Of course, RT is plagued with numerous software and hardware problems and probably was dead on arrival anyway. But new x86 chips are far from being the reason it hasn't and won't take off.
Name one non-Intel based version of Windows that WASN'T DoA?
Not only do I read and reply to email on my tablet I also write/. posts (in HTML, mind you) with it.:p I don't find it any more annoying to type on than typing in general. Sure, I can type faster on a full-size, physical keyboard, but that's not why I bought the tablet. Would I write a journal article or book on the thing? No. But email and/. posts... if you get annoyed typing that little on a tablet then you probably made a bad buying decision.
Not when you dock it. Add an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor to any tablet with Bluetooth and HDMI out, and you can carry one device that shifts between desktop mode when you're at a desk and tablet mode when away from one.
The same could be said about any laptop a decade or more ago, and how many docking stations get sold every year?... [crickets] Yeah, that many. Plus, are you going to lug that docking station (and all the crap you mentioned along with it) around to every desk you are going to sit at? Me thinks not.
Your examples of the two types of immunity neglect the practice of offering limited immunity to prosecution. The limits usually extend to the testimony relative to the case being tried. Let's say you were committing an act of breaking and entering and witnessed a murder in the act. You were the only witness so the state may grant you immunity to the B&E charge in order to secure your testimony and put a murderer in jail. However, if during your testimony other robberies come up that are not related to the case, you could be prosecuted for those other crimes. Pleading the 5th to those probing questions would be prudent and acceptable as they are not covered by the limited scope of the immunity. In a case like the Sterling case Risen could be granted limited immunity for any crimes done that relate to the case if his testimony was valuable enough to get a conviction on Sterling. I don't see that happening, not after the challenges to the subpoena. But, yes, once immunity is granted you cannot invoke the 5th Amendment for questions related to the case being tried, nor would you need to as the reason for invoking it would be gone (within the limited scope of the case and type of immunity granted). I don't see the SCOTUS decision on that as being "unfortunate". You are being granted immunity from prosecution and in some cases witness protection, what more could you want? Besides, there's never a grant of universal immunity from prosecution. Even pardon's don't work more than once nor on more than just the original crime you were pardoned for. As for additional risk other than prosecution, that really depends on the case. In the Sterling case I don't see much threat to Risen for testifying beyond prosecution for crimes he may have committed while obtaining the information from Mr. Sterling. But, he (Risen) would have been charged if there was enough evidence to prosecute by now. I don't condone the tactics by the Justice Department if they are in fact on a fishing expedition to somehow get Risen to incriminate himself in some way, but Risen is not walking into the courtroom legally unarmed (as it were) either. He can still invoke the 5th on the stand like anyone else. But, like everyone else he must appear in court when subpoenaed or face arrest and/or contempt charges.
Why are criminal defendants allowed to remain silent, but not third-party witnesses like Risen?
The issue here is that Risen is trying to trump a subpoena with the 5th Amendment. A subpoena is a court order compelling a citizen to appear in court and give testimony as a witness to a crime or civil dispute. Failure to comply will get a bench warrant out on you and get you jailed for contempt. The 5th Amendment applies to testimony that may self-incriminate. Risen hasn't gotten to court and been on the stand in order to invoke the 5th Amendment, so he must appear or be held in contempt. Once he's in court and on the stand he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but not as a way to avoid appearing in court. If he were a defendant charged with a crime, different rules. You are covered by the 5th (and the rest of the Constitution) the instant you are arrested for a crime. But, Risen is a witness in this case--not a co-defendant--that is trying to duck out of a subpoena. Until he is in court the 5th Amendment is just there, not really able to do anything to keep him out of court. The dispute to date is Risen fighting a subpoena that the Fourth Circuit has already deemed lawful. The fact that Risen is trying not to go to court seems to indicate that he might actually be complicit in some way with the case against Mr. Sterling, or his lawyers are idiots. Either way he should hire some better lawyers and learn something about how the judicial system works before he appears in court or gets jailed for contempt. The 5th Amendment will apply to Risen once he is under questioning, never before.
The Fifth only protects against self-incrimination. There is no "paradox".
Correct. And the 5th Amendment applies to testimony that would incriminate, not a court order to appear and testify. There seems to be some confusion as to where the 5th applies in this case. Risen, as a subpoenaed witness must appear and testify or be held in contempt. Once he appears and gets on the stand he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but he cannot use it to get out of appearing in court.
