Wow. I've never actually heard organs referred to as OEM.
Imagine an organ transplant...
"Well, sir, we can pop in this OEM model here, but it's pretty pricey. We do, however, have this third-party Korean heart that we could slap on in there, but it would violate your warranty and, lemme tell ya', those boys in inspections on the other side are unforgiving of that sort of thing. Of course, we could just throw a refurb in there, but those can be hard to come by..."
All in good humor of course, thanks for your informative post
I mean, how much work does it really take to digitally remaster Tom Hanks' mullett? Granted, it would've been easier in the actual production of the film, but makeup artists are pretty expensive...
ALL is black and white. It is ALWAYS a slipperly slope. ALL moves by the government are towards fascism. The government and Microsoft are ALWAYS bad. ALL religious people are nuts and illogical (Descartes be dammed). ALL bills will become law (or so the coverage here seems to think). ALL surveillance is bad. ALL government actions are not to be trusted. ALL journalists (except those from the right, of course) are to be trusted.
Failing to read and understand the rest of the post and the argument is a clear sign you're illiterate.
The grandparent to your post babbled on about the Scopes trial as his argument without doing even the most basic research to discover that the church in question had addressed the issue some 16 years earlier.
If you were to bother to read it (I find that highly unlikely), you would discover that Mormon declarations on the matter were 16 years BEFORE the Scopes trial.
Oh brave scientist and doer of great research! You rational one! You bastion of knowledge!
Oooh, I'm so scared!
Alcohol avoidance is crazy? Caffeine avoidance crazy? Please...
"Forced missionary work"? Please...
"Tablet story"? Uh, dude, they were plates, not tablets.
You're an uninformed idiot. Frankly, no better than the Christian "fundamentalists" you disparage.
Thanks for the laugh, though. My Saturday was getting a bit dull.
What, precisely, do you mean by "fundamentalist"? You know, not all Christians are nuts...
By fundamentalist, do you mean one who adheres to a traditional Christian lifestyle? Obeys various scriptural commandments? Fundamentalist is an inherently loaded term, would you compare a Christian "fundamentalist" to, say, a member of Al-Qaeda, often erroneously referred to as a Muslim "fundamentalist"?
I, for example, am a Mormon, which fits me under the group of Christianity. I am a "fundamentalist" in that I hold to fundamental and traditional doctrines of my faith. I also believe in evolution. There is no official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on evolution, the closest thing coming to it being a statement many years ago essentially saying, "it doesn't really matter to us either way." So called "fundamentalist" Christians routinely misread and misinterpret scripture on the matter of evolution and essentially everything in Genesis 1, demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the doctrines rather than a well-informed, "fundamental" belief in them (i.e., 1 day is not literally 1,000 years, 1 day refers to a period of time (and "1,000" refers to a big, incomprehensible number, much as "40" means simply "a lot"), to read a Hebrew scripture literally in English with no regard for the period of time it was written in is both ignorant and hardly "fundamental" to Christianity). The university system owned by my faith teaches evolution to its students with little to no controversy and has large and respected biology programs. Required biology classes teach the theory of evolution as it is, and Miller's Finding Darwin's God was required reading back when I took the course.
Yet, I remain a "fundamentalist" Christian. I believe in fundamental doctrines and live my life accordingly. I also read scripture with a reasonable attempt to understand its authors culture and intentions, which is a "literal" reading.
These are actual State Dept. Regulations as found in the Foreign Affairs Handbook regarding the purchase of ANYTHING that enters a Classified Access Area (CAA). Give it a quick read. It could shed some light on the present situation.
You're correct in that the CIA, NSA, and other arms of the Intelligence Community are tasked to target foreign entities, but they are not as geographically limited as you might imagine.
The CIA, for example, operates within the U.S. performing some functions like those it has overseas. It attempts to recruit foreign assets who will work with them upon return to their home countries, interviews Americans that travel overseas to countries of interest on a strictly voluntary basis, and supports and cooperates in counter-intelligence operations with the FBI. It is also involved in tracking and collecting intelligence on foreigners visiting the U.S. The matter is not geography so much as nationality. For the CIA to target a U.S. citizen requires authorization, a strong reason to do so, and generally is done as a result of that citizen's affiliation with a foreign power and frequently as part of a CI operation. Obviously, the CIA does not have the authority to carry out arrests or other traditional law enforcement tasks.
