What I really want to know is... how the fuck does a registered user post over 20+ posts in under 6 minutes without being filtered by the "you must wait X minutes" filter. This smacks of a slashcode exploit or editor collusion. I'm a registered user with Excellent karma, and I can't post anywhere NEAR that fast.
Allowing blatant spam to drown AC comments is likely the goal. Still not sure how Jellomizer posts over 20 (20+!!!) posts in under 6 minutes even IF they had excellent karma. This smacks of a slashcode bug or editor collusion. Normal users won't suffer because of the karma bonus, but affected users will include any ACs making relevant points. Allowing the spam to continue unabated will simply result in controversial viewpoints (held legitimately, posted AC to preserve reputation) being drowned out. For further reference, google Forum Slide.
Jellomizer has multiple posts all dated with 7:12 PM. Now, as a Slashdot member over the years, with excellent karma, I can't even post that fast, regardless of what I'm posting. What allows Jellomizer, without the consent of the editors/admins, to post spam repeatedly, without any time delay?
You are full of shit. What the fuck has gotten into Slashdot? The numbers show the Israelis to be the aggressors. You'd think that, having lived through a genocide, they wouldn't attempt to do the same to another people.
2008 cease-fire. Look at the number of rocket and mortar *launches*. The cease-fire was honored by the Palestinians. Israel went over the border and killed 6 Hamas members, violating the cease-fire.
On 4 November 2008, the IDF made an incursion at least 250 meters into the Gaza Strip searching for a tunnel, claiming it was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers and that it intended to continue with the truce, calling the raid a "pinpoint operation".[33] Hamas and, according to an allegation by Dr. Robert Pastor, one IDF source maintained that it was for defensive purposes.[34] As six Hamas fighters were killed,[4][35] Hamas stated that the attack was a "massive breach of the truce".[36]
This year, the Israeli president announces that they can never relinquish control of the West Bank. Meaning they will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state.
"I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan."
Just a week ago, the UN called out Israel for using Palestinian children as a human shield, torturing them, putting them in solitary confinement, and threatening sexual abuse. Their foreign minister said, "Israel must go all the way."
What the fuck are you people smoking? This is a genocide in motion. The US government wholeheartedly, 100%, with NO dissent supports it, when only 87% of the Israelis themselves support it. The House of Reps even called the attacks "unprovoked". I mean, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?
For the record, I don't support either side shooting at each other, but it's not hard to see that this is some seriously fucked up shit on Israel's part. No person or group should engage in genocide and war crimes. Right now, Israel is doing 99% of the committing war crimes. That may have been different in the past, and it may change in the future, but it is NO EXCUSE.
That requires more than one step of logical thought. Typical reaction when attempting to apply logic to any discourse: "I don't care" (because it's too damn complicated, so who would want to tax their brain?)
Under the heading “Nationality,” the list designates 202 email addresses as belonging to “U.S. persons,” 1,782 as belonging to “non-U.S. persons,” and 5,501 as “unknown” or simply blank. The Intercept identified the five Americans placed under surveillance from their email addresses.
It is unclear whether the government obtained any legal permission to monitor the Americans on the list. The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment for this story. During the course of multiple conversations with The Intercept, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence urged against publication of any surveillance targets. “Except in exceptional circumstances,” they argued, surveillance directly targeting Americans is conducted only with court-approved warrants. Last week, anonymous officials told another news outlet that the government did not have a FISA warrant against at least one of the individuals named here during the timeframe covered by the spreadsheet.
So, for all the idiots arguing that we have FISA to make sure mass surveillance isn't abused: it looks like they've decided to skip that step entirely.
Well, I do believe that Emacs has C-x M-c M-fixcat, but if you're looking for veterinary software specifically, instead of a PUSS (Primordial Universal Sapience Simulator), VIA appears to come highly recommended--at least by their marketing materials.
Change, no matter what it is, can be difficult. Contributing to the level of difficulty, Dr. Eigner was traveling almost two weeks per month. But to stay on top of things she was able to use remote access capabilities to log on to VIA from wherever in the world she was. Nevertheless, Dr. Eigner decided to go paperless using VIA’s SOAP note generator over the course of a weekend.