Why not the reporter attend but when taken to the witness stand, every question asked should be answered with "I am under duress and I am not here under my free will". If I recall correctly, people who are under duress with threat on their person are permitted to commit perjury, which is why defendants, when found guilty, cannot be charged with perjury for claiming to be not guilty. So when asked a question, the reporter should state that he is under duress and then give an obviously nonsense answer. So when asked to name his source, he should give the name of the Judge's dog, for example.
I may be very wrong but it would be interesting...
Just my 2.
Or better yet, once in court and under questioning invoke the 5th Amendment. It does work once there. It cannot be used to trump a subpoena and skip out on testifying as a witness.
Gaaa! Risen is challenging a subpoena on 5th Amendment grounds. You cannot do that. A subpoenaed witness must comply with the subpoena and appear and testify. Once in court and under oath during questioning Risen can invoke the 5th Amendment, but he cannot use it to skip out on testifying AS A WITNESS! Sterling, the defendant, can refuse to testify all he wants. Witnesses cannot, and unless granted immunity can be charged for crimes they reveal in their testimony. And, contemnors can be jailed indefinitely, i.e., life in prison, potentially. You best go look at U.S. law again.
Likewise, we don't know James Risen's role in the CIA information leak. Did he conspire with an insider to obtain the information? If so, it would seem that the Fifth Amendment applies to him as well.
He has not been charged with anything as a witness, so until he is asked a question on the stand that might incriminate him he is NOT protected by the 5th Amendment and must comply with the subpoena that compels him to appear and testify.
If the DoJ knows any different[...]
Then they should have brought charges against Mr. Risen and made him a defendant as well. Apparently they don't have enough evidence, but do want Risen to testify against Sterling. Again, he can invoke the 5th Amendment while testifying. He cannot invoke it before appearing to testify.
Yes, the DoJ can offer immunity and remove the self-incrimination hurdle. But immunity from what? We don't know what other illegal acts Risen may have committed in order to acquire the information and even the act of negotiating immunity may reveal other acts that the prosecution is not aware of.
Ahh, therein lies the rub. It would appear that the government suspects that Risen did something wrong and may be trying to ambush him at trial into giving something up that will incriminate/implicate him. Otherwise, why wouldn't they grant Risen limited immunity? Smells like a fishing expedition to me. But, he should show up and testify invoking the 5th where appropriate. If he is refusing to appear then that raises a red flag for me.
Our US legal system is adversarial by design. It's us (the public) against the government. So nobody should be compelled to assist them in any way.
All judicial systems are adversarial, that's why they exist! Person A was wronged by Person B. Person C wronged Society/The State. Civil and criminal disputes. It's not us vs. the gov'ment in every court case. And yes, if you are subpoenaed as a witness by the court you are compelled to appear in court and testify. As a defendant you do not have to testify if that testimony will incriminate you or harm your defense, in a criminal case. But, if Person D is subpoenaed in Person C's criminal case, they do have to appear and they do have to testify or they will be held in contempt.
Witnesses can be compelled to testify so that they cannot be intimidated into silence.
---- and the defendant has the right to remain silent so he can't be intimidated or tortured into making a confession.
But to say these things on Slashdot risks being modded down as a Troll.
But, Risen is *NOT* a defendant, he's a witness. The 5th Amendment does not apply and a subpoenaed witness *IS* compelled to appear and testify. Know thy judicial system.
Rather like the "Am I under arrest? Am I free to leave?" which indicates that you KNOW that unless you're accused of something officially, the law machinery has no right to tell you where you can be or go.
So why does Alice have to agree to be a witness?
Unless there's a crime of "Being a witness", what does the court have hold over them for?
It's called a subpoena. When the court subpoenas you, you have to appear or be charged with contempt, failure to appear or a host of other things the court can throw at you for not obeying a court order. James Risen is a material witness as far as the government is concerned and once subpoenaed he cannot refuse to appear and testify without sanction. What Risen is most likely afraid of is that he will be charged with revealing state secrets or the like based on what he *might* be asked in court. Given that they seem to be after the whistle (Sterling) and not the blower (Risen), I'd say that unless Risen did something relative to Mr. Sterling's actions that might also be considered criminal Risen would not be charged with anything from this case, except contempt of court. Contempt charges can be held indefinitely and contemnors jailed indefinitely as well, though, so... Me, I'd go with testify and take my chances over contempt and a LONG time in prison.
Even the almighty NSA with it's insanely high budget can't crack all the encryption.
If you're an American you better hope that's *NOT* true and hope that we get them off spying domestically. So to rebut, yes they can (remember hardware is only part of the encryption breaking; smart people with better algorithms is another piece). If it exists they have broken it.
10000 laptops are stolen at airports every year. Presumably, they are off when that happens.
