Yeah, system admins and developers just loved the only SysV init and writing init scripts! They hate it when they have to switch to systemd and instead of writing a giant obtuse bash script, they just have to create a symlink. Especially since every has the simple syntax and semantics of bash memorized, and they might have to look up what to symlink to since they're new to systemd.
You seem hobbled by the bizarre idea that my understanding of the existing legal standards for different parts of the process is somehow colored by my desire for one outcome or the other.
No, the law is the SAME regardless of which side of a case you're on.
*points* you did it again! You conflated ruling over a piece of evidence with the standard for conviction. Tsk tsk. Pretty sad when you can't even understand the difference after it is pointed out.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for convicting somebody of a crime. Why would that be the standard for deciding a factual detail relating to evidence, such as if you forgot, or if you're not a reliable witness?
If you're not a reliable witness, then it doesn't matter very much if you claim to have forgotten. In that case the Judge would be looking at which version is more likely.
Too much hyperbole and lies to even address. It is all off-topic, and most of it isn't true. You'd have to stretch almost every word just to make it slightly truthy.
I'd prefer a more proactive response, maybe carry around a bunch of WWII concentration camp photos and wave those around whenever the Germans complain about "spying."
No they shouldn't be punished forever, but we probably should keep an eye on them forever.
Their history with the Nazi state and the Gestapo secret police is exactly why Germans are so bothered by spying. They know for a fact that gathered information can easily be put to nefarious use.
If they understand the history and are against having people make sure they're not subjected to that sort of governance again... that tells me which side they're on!
Luckily pretty much everybody in American politics supports spying on the Germans, so I can be sure I'll remain protected from them no matter what they think of it.
That was my point. They don't work for him, they work for the Federal Government. Much about their employment is regulated directly by Congress, including their budget. A President can fire a department head, but then what? That might actually not matter at all to the section heads within the NSA. The political leadership comes and goes, but the rest of the organization is self-managing. The Director of the NSA might in fact not be able to run around snapping his fingers and cause the desired effect. They manage their own budget on a blank check from Congress.
Obviously the departments that are overseen more directly by members of the Cabinet then the President has extensive access and generally better control. Except of course Law Enforcement which is all delegated as per post-Watergate rules.
Something else you might not have considered, when you fire the Director, then the Deputy Director takes over. The Director is a military position; the Deputy Director is required to be a civilian. This guarantees that it will be a "career professional" from inside the organization, but who can't be appointed as Director. This means if you fire the Director, the short term effect is turn full control over to the organization. And then the replacement has to be formally Nominated and then Confirmed by the Senate. Whoever you just fired had connections in the Senate to have gotten confirmed in the first place. So firing him upsets those people. So the replacement will likely be further from the President than whoever he fired, because he'll have a weakened hand in confirmation.
Also, the NSA is military, which means most of the President's staff don't have any say at all. Most of what the President wants to get done has to be done directly, and through the Secretary of Defense. And then most of the workers are actually civilians, so he can't give them orders as Commander in Chief. And the Secretary of Defense mostly has to go through the command structure.
Civics is actually interesting to learn about. There are real reasons it is structured the way it is.
The proof isn't going to be public at this stage, so our ignorance is not informative. It certainly doesn't imply that they lack that evidence. Lets wait until there is at least some accusation by the lawyers that such evidence is lacking.
Helicopters might not be nearly as robust as you assume. They might in fact be very touchy, and prone to a wide variety of damage.
And what if that down-draft flips the drone over and it catches an eddy? It could easily get blown up by air being forced down, even if most of the time it would get blown down.
Wouldn't the existance of spies be the reason for a "no-spy list?" I mean if you're not spying on each other anyways, then why waste time and money negotiating that? Seems to be a required precondition.
This proves the status quo is spying, therefore the premise of a no-spy list is valid.
I'd prefer a more proactive response, maybe carry around a bunch of WWII concentration camp photos and wave those around whenever the Germans complain about "spying."
No they shouldn't be punished forever, but we probably should keep an eye on them forever.
And there are just as many who think Saint Reagan was the worst President EV-AH. BAR NONE. And that number was growing while he was still in office! Z O M G!
