for me.
It's awful curious how there are no major leaks against right wing candidates who are friendly with the Russians.
As it is, it's no secret that Le Pen and Moscow are on very friendly terms. This is getting to be a familiar tune. Political candidate has close ties to Russia, opponent suddenly faces major email hack and release of lots of allegedly damning documents.
Oh fuck off. By this point is there any question about it? The Russians have been mucking around with Western elections at least since Brexit. I'm glad the French are going to elect Macron, and not just because Le Pen is the leader of a den of virulent racists. Hopefully the Russians will soon find the blowback is bad that they give up on this.
In the meantime, maybe it's time to start QoSing any connections to Russia down to about 2kbps.
Maybe the time has come to stop obsessing about whether our politicians are pure as the driven snow.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and while I don't like the idea of wantonly electing crooks, it strikes me that seeing as the general populace has no lack of shady people, I can't sort out why it is exactly we expect the political class to be paragons of virtue.
In the French election, there's a choice between a center-left politician and a hard-right politician. Now neither are ideal, and neither in fact really are what one would classify as the best representatives of their particular parties, but they're the ones that have made it to the top. So rather than obsess about some rather peculiarly-timed leaks, maybe you just take them for what they are, and what they represent and go from there. If in the end, they prove to be crooked, well, either it's so severe that it drives them from office, or you use the next election to punish them.
The reality is that for anyone who is on the left, or is a progressive, or even a moderate right winger, Le Pen and the Front National are a nightmare; the party itself has a pretty dire history of being anti-Semitic and anti-European and highly xenophobic, and while Le Pen, perhaps sensing she's heading for defeat precisely because of her and her party's intemperate declarations, is now suddenly trying to portray a softer, gentler image, I simply cannot imagine even a right-minded individual who may not be a big fan of immigration thinking that electing the head of a party of virulent hate-mongers is the answer.
Frankly, French politics has a pretty long history of pretty dodgy figures, to suddenly decide that Emmanuel Macron isn't worthy of the job because of some last-minute releases of allegedly hacked files, and that a bigot like Le Pen is the one deserving of the presidency, it just boggles my mind. Even if some of the alleged leaks suggesting some dodgy tax avoidance are true, what of it? For chrissakes, what do you imagine a leak of Front National's servers would produce?
Russia has a lot of useful idiots in the West. Some, I think, just don't want to admit the candidate or political movement they favor is either the unwitting beneficiary of Russian hacking "largess", or, potentially much more sinister, is actively courting it. I view these people as just a more brainless breed of partisan. But I do think there are some who are actually rather sympathetic to Russia, who admire the more autocratic leanings of the current Russian government. The latter, when they gain positions of influence, while they may not be out and out agents or moles, are still fairly dangerous.
Le Pen's political movement, in particular, has historically pro-Fascist leanings, and most certainly views Russia in a fairly friendly light.
Macron is still the favorite, so yes, this may come too late to influence the election, but in the longer term I think Western nations are going to have get used to, and find ways to deal with this tactic. This new form of propaganda cyberwarfare has allowed Russia to punch considerably above its weight, and time and time again we're seeing the goal here is to disrupt the Western alliance. It's certainly not a guaranteed win, as it now seems that Russia's alleged interference in the US election is likely backfiring, and forcing Trump to take a harder line, not to mention that despite Fox News and the Republicans best attempts to bury the news, the investigation into Russian ties to Trump's campaign are ongoing.
So you don't think Russia has something to gain by a pack of Euroskeptics taking over major European countries? And this is hardly the first accusation laid against Russia in this regard.
Just how many of these hacks are going to have to happen before we all finally admit that Moscow is still the enemy of the West, that where it has no hope in hell of over economically or militarily dominating the Western alliance, it can try destabilize Western countries and the alliance itself.
We cut back our packages/tiers for a year or two, and it would seem like we'd sacrifice channels we liked in return for a lower bill, only to have the cable company hike the rates. After a couple of years of that, I finally said "Fuck it!" and canceled it entirely. It was a bit of a shock at first, since you get so used to the concept of channel surfing, but two years in and I can't imagine ever going back to cable or satellite. Looking back, it was never worth the money.