The NSA is not your problem; you are not important enough to be a target. When thinking about security, thieves are your problem. Theft happens, and happens often. Your computer is far more likely to get stolen than to be inflitrated by the NSA. And the solution is to encrypt your hard drive. Without encryption the thief will have access to everything you normally access from the computer - like your bank account. You wouldn't want that, would you? Today's CPUs all have AESNI support, so there is no excuse for not encrypting your laptop's hard drive. Do it today and get some financial peace of mind.
Ok, I till give you the-best-secure-computer-is-the-one-off-locked-in-a-safe-in-the-bottom-of-a-salt-mine award. However, everyone is currently on the NSA radar. If not for terrorism for some other reason, so to say that you are more likely to lose data to theft than the NSA is impossible to prove. Encryption won't get your laptop back from a thief. Even if they can't get at the data you're still without data or a computer. How is that financial piece of mind? Mod parent down for lack of critical thinking.
The academic crypto community widely considers it secure after more than 10 years of effort to break it (note that twofish does not look less secure, but what makes you think that the NSA could break the AES and not twofish ? In fact nobody can break any of them).
In fact, you are dumber than you appear. I've said it more than once, encryption is not a magic spell. Trust me, if anyone has the mathematicians and the hardware to break *ANY* encryption it is the NSA. It's been their job for more than 60 years. If you can show me internal NSA documents that prove otherwise, I'll believe you. In the mean time, believe that no encryption algorithm is "secure".
I went through grade school from 1977-1985. Most of that was spent in San Jose, California as Silicon Valley exploded. I had great teachers and an amazing Gifted and Talented education program. The teachers were completely versed in all the subjects they taught: history, English, math, sciences. They were paid poorly and some had second jobs. The school system was ok, but this was before most of the budget cuts that happened under Reagan. In 1983 we moved to Virginia where the system didn't know what to do with me (I was doing math and english a level higher than everyone else in this system) and as a result I had to take sixth grade math and English again. That really tilted the scales of me ever liking the Virginia educational system. It was funded better, but did less with it as you saw 15 years later with your experience. The good teachers dried up in k-12 because they could stay in school as long or a little longer and become university or college professors, or become researchers or consultants. All these vocations pay better and have better benefits, so as the k-12 budgets get cut less qualified people want those jobs. So, the downward spiral begins. When the measure of life is done in currency this problem with k-12 education shall remain. The good, qualified teachers that are in the system today are not there for the money. Hopefully, they have well paid spouses or enjoy a meager life doing what they love. These people are few and far between, however.
First, I don't believe the iPad is a panacea of education. I see it as another tool, not one to replace them all. Second, the only part of the summary with regard to programming for the iPad (or any iOS device) that's valid is the "prior to distribution" part. You can develop and deploy apps locally without being a registered developer and without Apple oversight. The only time you hit that obstacle is when you go to distribute the app, and guess what? Apple has a program for universities at least so student developers can publish through their school's dev license. Sure, still has to pass muster, but that's just another boundary condition and learning moment. Certainly no real roadblocks to learning how to develop apps in objective-c in the classroom. What a bunch of FUD!
Re:If by "looking good", you mean "looking like iO
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
It's like they reversed the up/down rotation on an aircraft or switched left-right steering in a car. Yeah, you can get used to it, but then whenever you use a non-Apple product it feels weird again.
I would assume they did it because it's kinda skeudomorphic, as in you would push in that direction. Now they seem to be abandoning the skeudomorphic stuff in favour of a flat look it would make sense to go back to the normal way, but I doubt they will risk annoying everyone twice.
Ok, how many times do people that actually know have to tell the slower ones that "natural scrolling" is a switchable option? It is not a locked in default on the desktop OS. Stop ragging on something that you can easily turn off! Don't like it, turn it off. Plus, how cognitively challenged are folks that they can't switch between modes after one or two mistakes going from platform to platform? I do it daily! Sure there are those one or two awkward, "Why isn't it scrolling?!?!" moments but then it's over. Kind of as annoying as sitting at the command line and typing "ls" in a Windows command prompt. It's going to happen, only in that case there is no option to switch it off.
Ok, how about having to spend $1500 plus in training to find the damn shit that Microsoft decided to once again obfuscate behind 16 tabs and buttons in lame, third-grade designed dialog boxes just to set one service preference? I can edit a text file that's been formatted the same for ten years (or more) and setup most common Linux services.
How about, every time a new version of Windows Server hits you have to wonder how many new versions of other software you have to buy just to keep your system secure, and/or running? FOSS wins.
Ever heard of a man page? I know Windows admins also have to do their homework before they can weed their way through the 16 levels of dialog box Hell to get to deploying a...well anything!