The NSA is similar. It was actually created in 1952, although it receives much of its marching orders from EO 12333, which generally directs the IC (or at least it did so before the restructuring of 2003). It openly targets foreign missions and embassies operating within the U.S. and it only makes sense to involve it in foreign threats to the U.S., such as terrorists and intelligence agencies (everyone from the Chinese to the French...). The question in the original "wiretapping" scandal was phone calls from FOREIGN entities to the U.S. - if it's from a foreigner, it's free game provided with proper authorization which came in the last case. It must be noted that FISA was written to deal with CI matters, not international terrorism, which is a fundamentally different threat.
Off-topic, I realize, but do all security cameras produce such poor images? I can understand the reduced frame-rate to save space, and most security concerns will not need to be analyzed at 24-30 frames a second. But this video is soooo grainy - could you even spot something like, say, a license plate at a great distance? I understand it won't be like the seemingly 20+ megapixel images we see on TV detective shows, but surely they must be better, right?
OK, so they're actually my wife's secret master. Last night, we spent over an hour driving to and looking in three different grocery stores all in a vain quest to find Cadbury eggs. This even included a trip to Wal-Mart on a Saturday night, something I recommend to no man who wishes to keep his car undinged, his sense of dignity whole, and the smell of the quite literally unwashed masses from accompanying him...
Does the U.S. require departments/agencies to create some kind of kid-friendly website? I'm not 100% sure, but a lot of government agencies with no real interest in them seem to have them.
Sure, some of them have a little bit of recruiting-type material on them, but most of it links back to the "grown-up" site and I've yet to meet a 4th grader who wants to be an analyst or diplomat when he or she grows up. There's a fair amount of "say no to drugs" material as well, which makes sense in any case.
I wonder if there's legislation somewhere requiring all government agencies to put up a kid's site. My money is that yes, there's some requirement somewhere for this. It's the only possible explanation for some of these exceedingly lame websites - they just gave them to an intern or flunkie to throw together real fast to meet regulations.
The whole point of the OTP is to be able to communicate in the future rather than just one message. If you need to communicate to an asset that he or she is in danger, or to pick up a package at a certain dead drop, it's easier to zap off a message over shortwave than trust that the message will get to him in a few weeks/days via mail. Giving the asset an OTP once allows him/her to receive dozens or hundreds of messages in the future that cannot presently be anticipated.
I know you're being sarcastic and funny, but I don't mean any offense to the handicapped. This particular friend of mine was paralyzed in an accident at a young age and just sees it as finding a little silver lining in a very, very cloudy sky. A little something to be happy about, and a way for him to "make up" for little things we do for him (although I certainly don't demand any recompense). The whole thing was his idea, actually.
Some here may not be familiar with the uses of an OTP, so here's a common use:
In order for an intelligence agency to communicate with an asset overseas, spy agencies must often use methods of communication that cannot be easily traced (duh). Passing a message along via e-mail, phone, or a one-to-one meeting can easily be tracked, creating lots of problems for everyone in the loop.
Therefore, many intelligence agencies did (and still) use OTPs and "Numbers Stations" - shortwave radio stations that blast out a seemingly senseless series of numbers at regular intervals and frequencies. This method gets messages and instructions to your assets without betraying who the recipient of the message is.
The beauty is that the asset only needs a cheap, readily available shortwave radio and a OTP, which can be concealed in virtually anything (some were created that could even be affixed to the back of stamps, others were hidden in toothpaste tubes, etc. The agent then responds with a seemingly inocuous method, a "wrong number code", a mark on a wall near where an intelligence officer drives, etc.
The problem, of course, rests in getting OTPs to the asset and ensuring they aren't compromised. But, assuming they are passed and handled securely, there's no problem at all.
You think purses are great? Get a friend in a wheelchair, or a wheelchair for yourself!
For one showing, we were able to fit a 6 pack of Cokes, several bags of chips, boxes of various candies, etc. under the seat of a friend of mine's wheelchair (he is actually paralyzed). The only camouflage necessary was a coat thrown over the back and, if someone does see you, the odds of a theater flunky stopping a guy in a wheelchair are slim to none! It's foolproof!
I mean, honestly? What's the difference between this and a helicopter? Why are slashdotters so paranoid over this?
In every major demonstration, car chase, manhunt, police action, etc. helicopters with searchlights, cameras, etc. are called in for observation. These can be used to target trouble makers in a demonstration (anarchists, a la Seattle), hunt down a vehicle fleeing from a crime scene, felons escaping from prison, etc. Not to mention the media's own helicopters.