I fail to see how this would set a precedent. As it is, the prosecution appears to have significant evidence that an extortion attempt was made, so it's not like they want access to the contents of the electronic devices to demonstrate there was an extortion attempt, but rather to demonstrate precisely what the object of the extortion was. In other words, if this order stands (and I think it will), it stands on a pretty narrow point; that the state has reasonable grounds to suspect an extortion attempt was made, and requiring the defendants to unlock their devices is to determine the precise nature of the material is hardly violating any Fifth Amendment rights.
Again, the jurisprudence in this matter seems to weigh to the fact that the Framers of the Bill of Rights never intended that the Fifth Amendment be a "get out of jail free" card. The intent of the Bill of Rights in this regard is to prevent out-and-out fishing expeditions, coerced confessions, but if you're stupid enough to have left traceable messages making clear you were attempting to blackmail someone, then wanting the combination to unlock the materials you yourself claimed to have in your possession is not violating protections against self-incrimination, seeing as you're the one who has already incriminated yourself.
It may not be that clear cut. What if the prosecution has a recording of you saying "And I've written the evidence in my diary!" In that case, you have already admitted that you wrote the evidence in your diary, and now the court desires to have the encoded content decoded. Now maybe that's still a "combination" in Fifth Amendment terminology, in other words, something that is completely in the defendant's head, but it does mean that the defendant has at least already partially incriminated themselves.
And that's pretty much what has happened here. The defendants, who appear to be simpering retards, did tell the victim that they had pictures of her, so already a charge of extortion is justified.
It seems in this case the only evidence lacking is the actual pictures that the accused were attempting to blackmail the victim with. The prosecution appears to have enough evidence to demonstrate that an extortion attempt was made. I suppose this could effect what the accused are ultimately convicted of, since attempting to extort someone even if you don't actually intend on carrying out the threat is still illegal, but probably is a lesser charge than actually possessing materials with which to carry out the extortion.
This is why this doesn't seem the strongest case to plant a Fifth Amendment Protection flag on. It appears that the prosecution has enough evidence to demonstrate a crime was committed so it's down to producing the actual pictures. I don't think it's unreasonable for a prosecutor to seek the files with which the accused intended to blackmail the victim. So this is not a fishing expedition.
I think this case would be a very poor test of Fifth Amendment protections, seeing as the defendants already outed themselves with their extortion attempt, and the evidence the prosecution have (mainly what the blackmailers communicated to the victim) pretty much guarantees that some or all of their electronic devices have incriminating files on them. This isn't a case of a fishing expedition, the prosecution knows where the fish is, it just doesn't have a hook to catch them with.
The jurisprudence I've read suggests that SCOTUS has taken a balanced approach, not wishing to turn the Fifth Amendment into a literal "get out of jail free" card. The electronic age has certainly introduced a huge complication, and it's likely that all of this is going to end up back at SCOTUS, who is going to have to try to apply two hundred years of jurisprudence to what is a rather new problem.
Not entirely new, of course. At least theoretically, unbreakable or near-unbreakable ciphers have been possible for centuries, if not longer, but even then, someone had to have a key of some kind to decrypt the message. But in this age where keys are essentially automatically produced when a device is activated, you no longer have any kind of physical key.
Slashdot Mirror
: Translation: Those rotten Frenchmen prevented the righteous Kremlinistas from undermining their election.
Muslims have been in France for over a century. Unsurprising as France invaded and colonized the lands in which they lived.
I'm all for your parents forcing you into intense cognitive therapy, and taking away your computer until you learn how to communicate like a sensible and decent human being.
Exactly. Le Pen is the only slightly more pleasant face on a band of actual out and out anti-Semitic Fascists.
So being a Senator no longer qualifies as experience?
That could disqualify quite a few Presidents past.
There are a lot of schools scamming everyone. The FTC and various state governments spend an inordinate amount of time investigating what amounts to a student loan fraud racket.
The idea of giving veterans a leg up is hardly new, and in and of itself I can't imagine why it would be controversial. Now whether it should just be making more educational opportunities available, or trying to target specific occupations is a matter of debate.
As I sidenote, many years ago, at the dawn of my professional IT career, I installed and maintained POS software that had been developed by a fellow who got his start in programming via GI benefits after his tour of duty in Vietnam. He did pretty darned well for himself, and the last I had heard he'd sold his company for a pretty tidy sum. Now that is admittedly anecdotal, but it does suggest there are good sound benefits to help vets find career opportunities.