Good package management handles dependencies without a problem. At least it doesn't break something every few Tuesdays.
Yep, you still need to reboot, if you don't know how to build your own kernel and modularize services so you can reboot less. Plus, shell scripts are your friend for those little annoying service restarts.
Things aren't automatic in Linux because Linux admins don't like opening up gaping security holes, or maybe just want a little more control over what is going on. Different strokes.
You see command line syntax as "limitations", *nix admins see it as not effing up while on the command line. One wrong space between characters can be bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Just like turning on one wrong checkbox six levels deep in WIndows dialog boxes. What's the difference? A pain in the ass is a pain in the ass.
"I love the undecipherable command-line wizardry. I'm not an idiot." You contradicted yourself there....see man pages. Also, Google is your friend...see homework.
Of course, the point of my rebuttal is to remind you that we all started at zero no matter what OS we chose to use to serve whatever we need to serve. It's when we forget this and forget the merits of all OSes that we truly have lowered the IQ of the room. Right tool, right job. If you want to be a master mechanic you can't just use screwdrivers. 'Nuf said.
P.S. "Error prone manual labor", from a WIndows admin....That's funny.
*facepalm* Someone slap me, I must need more coffee!
And, there will be outliers that don't fit the pattern (or correlation) either, possibly you in this case. That doesn't mean that everyone or even a majority of cases will be like you! If there's one thing I learned during my chemotherapy for Hodgkin's is that everyone's body chemistry is different. Everyone! Just because a majority happen to die given the same dosage of the same drug doesn't mean everyone will, and just because one outlier doesn't die from the same dosage also doesn't mean everyone won't die. This is a single study from a credible source (The Mayo Clinic for cryinoutloud!). It is just a single study and more will have to be done to further substantiate the results. But, to anecdotally say something like, "Well, I drink fifty cups of caffeinated coffee daily and I'm not dead!" is about as silly as someone saying they drink [insert harmful chemical here] and I'm not dead. Hell, look at Keith Richards! That guy should have been dead long ago with all the chemicals he's put in his body, even with regular transfusions. YMMV
First of all, awesome write up. Some odd syntactical-grammatical things in it, but wow. You missed the Knowledge Navigator concept from 1986. That is where the iDevice landscape--I believe--is heading. Now, some other things have happened along the way that will change the Big Picture of that concept (cloud computing being one of them), but I still see that as a driving force behind the iDevices and Siri.
Drop this idea of the "government" as some evil alien entity with unknown motives. The issue here is that the NSA is being a bunch of assbags to internet companies.. At the behest of other companies. In this case, security services contractors. Why does everyone forget the warnings about the Military Industrial Complex? This is the Security Industrial Complex and we're throwing away our freedoms so some slimy fucks can make a buck. There is a reason most of our "generals" are desk jockeys whose' primary job is shuffling papers and securing funding.
Some say never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. I say never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by greed.
The point is there is still no way to defend yourself against a pissed off or curious NSA. if the NSA is pissed off you're done. If they are curious they'll learn everything about everything, including all about your life, your friends and family. There is nothing you can do to defend yourself against an agency that knows everything you do. What are you supposed to do? Tell them no and hope they play nice?
As a result everyone cooperates with any government agency. If you're in China or Russia you're not going to fight the FSB or the Chinese communist party. If you're in the USA you're not going to fight the NSA. But at least in the USA you have some rights and the NSA cannot legally spy on you, if you're in a foreign country then the NSA can legally spy on you and not only can you not fight the NSA but the NSA can use everything you ever did to convince you to cooperate.
So how exactly is it realistic for anyone not to cooperate with agencies that have so much power? You can cooperate or be destroyed trying to fight. The destruction of your business, but possibly of your personal life as well, most people aren't going to risk it.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...first off the NSA's job is monitoring electronic communications. There are other ways to communicate that they can't "listen" to, and they are...were limited in what they can do. The CIA on the other hand is the proverbial "hound" in the statement, "Release the hounds!" They dispose, while the NSA listens. Everyone is barking about the NSA, I'd be more worried about the CIA operating on American soil. So far, that has come to the surface. They are far scarier in action than the NSA, folks. But, this all ties back to the DHS and it's civilian authority. The fuckers we voted into office!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, RT is plagued with numerous software and hardware problems and probably was dead on arrival anyway. But new x86 chips are far from being the reason it hasn't and won't take off.
Name one non-Intel based version of Windows that WASN'T DoA?