On the other hand, you might want to drop the SOAP.
Hats off to you! Holy shit, you managed to do the impossible. Folks, get out your checkbooks! I won't get into the middle of the AGW debate itself, but rather your huge gaping logical error:
The truth is, this effect is almost surely completely unpredictable, and quite likely insignificant.
First, you state that the effects are "almost surely completely unpredictable". Then you make a prediction, drawing the conclusion that the effects are "quite likely insignificant". For fucks sake, if you don't have a model with good predictive power, you certainly can't draw any "quite likely" conclusions. Your proper response should have been that "the effects are unknown" if no model exists with good predictive power.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You're not under arrest. You're being detained. Russia or the US?
Target. (You're not being targeted, you're just being incidentally collected.)
The monitoring of connections to an MIT graduate’s server on the university campus is part of the intelligence services’ attempt to particularly focus on users of privacy software on the internet. The computer server is owned by US citizen Roger Dingledine, the creator of the Tor anonymity software. The IP address of the server operated by Dingledine is clearly defined in the source code as targeted object.
The former NSA director General Keith Alexander stated that all those communicating with encryption will be regarded as terror suspects and will be monitored and stored as a method of prevention, as quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in August last year. The top secret source code published here indicates that the NSA is making a concerted effort to combat any and all anonymous spaces that remain on the internet. Merely visiting privacy-related websites is enough for a user's IP address to be logged into an NSA database.
Oh, and a sample of the rules. Do you read Linux Journal?
// START_DEFINITION/* These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by extremists on extremist forums. */
$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux' or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor '); $TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');// END_DEFINITION// START_DEFINITION/* This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs, or viewing websites that detail TAILs. */ fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')= fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites);// END_DEFINITION
I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting about the Post, Bezos, the CIA, and the NSA ("CARRIER LOST..." Now that that's out of our system, let's continue.) in relation to each other and over what turf, but they're saying "not nice" things about the NSA in 24kt gold words.
At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
With their track record? Care? Scrupulous care? Insert incredulity here.
For bonus points, try searching that page for the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful'. You will not find it. Words containing 'legal' appear only twice. The use of 'lawful' occurs once, in 'lawfully', where they claim:
Most of the people caught up in those programs are not the targets and would not lawfully qualify as such.
So, they don't lawfully qualify as being targeted. So it's not actually targeting is what they're arguing. (Also, a load of BS.)
Your assignment is a load of BS. A PR spin piece can say lots of things, but the headline and the top of the fold is where most readers stop. Anything more than a quick skim is unlikely--and you are prime evidence of that. You didn't even get TFH. Even worse, you didn't read the first sentence.
The very first sentence in the article explicitly states that Americans were not legally intercepted.
Now, that word... explicit. I don't think it means what you think it means. Did you mean IMPLICIT?
Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.
It says that ordinary internet users (Americans and others) outnumber legally targeted foreigners. At no point does that sentence explicitly state that Americans were targeted illegally. It merely says that ordinary users outnumber "legally targeted foreigners". It DOES NOT state that collection was considered to be illegal for Americans. You can infer that all target collection on foreigners that was not legal was illegal, but it doesn't state whether or not Americans having their data collected was illegal.
What you're doing is making an inference from something implied by that statement.
Now shut the fuck up and go away already until you learn to read. FFS...
Slashdot Mirror
What I really want to know is... how the fuck does a registered user post over 20+ posts in under 6 minutes without being filtered by the "you must wait X minutes" filter. This smacks of a slashcode exploit or editor collusion. I'm a registered user with Excellent karma, and I can't post anywhere NEAR that fast.
Allowing blatant spam to drown AC comments is likely the goal. Still not sure how Jellomizer posts over 20 (20+!!!) posts in under 6 minutes even IF they had excellent karma. This smacks of a slashcode bug or editor collusion. Normal users won't suffer because of the karma bonus, but affected users will include any ACs making relevant points. Allowing the spam to continue unabated will simply result in controversial viewpoints (held legitimately, posted AC to preserve reputation) being drowned out. For further reference, google Forum Slide.