In my opinion, what we're looking at is essentially a helicopter that costs a hell of a lot less, requires much less upkeep, has a longer loiter time, and doesn't put the lives of any crew at risk (powerlines, nutjobs that try to shoot at them while escaping, etc.). Lots of benefits, no real loss of "privacy" than previously existed under helicopters.
If there's a story here, it's the question of UAVs sharing civilian airspace. Now that's a concern. As far as the surveillance goes, I see little difference between what is already expected and legitimate.
Mass protests outside of Lucas's ranch, banners declaring "Digital Animals Feel Pain, Too!", "Pixie Sticks, not Pixels!", and "Holocaust on your DVD Player!"
They'll probably get some Anime babes to join them, too.
20 years of Luke growing up? Call me crazy, but Episode IV points to Luke's childhood being quite boring, comparatively. It sounds as if he raced a lot, argued with his parents, and generally did "kid stuff" with little to no understanding of precisely what the force was and only the ocassional trip beyond the confines of his farm to spice things up. His caretakers obviously were not on the run to avoid detection, as he was dropped off at the same place he grew up and left in Episode IV.
I think this will turn quickly into Lucas's "Smallville" and, as such, fail to connect with "true" fans.
Sony's been bad about controlling access to media in the past and things like this, but I rather like this move. I guess now, I'm rooting for Sony in this. I imagine many who got a TV without an HDMI/DVI or other port will think the same way I do. Maybe this won't be another "beta" after all?
It's not a document that gives journalists carte blanche to break the law.
It's not a document that gives journalists special immunity or privilege when they discuss something with a source
It does not make journalists elected officials who have the right to declassify documents
Freedom of the press is important - don't get me wrong. But journalists are not above the law and it would be foolish to see every single investigation of journalists as a challenge to the 1st ammendment.
Slashdot Mirror
"their OEM heart"
Wow. I've never actually heard organs referred to as OEM.
Imagine an organ transplant...
"Well, sir, we can pop in this OEM model here, but it's pretty pricey. We do, however, have this third-party Korean heart that we could slap on in there, but it would violate your warranty and, lemme tell ya', those boys in inspections on the other side are unforgiving of that sort of thing. Of course, we could just throw a refurb in there, but those can be hard to come by..."
All in good humor of course, thanks for your informative post
I mean, how much work does it really take to digitally remaster Tom Hanks' mullett? Granted, it would've been easier in the actual production of the film, but makeup artists are pretty expensive...
ALL is black and white. It is ALWAYS a slipperly slope. ALL moves by the government are towards fascism. The government and Microsoft are ALWAYS bad. ALL religious people are nuts and illogical (Descartes be dammed). ALL bills will become law (or so the coverage here seems to think). ALL surveillance is bad. ALL government actions are not to be trusted. ALL journalists (except those from the right, of course) are to be trusted.
Only a Slashdotter deals in such absolutes...
(Later, Karma)
Failing to read and understand the rest of the post and the argument is a clear sign you're illiterate.
The grandparent to your post babbled on about the Scopes trial as his argument without doing even the most basic research to discover that the church in question had addressed the issue some 16 years earlier.
Oh, you brave doer of great research! What an idiot.
A simple googling of "LDS evolution" results in the following: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~seanl/stuff/Evolution.html
If you were to bother to read it (I find that highly unlikely), you would discover that Mormon declarations on the matter were 16 years BEFORE the Scopes trial.
Oh brave scientist and doer of great research! You rational one! You bastion of knowledge!
Oooh, I'm so scared! Alcohol avoidance is crazy? Caffeine avoidance crazy? Please... "Forced missionary work"? Please... "Tablet story"? Uh, dude, they were plates, not tablets. You're an uninformed idiot. Frankly, no better than the Christian "fundamentalists" you disparage. Thanks for the laugh, though. My Saturday was getting a bit dull.
What, precisely, do you mean by "fundamentalist"? You know, not all Christians are nuts...
By fundamentalist, do you mean one who adheres to a traditional Christian lifestyle? Obeys various scriptural commandments? Fundamentalist is an inherently loaded term, would you compare a Christian "fundamentalist" to, say, a member of Al-Qaeda, often erroneously referred to as a Muslim "fundamentalist"?