Not only do I read and reply to email on my tablet I also write /. posts (in HTML, mind you) with it. :p I don't find it any more annoying to type on than typing in general. Sure, I can type faster on a full-size, physical keyboard, but that's not why I bought the tablet. Would I write a journal article or book on the thing? No. But email and /. posts ... if you get annoyed typing that little on a tablet then you probably made a bad buying decision.
A tablet screen is way too small
Not when you dock it. Add an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor to any tablet with Bluetooth and HDMI out, and you can carry one device that shifts between desktop mode when you're at a desk and tablet mode when away from one.
The same could be said about any laptop a decade or more ago, and how many docking stations get sold every year? ... [crickets] Yeah, that many. Plus, are you going to lug that docking station (and all the crap you mentioned along with it) around to every desk you are going to sit at? Me thinks not.
Your examples of the two types of immunity neglect the practice of offering limited immunity to prosecution. The limits usually extend to the testimony relative to the case being tried. Let's say you were committing an act of breaking and entering and witnessed a murder in the act. You were the only witness so the state may grant you immunity to the B&E charge in order to secure your testimony and put a murderer in jail. However, if during your testimony other robberies come up that are not related to the case, you could be prosecuted for those other crimes. Pleading the 5th to those probing questions would be prudent and acceptable as they are not covered by the limited scope of the immunity. In a case like the Sterling case Risen could be granted limited immunity for any crimes done that relate to the case if his testimony was valuable enough to get a conviction on Sterling. I don't see that happening, not after the challenges to the subpoena. But, yes, once immunity is granted you cannot invoke the 5th Amendment for questions related to the case being tried, nor would you need to as the reason for invoking it would be gone (within the limited scope of the case and type of immunity granted). I don't see the SCOTUS decision on that as being "unfortunate". You are being granted immunity from prosecution and in some cases witness protection, what more could you want? Besides, there's never a grant of universal immunity from prosecution. Even pardon's don't work more than once nor on more than just the original crime you were pardoned for. As for additional risk other than prosecution, that really depends on the case. In the Sterling case I don't see much threat to Risen for testifying beyond prosecution for crimes he may have committed while obtaining the information from Mr. Sterling. But, he (Risen) would have been charged if there was enough evidence to prosecute by now. I don't condone the tactics by the Justice Department if they are in fact on a fishing expedition to somehow get Risen to incriminate himself in some way, but Risen is not walking into the courtroom legally unarmed (as it were) either. He can still invoke the 5th on the stand like anyone else. But, like everyone else he must appear in court when subpoenaed or face arrest and/or contempt charges.
Why are criminal defendants allowed to remain silent, but not third-party witnesses like Risen?
The issue here is that Risen is trying to trump a subpoena with the 5th Amendment. A subpoena is a court order compelling a citizen to appear in court and give testimony as a witness to a crime or civil dispute. Failure to comply will get a bench warrant out on you and get you jailed for contempt. The 5th Amendment applies to testimony that may self-incriminate. Risen hasn't gotten to court and been on the stand in order to invoke the 5th Amendment, so he must appear or be held in contempt. Once he's in court and on the stand he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but not as a way to avoid appearing in court. If he were a defendant charged with a crime, different rules. You are covered by the 5th (and the rest of the Constitution) the instant you are arrested for a crime. But, Risen is a witness in this case--not a co-defendant--that is trying to duck out of a subpoena. Until he is in court the 5th Amendment is just there, not really able to do anything to keep him out of court. The dispute to date is Risen fighting a subpoena that the Fourth Circuit has already deemed lawful. The fact that Risen is trying not to go to court seems to indicate that he might actually be complicit in some way with the case against Mr. Sterling, or his lawyers are idiots. Either way he should hire some better lawyers and learn something about how the judicial system works before he appears in court or gets jailed for contempt. The 5th Amendment will apply to Risen once he is under questioning, never before.
The Fifth only protects against self-incrimination. There is no "paradox".
Correct. And the 5th Amendment applies to testimony that would incriminate, not a court order to appear and testify. There seems to be some confusion as to where the 5th applies in this case. Risen, as a subpoenaed witness must appear and testify or be held in contempt. Once he appears and gets on the stand he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but he cannot use it to get out of appearing in court.
Why not the reporter attend but when taken to the witness stand, every question asked should be answered with "I am under duress and I am not here under my free will". If I recall correctly, people who are under duress with threat on their person are permitted to commit perjury, which is why defendants, when found guilty, cannot be charged with perjury for claiming to be not guilty. So when asked a question, the reporter should state that he is under duress and then give an obviously nonsense answer. So when asked to name his source, he should give the name of the Judge's dog, for example.
I may be very wrong but it would be interesting...
Just my 2.
Or better yet, once in court and under questioning invoke the 5th Amendment. It does work once there. It cannot be used to trump a subpoena and skip out on testifying as a witness.