So where are the documents?
What person reaches the age of maturity and idolizes a politician? That suggests that some people never actually reach the age of maturity.
I'm pretty damned realistic about politicians. I don't expect they'll keep half their promises, in part because they don't intend to, and in part because they won't be able to. The other half are promises that I probably will end up wishing they hadn't kept. What you're really doing is electing the people that will run your government, and they will be flawed individuals who will fail on occasion. Many of them are going to have less than stellar person lives, just like everyone else.
I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to make it pretty clear the Russians are involved. And I don't really give a fuck whether you accept that or not. The fact that they're not even making a secret of Le Pen being their preferred candidate is enough evidence for me.
It does appear that way. Le Pen is way behind, and it's difficult to imagine her catching up. This time, at least, it appears to have failed.
It's awful curious how there are no major leaks against right wing candidates who are friendly with the Russians.
As it is, it's no secret that Le Pen and Moscow are on very friendly terms. This is getting to be a familiar tune. Political candidate has close ties to Russia, opponent suddenly faces major email hack and release of lots of allegedly damning documents.
Oh fuck off. By this point is there any question about it? The Russians have been mucking around with Western elections at least since Brexit. I'm glad the French are going to elect Macron, and not just because Le Pen is the leader of a den of virulent racists. Hopefully the Russians will soon find the blowback is bad that they give up on this.
In the meantime, maybe it's time to start QoSing any connections to Russia down to about 2kbps.
Maybe the time has come to stop obsessing about whether our politicians are pure as the driven snow.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and while I don't like the idea of wantonly electing crooks, it strikes me that seeing as the general populace has no lack of shady people, I can't sort out why it is exactly we expect the political class to be paragons of virtue.
In the French election, there's a choice between a center-left politician and a hard-right politician. Now neither are ideal, and neither in fact really are what one would classify as the best representatives of their particular parties, but they're the ones that have made it to the top. So rather than obsess about some rather peculiarly-timed leaks, maybe you just take them for what they are, and what they represent and go from there. If in the end, they prove to be crooked, well, either it's so severe that it drives them from office, or you use the next election to punish them.
The reality is that for anyone who is on the left, or is a progressive, or even a moderate right winger, Le Pen and the Front National are a nightmare; the party itself has a pretty dire history of being anti-Semitic and anti-European and highly xenophobic, and while Le Pen, perhaps sensing she's heading for defeat precisely because of her and her party's intemperate declarations, is now suddenly trying to portray a softer, gentler image, I simply cannot imagine even a right-minded individual who may not be a big fan of immigration thinking that electing the head of a party of virulent hate-mongers is the answer.
Frankly, French politics has a pretty long history of pretty dodgy figures, to suddenly decide that Emmanuel Macron isn't worthy of the job because of some last-minute releases of allegedly hacked files, and that a bigot like Le Pen is the one deserving of the presidency, it just boggles my mind. Even if some of the alleged leaks suggesting some dodgy tax avoidance are true, what of it? For chrissakes, what do you imagine a leak of Front National's servers would produce?
Russia has a lot of useful idiots in the West. Some, I think, just don't want to admit the candidate or political movement they favor is either the unwitting beneficiary of Russian hacking "largess", or, potentially much more sinister, is actively courting it. I view these people as just a more brainless breed of partisan. But I do think there are some who are actually rather sympathetic to Russia, who admire the more autocratic leanings of the current Russian government. The latter, when they gain positions of influence, while they may not be out and out agents or moles, are still fairly dangerous.
Le Pen's political movement, in particular, has historically pro-Fascist leanings, and most certainly views Russia in a fairly friendly light.
Macron is still the favorite, so yes, this may come too late to influence the election, but in the longer term I think Western nations are going to have get used to, and find ways to deal with this tactic. This new form of propaganda cyberwarfare has allowed Russia to punch considerably above its weight, and time and time again we're seeing the goal here is to disrupt the Western alliance. It's certainly not a guaranteed win, as it now seems that Russia's alleged interference in the US election is likely backfiring, and forcing Trump to take a harder line, not to mention that despite Fox News and the Republicans best attempts to bury the news, the investigation into Russian ties to Trump's campaign are ongoing.