Jellomizer has multiple posts all dated with 7:12 PM. Now, as a Slashdot member over the years, with excellent karma, I can't even post that fast, regardless of what I'm posting. What allows Jellomizer, without the consent of the editors/admins, to post spam repeatedly, without any time delay?
Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse! Betelgeuse!
Flamebait? Talk about poltically motivated shills...
You are full of shit. What the fuck has gotten into Slashdot? The numbers show the Israelis to be the aggressors. You'd think that, having lived through a genocide, they wouldn't attempt to do the same to another people.
2008 cease-fire. Look at the number of rocket and mortar *launches*. The cease-fire was honored by the Palestinians. Israel went over the border and killed 6 Hamas members, violating the cease-fire.
On 4 November 2008, the IDF made an incursion at least 250 meters into the Gaza Strip searching for a tunnel, claiming it was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers and that it intended to continue with the truce, calling the raid a "pinpoint operation".[33] Hamas and, according to an allegation by Dr. Robert Pastor, one IDF source maintained that it was for defensive purposes.[34] As six Hamas fighters were killed,[4][35] Hamas stated that the attack was a "massive breach of the truce".[36]
This year, the Israeli president announces that they can never relinquish control of the West Bank. Meaning they will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state.
"I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan."
Just a week ago, the UN called out Israel for using Palestinian children as a human shield, torturing them, putting them in solitary confinement, and threatening sexual abuse. Their foreign minister said, "Israel must go all the way."
What the fuck are you people smoking? This is a genocide in motion. The US government wholeheartedly, 100%, with NO dissent supports it, when only 87% of the Israelis themselves support it. The House of Reps even called the attacks "unprovoked". I mean, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?
For the record, I don't support either side shooting at each other, but it's not hard to see that this is some seriously fucked up shit on Israel's part. No person or group should engage in genocide and war crimes. Right now, Israel is doing 99% of the committing war crimes. That may have been different in the past, and it may change in the future, but it is NO EXCUSE.
When you use a machine, it ceases to become idle. It incurs bandwidth and power costs. That's (one of) the unethical bits.
Just sayin'
That requires more than one step of logical thought. Typical reaction when attempting to apply logic to any discourse: "I don't care" (because it's too damn complicated, so who would want to tax their brain?)
You there! With the logic! Stop doing that!
(Spoken with Scooby Doo accent.)
"We need an interrock?"
e^(i*(1/2)*2*piiiii)+(0.19915)=-0.80085
Whoops, I switched a sign there.
And e^(i*(1/2)*2*piiiii)-(0.19915)=0.80085. See what I did there?
You raise an excellent point.
It is perhaps a somewhat awkwardly written sentence, but it is not grammatically incorrect or ambiguous as far as I can tell.
Just run it by a constitutional scholar. I'm sure they'll provide you with many more interpretations.
Emacs! Oh wait, wrong flame war..
Under the heading “Nationality,” the list designates 202 email addresses as belonging to “U.S. persons,” 1,782 as belonging to “non-U.S. persons,” and 5,501 as “unknown” or simply blank. The Intercept identified the five Americans placed under surveillance from their email addresses.
It is unclear whether the government obtained any legal permission to monitor the Americans on the list. The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment for this story. During the course of multiple conversations with The Intercept, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence urged against publication of any surveillance targets. “Except in exceptional circumstances,” they argued, surveillance directly targeting Americans is conducted only with court-approved warrants. Last week, anonymous officials told another news outlet that the government did not have a FISA warrant against at least one of the individuals named here during the timeframe covered by the spreadsheet.
So, for all the idiots arguing that we have FISA to make sure mass surveillance isn't abused: it looks like they've decided to skip that step entirely.
emacs or via
Well, I do believe that Emacs has C-x M-c M-fixcat, but if you're looking for veterinary software specifically, instead of a PUSS (Primordial Universal Sapience Simulator), VIA appears to come highly recommended--at least by their marketing materials.