Gaaa! Risen is challenging a subpoena on 5th Amendment grounds. You cannot do that. A subpoenaed witness must comply with the subpoena and appear and testify. Once in court and under oath during questioning Risen can invoke the 5th Amendment, but he cannot use it to skip out on testifying AS A WITNESS! Sterling, the defendant, can refuse to testify all he wants. Witnesses cannot, and unless granted immunity can be charged for crimes they reveal in their testimony. And, contemnors can be jailed indefinitely, i.e., life in prison, potentially. You best go look at U.S. law again.
Likewise, we don't know James Risen's role in the CIA information leak. Did he conspire with an insider to obtain the information? If so, it would seem that the Fifth Amendment applies to him as well.
He has not been charged with anything as a witness, so until he is asked a question on the stand that might incriminate him he is NOT protected by the 5th Amendment and must comply with the subpoena that compels him to appear and testify.
If the DoJ knows any different[...]
Then they should have brought charges against Mr. Risen and made him a defendant as well. Apparently they don't have enough evidence, but do want Risen to testify against Sterling. Again, he can invoke the 5th Amendment while testifying. He cannot invoke it before appearing to testify.
Yes, the DoJ can offer immunity and remove the self-incrimination hurdle. But immunity from what? We don't know what other illegal acts Risen may have committed in order to acquire the information and even the act of negotiating immunity may reveal other acts that the prosecution is not aware of.
Ahh, therein lies the rub. It would appear that the government suspects that Risen did something wrong and may be trying to ambush him at trial into giving something up that will incriminate/implicate him. Otherwise, why wouldn't they grant Risen limited immunity? Smells like a fishing expedition to me. But, he should show up and testify invoking the 5th where appropriate. If he is refusing to appear then that raises a red flag for me.
Our US legal system is adversarial by design. It's us (the public) against the government. So nobody should be compelled to assist them in any way.
All judicial systems are adversarial, that's why they exist! Person A was wronged by Person B. Person C wronged Society/The State. Civil and criminal disputes. It's not us vs. the gov'ment in every court case. And yes, if you are subpoenaed as a witness by the court you are compelled to appear in court and testify. As a defendant you do not have to testify if that testimony will incriminate you or harm your defense, in a criminal case. But, if Person D is subpoenaed in Person C's criminal case, they do have to appear and they do have to testify or they will be held in contempt.
Witnesses can be compelled to testify so that they cannot be intimidated into silence.
---- and the defendant has the right to remain silent so he can't be intimidated or tortured into making a confession.
But to say these things on Slashdot risks being modded down as a Troll.
But, Risen is *NOT* a defendant, he's a witness. The 5th Amendment does not apply and a subpoenaed witness *IS* compelled to appear and testify. Know thy judicial system.
Rather like the "Am I under arrest? Am I free to leave?" which indicates that you KNOW that unless you're accused of something officially, the law machinery has no right to tell you where you can be or go.
So why does Alice have to agree to be a witness?
Unless there's a crime of "Being a witness", what does the court have hold over them for?
It's called a subpoena. When the court subpoenas you, you have to appear or be charged with contempt, failure to appear or a host of other things the court can throw at you for not obeying a court order. James Risen is a material witness as far as the government is concerned and once subpoenaed he cannot refuse to appear and testify without sanction. What Risen is most likely afraid of is that he will be charged with revealing state secrets or the like based on what he *might* be asked in court. Given that they seem to be after the whistle (Sterling) and not the blower (Risen), I'd say that unless Risen did something relative to Mr. Sterling's actions that might also be considered criminal Risen would not be charged with anything from this case, except contempt of court. Contempt charges can be held indefinitely and contemnors jailed indefinitely as well, though, so... Me, I'd go with testify and take my chances over contempt and a LONG time in prison.
Even the almighty NSA with it's insanely high budget can't crack all the encryption.
If you're an American you better hope that's *NOT* true and hope that we get them off spying domestically. So to rebut, yes they can (remember hardware is only part of the encryption breaking; smart people with better algorithms is another piece). If it exists they have broken it.
10000 laptops are stolen at airports every year. Presumably, they are off when that happens.
The NSA is not your problem; you are not important enough to be a target. When thinking about security, thieves are your problem. Theft happens, and happens often. Your computer is far more likely to get stolen than to be inflitrated by the NSA. And the solution is to encrypt your hard drive. Without encryption the thief will have access to everything you normally access from the computer - like your bank account. You wouldn't want that, would you? Today's CPUs all have AESNI support, so there is no excuse for not encrypting your laptop's hard drive. Do it today and get some financial peace of mind.