I, for example, am a Mormon, which fits me under the group of Christianity. I am a "fundamentalist" in that I hold to fundamental and traditional doctrines of my faith. I also believe in evolution. There is no official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on evolution, the closest thing coming to it being a statement many years ago essentially saying, "it doesn't really matter to us either way." So called "fundamentalist" Christians routinely misread and misinterpret scripture on the matter of evolution and essentially everything in Genesis 1, demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the doctrines rather than a well-informed, "fundamental" belief in them (i.e., 1 day is not literally 1,000 years, 1 day refers to a period of time (and "1,000" refers to a big, incomprehensible number, much as "40" means simply "a lot"), to read a Hebrew scripture literally in English with no regard for the period of time it was written in is both ignorant and hardly "fundamental" to Christianity). The university system owned by my faith teaches evolution to its students with little to no controversy and has large and respected biology programs. Required biology classes teach the theory of evolution as it is, and Miller's Finding Darwin's God was required reading back when I took the course.
Yet, I remain a "fundamentalist" Christian. I believe in fundamental doctrines and live my life accordingly. I also read scripture with a reasonable attempt to understand its authors culture and intentions, which is a "literal" reading.
We're not all crazy, you know.
These are actual State Dept. Regulations as found in the Foreign Affairs Handbook regarding the purchase of ANYTHING that enters a Classified Access Area (CAA). Give it a quick read. It could shed some light on the present situation.
You're correct in that the CIA, NSA, and other arms of the Intelligence Community are tasked to target foreign entities, but they are not as geographically limited as you might imagine.
The CIA, for example, operates within the U.S. performing some functions like those it has overseas. It attempts to recruit foreign assets who will work with them upon return to their home countries, interviews Americans that travel overseas to countries of interest on a strictly voluntary basis, and supports and cooperates in counter-intelligence operations with the FBI. It is also involved in tracking and collecting intelligence on foreigners visiting the U.S. The matter is not geography so much as nationality. For the CIA to target a U.S. citizen requires authorization, a strong reason to do so, and generally is done as a result of that citizen's affiliation with a foreign power and frequently as part of a CI operation. Obviously, the CIA does not have the authority to carry out arrests or other traditional law enforcement tasks.
The NSA is similar. It was actually created in 1952, although it receives much of its marching orders from EO 12333, which generally directs the IC (or at least it did so before the restructuring of 2003). It openly targets foreign missions and embassies operating within the U.S. and it only makes sense to involve it in foreign threats to the U.S., such as terrorists and intelligence agencies (everyone from the Chinese to the French...). The question in the original "wiretapping" scandal was phone calls from FOREIGN entities to the U.S. - if it's from a foreigner, it's free game provided with proper authorization which came in the last case. It must be noted that FISA was written to deal with CI matters, not international terrorism, which is a fundamentally different threat.
Off-topic, I realize, but do all security cameras produce such poor images? I can understand the reduced frame-rate to save space, and most security concerns will not need to be analyzed at 24-30 frames a second. But this video is soooo grainy - could you even spot something like, say, a license plate at a great distance? I understand it won't be like the seemingly 20+ megapixel images we see on TV detective shows, but surely they must be better, right?
OK, so they're actually my wife's secret master. Last night, we spent over an hour driving to and looking in three different grocery stores all in a vain quest to find Cadbury eggs. This even included a trip to Wal-Mart on a Saturday night, something I recommend to no man who wishes to keep his car undinged, his sense of dignity whole, and the smell of the quite literally unwashed masses from accompanying him...
If you haven't read the story yet, read it. It's absolutely fascinating to look and see what's on the enemy's mind.
Just take a look, the Defense Intelligence Agency has a "kids' site", the CIA has a kids' site, the NSA has a website, and even the State Department has a kid's site where you can learn exciting things about SecState Rice meeting Elmo...
Sure, some of them have a little bit of recruiting-type material on them, but most of it links back to the "grown-up" site and I've yet to meet a 4th grader who wants to be an analyst or diplomat when he or she grows up. There's a fair amount of "say no to drugs" material as well, which makes sense in any case.
I wonder if there's legislation somewhere requiring all government agencies to put up a kid's site. My money is that yes, there's some requirement somewhere for this. It's the only possible explanation for some of these exceedingly lame websites - they just gave them to an intern or flunkie to throw together real fast to meet regulations.
Yup, you're right. I shouldn't have included the "danger" message in my post. Don't know what I was thinking.
Other favorites include - leaving a window open, a certain light on, etc.