Change, no matter what it is, can be difficult. Contributing to the level of difficulty, Dr. Eigner was traveling almost two weeks per month. But to stay on top of things she was able to use remote access capabilities to log on to VIA from wherever in the world she was. Nevertheless, Dr. Eigner decided to go paperless using VIA’s SOAP note generator over the course of a weekend.
On the other hand, you might want to drop the SOAP.
It's late. I should probably sleep.
Hats off to you! Holy shit, you managed to do the impossible. Folks, get out your checkbooks! I won't get into the middle of the AGW debate itself, but rather your huge gaping logical error:
The truth is, this effect is almost surely completely unpredictable, and quite likely insignificant.
First, you state that the effects are "almost surely completely unpredictable". Then you make a prediction, drawing the conclusion that the effects are "quite likely insignificant". For fucks sake, if you don't have a model with good predictive power, you certainly can't draw any "quite likely" conclusions. Your proper response should have been that "the effects are unknown" if no model exists with good predictive power.
All of these words need entries:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You're not under arrest. You're being detained. Russia or the US?
Target. (You're not being targeted, you're just being incidentally collected.)
War. (When did Congress declare the last one?)
I managed to miss that in the news, but it's absolutely a load of bullshit and it needs to go. Just in case anyone else missed it like I did:
From NDR:
The monitoring of connections to an MIT graduate’s server on the university campus is part of the intelligence services’ attempt to particularly focus on users of privacy software on the internet. The computer server is owned by US citizen Roger Dingledine, the creator of the Tor anonymity software. The IP address of the server operated by Dingledine is clearly defined in the source code as targeted object.
From NDR:
The former NSA director General Keith Alexander stated that all those communicating with encryption will be regarded as terror suspects and will be monitored and stored as a method of prevention, as quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in August last year. The top secret source code published here indicates that the NSA is making a concerted effort to combat any and all anonymous spaces that remain on the internet. Merely visiting privacy-related websites is enough for a user's IP address to be logged into an NSA database.
Oh, and a sample of the rules. Do you read Linux Journal?
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/
$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux' // END_DEFINITION // START_DEFINITION /* // END_DEFINITION
or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
$TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');
This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
*/
fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites);
I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting about the Post, Bezos, the CIA, and the NSA ("CARRIER LOST..." Now that that's out of our system, let's continue.) in relation to each other and over what turf, but they're saying "not nice" things about the NSA in 24kt gold words.
At one level, the NSA shows scrupulous care in protecting the privacy of U.S. nationals and, by policy, those of its four closest intelligence allies — Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
With their track record? Care? Scrupulous care? Insert incredulity here.
For bonus points, try searching that page for the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful'. You will not find it. Words containing 'legal' appear only twice. The use of 'lawful' occurs once, in 'lawfully', where they claim:
Most of the people caught up in those programs are not the targets and would not lawfully qualify as such.
So, they don't lawfully qualify as being targeted. So it's not actually targeting is what they're arguing. (Also, a load of BS.)
Your assignment is a load of BS. A PR spin piece can say lots of things, but the headline and the top of the fold is where most readers stop. Anything more than a quick skim is unlikely--and you are prime evidence of that. You didn't even get TFH. Even worse, you didn't read the first sentence.
The very first sentence in the article explicitly states that Americans were not legally intercepted.
Now, that word... explicit. I don't think it means what you think it means. Did you mean IMPLICIT?
Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.
It says that ordinary internet users (Americans and others) outnumber legally targeted foreigners. At no point does that sentence explicitly state that Americans were targeted illegally. It merely says that ordinary users outnumber "legally targeted foreigners". It DOES NOT state that collection was considered to be illegal for Americans. You can infer that all target collection on foreigners that was not legal was illegal, but it doesn't state whether or not Americans having their data collected was illegal.
What you're doing is making an inference from something implied by that statement.
Now shut the fuck up and go away already until you learn to read. FFS...
I didn't find your references until the second read through.
You mean to say you didn't read the headline--which was the first reference of only two. That's some real close reading there.