Ok, I till give you the-best-secure-computer-is-the-one-off-locked-in-a-safe-in-the-bottom-of-a-salt-mine award. However, everyone is currently on the NSA radar. If not for terrorism for some other reason, so to say that you are more likely to lose data to theft than the NSA is impossible to prove. Encryption won't get your laptop back from a thief. Even if they can't get at the data you're still without data or a computer. How is that financial piece of mind? Mod parent down for lack of critical thinking.
Pick a government. If you trust the Russians use GOST. If you trust the Japanese use CAMILLA.
Then use all three of them in sequence and hope it would be quite difficult to have them all cooperate to break your encryption.
Try writing in Navajo. You have a better chance.
The academic crypto community widely considers it secure after more than 10 years of effort to break it (note that twofish does not look less secure, but what makes you think that the NSA could break the AES and not twofish ? In fact nobody can break any of them).
In fact, you are dumber than you appear. I've said it more than once, encryption is not a magic spell. Trust me, if anyone has the mathematicians and the hardware to break *ANY* encryption it is the NSA. It's been their job for more than 60 years. If you can show me internal NSA documents that prove otherwise, I'll believe you. In the mean time, believe that no encryption algorithm is "secure".
I went through grade school from 1977-1985. Most of that was spent in San Jose, California as Silicon Valley exploded. I had great teachers and an amazing Gifted and Talented education program. The teachers were completely versed in all the subjects they taught: history, English, math, sciences. They were paid poorly and some had second jobs. The school system was ok, but this was before most of the budget cuts that happened under Reagan. In 1983 we moved to Virginia where the system didn't know what to do with me (I was doing math and english a level higher than everyone else in this system) and as a result I had to take sixth grade math and English again. That really tilted the scales of me ever liking the Virginia educational system. It was funded better, but did less with it as you saw 15 years later with your experience. The good teachers dried up in k-12 because they could stay in school as long or a little longer and become university or college professors, or become researchers or consultants. All these vocations pay better and have better benefits, so as the k-12 budgets get cut less qualified people want those jobs. So, the downward spiral begins. When the measure of life is done in currency this problem with k-12 education shall remain. The good, qualified teachers that are in the system today are not there for the money. Hopefully, they have well paid spouses or enjoy a meager life doing what they love. These people are few and far between, however.
First, I don't believe the iPad is a panacea of education. I see it as another tool, not one to replace them all. Second, the only part of the summary with regard to programming for the iPad (or any iOS device) that's valid is the "prior to distribution" part. You can develop and deploy apps locally without being a registered developer and without Apple oversight. The only time you hit that obstacle is when you go to distribute the app, and guess what? Apple has a program for universities at least so student developers can publish through their school's dev license. Sure, still has to pass muster, but that's just another boundary condition and learning moment. Certainly no real roadblocks to learning how to develop apps in objective-c in the classroom. What a bunch of FUD!
It's like they reversed the up/down rotation on an aircraft or switched left-right steering in a car. Yeah, you can get used to it, but then whenever you use a non-Apple product it feels weird again.
I would assume they did it because it's kinda skeudomorphic, as in you would push in that direction. Now they seem to be abandoning the skeudomorphic stuff in favour of a flat look it would make sense to go back to the normal way, but I doubt they will risk annoying everyone twice.
Ok, how many times do people that actually know have to tell the slower ones that "natural scrolling" is a switchable option? It is not a locked in default on the desktop OS. Stop ragging on something that you can easily turn off! Don't like it, turn it off. Plus, how cognitively challenged are folks that they can't switch between modes after one or two mistakes going from platform to platform? I do it daily! Sure there are those one or two awkward, "Why isn't it scrolling?!?!" moments but then it's over. Kind of as annoying as sitting at the command line and typing "ls" in a Windows command prompt. It's going to happen, only in that case there is no option to switch it off.
Itanium is not a RISC or CISC CPU. It is EPIC (Explicity Parallel Instruction Computing). Sheesh.
But, the i960 is and wasn't even mentioned.
I'm just trying to sort out what this server would have actually been running that one could simply go "Oh well, we're going to Windows now."
Mine sweeper.
Oh fuck me, I'll bite.
Hmmm, where to even start with WIndows?
Ok, how about having to spend $1500 plus in training to find the damn shit that Microsoft decided to once again obfuscate behind 16 tabs and buttons in lame, third-grade designed dialog boxes just to set one service preference? I can edit a text file that's been formatted the same for ten years (or more) and setup most common Linux services.
How about, every time a new version of Windows Server hits you have to wonder how many new versions of other software you have to buy just to keep your system secure, and/or running? FOSS wins.