So you don't think Russia has something to gain by a pack of Euroskeptics taking over major European countries? And this is hardly the first accusation laid against Russia in this regard.
Just how many of these hacks are going to have to happen before we all finally admit that Moscow is still the enemy of the West, that where it has no hope in hell of over economically or militarily dominating the Western alliance, it can try destabilize Western countries and the alliance itself.
It's a copy of Edge running in a virtual machine. How else would it be "separate from the kernel"?
We cut back our packages/tiers for a year or two, and it would seem like we'd sacrifice channels we liked in return for a lower bill, only to have the cable company hike the rates. After a couple of years of that, I finally said "Fuck it!" and canceled it entirely. It was a bit of a shock at first, since you get so used to the concept of channel surfing, but two years in and I can't imagine ever going back to cable or satellite. Looking back, it was never worth the money.
I fail to see how this would set a precedent. As it is, the prosecution appears to have significant evidence that an extortion attempt was made, so it's not like they want access to the contents of the electronic devices to demonstrate there was an extortion attempt, but rather to demonstrate precisely what the object of the extortion was. In other words, if this order stands (and I think it will), it stands on a pretty narrow point; that the state has reasonable grounds to suspect an extortion attempt was made, and requiring the defendants to unlock their devices is to determine the precise nature of the material is hardly violating any Fifth Amendment rights.
Again, the jurisprudence in this matter seems to weigh to the fact that the Framers of the Bill of Rights never intended that the Fifth Amendment be a "get out of jail free" card. The intent of the Bill of Rights in this regard is to prevent out-and-out fishing expeditions, coerced confessions, but if you're stupid enough to have left traceable messages making clear you were attempting to blackmail someone, then wanting the combination to unlock the materials you yourself claimed to have in your possession is not violating protections against self-incrimination, seeing as you're the one who has already incriminated yourself.
It may not be that clear cut. What if the prosecution has a recording of you saying "And I've written the evidence in my diary!" In that case, you have already admitted that you wrote the evidence in your diary, and now the court desires to have the encoded content decoded. Now maybe that's still a "combination" in Fifth Amendment terminology, in other words, something that is completely in the defendant's head, but it does mean that the defendant has at least already partially incriminated themselves.
And that's pretty much what has happened here. The defendants, who appear to be simpering retards, did tell the victim that they had pictures of her, so already a charge of extortion is justified.
It seems in this case the only evidence lacking is the actual pictures that the accused were attempting to blackmail the victim with. The prosecution appears to have enough evidence to demonstrate that an extortion attempt was made. I suppose this could effect what the accused are ultimately convicted of, since attempting to extort someone even if you don't actually intend on carrying out the threat is still illegal, but probably is a lesser charge than actually possessing materials with which to carry out the extortion.
This is why this doesn't seem the strongest case to plant a Fifth Amendment Protection flag on. It appears that the prosecution has enough evidence to demonstrate a crime was committed so it's down to producing the actual pictures. I don't think it's unreasonable for a prosecutor to seek the files with which the accused intended to blackmail the victim. So this is not a fishing expedition.
I think this case would be a very poor test of Fifth Amendment protections, seeing as the defendants already outed themselves with their extortion attempt, and the evidence the prosecution have (mainly what the blackmailers communicated to the victim) pretty much guarantees that some or all of their electronic devices have incriminating files on them. This isn't a case of a fishing expedition, the prosecution knows where the fish is, it just doesn't have a hook to catch them with.
The jurisprudence I've read suggests that SCOTUS has taken a balanced approach, not wishing to turn the Fifth Amendment into a literal "get out of jail free" card. The electronic age has certainly introduced a huge complication, and it's likely that all of this is going to end up back at SCOTUS, who is going to have to try to apply two hundred years of jurisprudence to what is a rather new problem.
Not entirely new, of course. At least theoretically, unbreakable or near-unbreakable ciphers have been possible for centuries, if not longer, but even then, someone had to have a key of some kind to decrypt the message. But in this age where keys are essentially automatically produced when a device is activated, you no longer have any kind of physical key.
Perhaps the prosecution is hoping that the defendants, fearing that unlocking the devices will incriminate them further, will strike a plea agreement.