You may not know this, but the President of the United States doesn't have an office in the NSA, and doesn't have direct access to their leadership or decision-making.
So no, Obama isn't trying to achieve anything, as it is somebody else doing it.
Being able to fire the person at the top gives limited control in certain types of circumstances. In a regular business it means you have a lot of control over a department. But even a large corporation, you might not be able to succeed at getting things done the way you want just by firing department heads; and there is a cost to morale in attempting it.
In the case of Government, the workers are the same under one President and the next, and they can drag their feet and wait-out a President who tries to micro-manage them. But also, appointing department heads for a President is a political act, it has real cost, and if you try to do it with a weak hand then Congress will win that battle. Also, the departments have entrenched support from Congress-critters that have been in place longer than the President and will be in place after his terms expire.
You just can't use a small-business-owner model of Control to understand the powers of the President here. He's the one that has to explain the policies to the people, but in Intelligence and Law Enforcement, Congress has erected barriers to direct Presidential control. People often imagine that the President can just walk into any department and look at anything and order anybody around, but actually he's not a dictator, and can only move the levers of power that are provided.
Germans would riot (literally) if the US planned to close the base. It is a huge source of jobs, jobs that would otherwise go to US contractors but instead go to local German contractors.
In the past when there were plans of reducing the size of the base, they protested strongly and got us to change the plans.
The endgame is for individual politicials and political parties to distance themselves from their cooperation with US intelligence sharing programs in the eyes of their voters.
If they tried to arrest a US employee, they'd likely have to confront the fact that most of this is probably authorized under the broad information-sharing agreements that they're party to.
Slashdot Mirror
He's accurately describing the reasons for systemd and the reasons so many of us use it.
He's giving the main, standard party line. It is not "propaganda," it is how people with a different view than you really feel about it.
Compare that to your hyperbole that misrepresents the choice, and ask yourself who is producing propaganda!
systemd is the solution that exists though, and is being standardized on.
All of the other SysV replacements either lack the features, or have significant problems.
I don't think you even know what "embrace and extend" means. Odd, given your user ID. Alzheimer's? Oh, wait, I get it, it was just "flamebait."
Yeah, system admins and developers just loved the only SysV init and writing init scripts! They hate it when they have to switch to systemd and instead of writing a giant obtuse bash script, they just have to create a symlink. Especially since every has the simple syntax and semantics of bash memorized, and they might have to look up what to symlink to since they're new to systemd.
You seem hobbled by the bizarre idea that my understanding of the existing legal standards for different parts of the process is somehow colored by my desire for one outcome or the other.
No, the law is the SAME regardless of which side of a case you're on.
D'oh!
*points* you did it again! You conflated ruling over a piece of evidence with the standard for conviction. Tsk tsk. Pretty sad when you can't even understand the difference after it is pointed out.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for convicting somebody of a crime. Why would that be the standard for deciding a factual detail relating to evidence, such as if you forgot, or if you're not a reliable witness?
If you're not a reliable witness, then it doesn't matter very much if you claim to have forgotten. In that case the Judge would be looking at which version is more likely.
Too much hyperbole and lies to even address. It is all off-topic, and most of it isn't true. You'd have to stretch almost every word just to make it slightly truthy.
Read the abstract, they didn't do anything other than non-invasive tests with recall. There is nothing "implied" by that. Implication is not science.
I'd prefer a more proactive response, maybe carry around a bunch of WWII concentration camp photos and wave those around whenever the Germans complain about "spying."
No they shouldn't be punished forever, but we probably should keep an eye on them forever.
Their history with the Nazi state and the Gestapo secret police is exactly why Germans are so bothered by spying. They know for a fact that gathered information can easily be put to nefarious use.
If they understand the history and are against having people make sure they're not subjected to that sort of governance again... that tells me which side they're on!
Luckily pretty much everybody in American politics supports spying on the Germans, so I can be sure I'll remain protected from them no matter what they think of it.
Did you even read the abstract? That is about disrupting recall, that is all it is about! That is all it claims to be about.
Or I know he's a lot more popular than Congress! And that is who he has to be at odds with.
He's more popular than W was at this point, too, by 4 points. Maybe I did read the numbers after all.