Ever heard of a man page? I know Windows admins also have to do their homework before they can weed their way through the 16 levels of dialog box Hell to get to deploying a...well anything!
Good package management handles dependencies without a problem. At least it doesn't break something every few Tuesdays.
Yep, you still need to reboot, if you don't know how to build your own kernel and modularize services so you can reboot less. Plus, shell scripts are your friend for those little annoying service restarts.
Things aren't automatic in Linux because Linux admins don't like opening up gaping security holes, or maybe just want a little more control over what is going on. Different strokes.
You see command line syntax as "limitations", *nix admins see it as not effing up while on the command line. One wrong space between characters can be bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Just like turning on one wrong checkbox six levels deep in WIndows dialog boxes. What's the difference? A pain in the ass is a pain in the ass.
"I love the undecipherable command-line wizardry. I'm not an idiot." You contradicted yourself there....see man pages. Also, Google is your friend...see homework.
Of course, the point of my rebuttal is to remind you that we all started at zero no matter what OS we chose to use to serve whatever we need to serve. It's when we forget this and forget the merits of all OSes that we truly have lowered the IQ of the room. Right tool, right job. If you want to be a master mechanic you can't just use screwdrivers. 'Nuf said.
P.S. "Error prone manual labor", from a WIndows admin....That's funny.
"If a and b or correlated"
*facepalm* Someone slap me, I must need more coffee!
And, there will be outliers that don't fit the pattern (or correlation) either, possibly you in this case. That doesn't mean that everyone or even a majority of cases will be like you! If there's one thing I learned during my chemotherapy for Hodgkin's is that everyone's body chemistry is different. Everyone! Just because a majority happen to die given the same dosage of the same drug doesn't mean everyone will, and just because one outlier doesn't die from the same dosage also doesn't mean everyone won't die. This is a single study from a credible source (The Mayo Clinic for cryinoutloud!). It is just a single study and more will have to be done to further substantiate the results. But, to anecdotally say something like, "Well, I drink fifty cups of caffeinated coffee daily and I'm not dead!" is about as silly as someone saying they drink [insert harmful chemical here] and I'm not dead. Hell, look at Keith Richards! That guy should have been dead long ago with all the chemicals he's put in his body, even with regular transfusions. YMMV
Thing is Jobs didn't invent stuff.
Seriously?!?! contrary to some popular opinion, the man was a prolific inventor. A quick USPTO search will cure that notion.
First of all, awesome write up. Some odd syntactical-grammatical things in it, but wow. You missed the Knowledge Navigator concept from 1986. That is where the iDevice landscape--I believe--is heading. Now, some other things have happened along the way that will change the Big Picture of that concept (cloud computing being one of them), but I still see that as a driving force behind the iDevices and Siri.
Drop this idea of the "government" as some evil alien entity with unknown motives. The issue here is that the NSA is being a bunch of assbags to internet companies.. At the behest of other companies. In this case, security services contractors. Why does everyone forget the warnings about the Military Industrial Complex? This is the Security Industrial Complex and we're throwing away our freedoms so some slimy fucks can make a buck. There is a reason most of our "generals" are desk jockeys whose' primary job is shuffling papers and securing funding.
Some say never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. I say never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by greed.
The point is there is still no way to defend yourself against a pissed off or curious NSA. if the NSA is pissed off you're done. If they are curious they'll learn everything about everything, including all about your life, your friends and family. There is nothing you can do to defend yourself against an agency that knows everything you do. What are you supposed to do? Tell them no and hope they play nice?
As a result everyone cooperates with any government agency. If you're in China or Russia you're not going to fight the FSB or the Chinese communist party. If you're in the USA you're not going to fight the NSA. But at least in the USA you have some rights and the NSA cannot legally spy on you, if you're in a foreign country then the NSA can legally spy on you and not only can you not fight the NSA but the NSA can use everything you ever did to convince you to cooperate.
So how exactly is it realistic for anyone not to cooperate with agencies that have so much power? You can cooperate or be destroyed trying to fight. The destruction of your business, but possibly of your personal life as well, most people aren't going to risk it.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...first off the NSA's job is monitoring electronic communications. There are other ways to communicate that they can't "listen" to, and they are...were limited in what they can do. The CIA on the other hand is the proverbial "hound" in the statement, "Release the hounds!" They dispose, while the NSA listens. Everyone is barking about the NSA, I'd be more worried about the CIA operating on American soil. So far, that has come to the surface. They are far scarier in action than the NSA, folks. But, this all ties back to the DHS and it's civilian authority. The fuckers we voted into office!