The whole point of the OTP is to be able to communicate in the future rather than just one message. If you need to communicate to an asset that he or she is in danger, or to pick up a package at a certain dead drop, it's easier to zap off a message over shortwave than trust that the message will get to him in a few weeks/days via mail. Giving the asset an OTP once allows him/her to receive dozens or hundreds of messages in the future that cannot presently be anticipated.
I know you're being sarcastic and funny, but I don't mean any offense to the handicapped. This particular friend of mine was paralyzed in an accident at a young age and just sees it as finding a little silver lining in a very, very cloudy sky. A little something to be happy about, and a way for him to "make up" for little things we do for him (although I certainly don't demand any recompense). The whole thing was his idea, actually.
In order for an intelligence agency to communicate with an asset overseas, spy agencies must often use methods of communication that cannot be easily traced (duh). Passing a message along via e-mail, phone, or a one-to-one meeting can easily be tracked, creating lots of problems for everyone in the loop.
Therefore, many intelligence agencies did (and still) use OTPs and "Numbers Stations" - shortwave radio stations that blast out a seemingly senseless series of numbers at regular intervals and frequencies. This method gets messages and instructions to your assets without betraying who the recipient of the message is.
The beauty is that the asset only needs a cheap, readily available shortwave radio and a OTP, which can be concealed in virtually anything (some were created that could even be affixed to the back of stamps, others were hidden in toothpaste tubes, etc. The agent then responds with a seemingly inocuous method, a "wrong number code", a mark on a wall near where an intelligence officer drives, etc.
The problem, of course, rests in getting OTPs to the asset and ensuring they aren't compromised. But, assuming they are passed and handled securely, there's no problem at all.
More information on Wikipedia
You think purses are great? Get a friend in a wheelchair, or a wheelchair for yourself!
For one showing, we were able to fit a 6 pack of Cokes, several bags of chips, boxes of various candies, etc. under the seat of a friend of mine's wheelchair (he is actually paralyzed). The only camouflage necessary was a coat thrown over the back and, if someone does see you, the odds of a theater flunky stopping a guy in a wheelchair are slim to none! It's foolproof!
Goodbye, karma (if anyone reads this, that is):
I mean, honestly? What's the difference between this and a helicopter? Why are slashdotters so paranoid over this?
In every major demonstration, car chase, manhunt, police action, etc. helicopters with searchlights, cameras, etc. are called in for observation. These can be used to target trouble makers in a demonstration (anarchists, a la Seattle), hunt down a vehicle fleeing from a crime scene, felons escaping from prison, etc. Not to mention the media's own helicopters.
In my opinion, what we're looking at is essentially a helicopter that costs a hell of a lot less, requires much less upkeep, has a longer loiter time, and doesn't put the lives of any crew at risk (powerlines, nutjobs that try to shoot at them while escaping, etc.). Lots of benefits, no real loss of "privacy" than previously existed under helicopters.
If there's a story here, it's the question of UAVs sharing civilian airspace. Now that's a concern. As far as the surveillance goes, I see little difference between what is already expected and legitimate.
Mass protests outside of Lucas's ranch, banners declaring "Digital Animals Feel Pain, Too!", "Pixie Sticks, not Pixels!", and "Holocaust on your DVD Player!"
They'll probably get some Anime babes to join them, too.
of... what exactly?
20 years of Luke growing up? Call me crazy, but Episode IV points to Luke's childhood being quite boring, comparatively. It sounds as if he raced a lot, argued with his parents, and generally did "kid stuff" with little to no understanding of precisely what the force was and only the ocassional trip beyond the confines of his farm to spice things up. His caretakers obviously were not on the run to avoid detection, as he was dropped off at the same place he grew up and left in Episode IV.
I think this will turn quickly into Lucas's "Smallville" and, as such, fail to connect with "true" fans.
This little guy seems to make it on his own just fine on one leg. Although, admittedly, he'll prob'bly never take him a wife.
Sony's been bad about controlling access to media in the past and things like this, but I rather like this move. I guess now, I'm rooting for Sony in this. I imagine many who got a TV without an HDMI/DVI or other port will think the same way I do. Maybe this won't be another "beta" after all?
Does a Mac exist that can actually run Vista's GUI? Being a mac man, I'm not too familiar with its requirements.
I can tell you what it's not:
It's not a document that gives journalists carte blanche to break the law.
It's not a document that gives journalists special immunity or privilege when they discuss something with a source
It does not make journalists elected officials who have the right to declassify documents
Freedom of the press is important - don't get me wrong. But journalists are not above the law and it would be foolish to see every single investigation of journalists as a challenge to the 1st ammendment.