Nixon was at 24% approval
A judge doesn't have to make a perfect ruling, just one that is probably correct.
That was my point. They don't work for him, they work for the Federal Government. Much about their employment is regulated directly by Congress, including their budget. A President can fire a department head, but then what? That might actually not matter at all to the section heads within the NSA. The political leadership comes and goes, but the rest of the organization is self-managing. The Director of the NSA might in fact not be able to run around snapping his fingers and cause the desired effect. They manage their own budget on a blank check from Congress.
Obviously the departments that are overseen more directly by members of the Cabinet then the President has extensive access and generally better control. Except of course Law Enforcement which is all delegated as per post-Watergate rules.
Something else you might not have considered, when you fire the Director, then the Deputy Director takes over. The Director is a military position; the Deputy Director is required to be a civilian. This guarantees that it will be a "career professional" from inside the organization, but who can't be appointed as Director. This means if you fire the Director, the short term effect is turn full control over to the organization. And then the replacement has to be formally Nominated and then Confirmed by the Senate. Whoever you just fired had connections in the Senate to have gotten confirmed in the first place. So firing him upsets those people. So the replacement will likely be further from the President than whoever he fired, because he'll have a weakened hand in confirmation.
Also, the NSA is military, which means most of the President's staff don't have any say at all. Most of what the President wants to get done has to be done directly, and through the Secretary of Defense. And then most of the workers are actually civilians, so he can't give them orders as Commander in Chief. And the Secretary of Defense mostly has to go through the command structure.
Civics is actually interesting to learn about. There are real reasons it is structured the way it is.
The proof isn't going to be public at this stage, so our ignorance is not informative. It certainly doesn't imply that they lack that evidence. Lets wait until there is at least some accusation by the lawyers that such evidence is lacking.
Helicopters might not be nearly as robust as you assume. They might in fact be very touchy, and prone to a wide variety of damage.
And what if that down-draft flips the drone over and it catches an eddy? It could easily get blown up by air being forced down, even if most of the time it would get blown down.
Well, air traffic is under Federal regulation and ground vehicles are under State regulation.
Haters will hate for pointing it out, but Federal regulations are usually of higher quality.
That's a pretty big "if."
Wouldn't the existance of spies be the reason for a "no-spy list?" I mean if you're not spying on each other anyways, then why waste time and money negotiating that? Seems to be a required precondition.
This proves the status quo is spying, therefore the premise of a no-spy list is valid.
I'd prefer a more proactive response, maybe carry around a bunch of WWII concentration camp photos and wave those around whenever the Germans complain about "spying."
No they shouldn't be punished forever, but we probably should keep an eye on them forever.
And there are just as many who think Saint Reagan was the worst President EV-AH. BAR NONE. And that number was growing while he was still in office! Z O M G!
You may not know this, but the President of the United States doesn't have an office in the NSA, and doesn't have direct access to their leadership or decision-making.
So no, Obama isn't trying to achieve anything, as it is somebody else doing it.
Being able to fire the person at the top gives limited control in certain types of circumstances. In a regular business it means you have a lot of control over a department. But even a large corporation, you might not be able to succeed at getting things done the way you want just by firing department heads; and there is a cost to morale in attempting it.
In the case of Government, the workers are the same under one President and the next, and they can drag their feet and wait-out a President who tries to micro-manage them. But also, appointing department heads for a President is a political act, it has real cost, and if you try to do it with a weak hand then Congress will win that battle. Also, the departments have entrenched support from Congress-critters that have been in place longer than the President and will be in place after his terms expire.
You just can't use a small-business-owner model of Control to understand the powers of the President here. He's the one that has to explain the policies to the people, but in Intelligence and Law Enforcement, Congress has erected barriers to direct Presidential control. People often imagine that the President can just walk into any department and look at anything and order anybody around, but actually he's not a dictator, and can only move the levers of power that are provided.
Germans would riot (literally) if the US planned to close the base. It is a huge source of jobs, jobs that would otherwise go to US contractors but instead go to local German contractors.
In the past when there were plans of reducing the size of the base, they protested strongly and got us to change the plans.
The endgame is for individual politicials and political parties to distance themselves from their cooperation with US intelligence sharing programs in the eyes of their voters.
They're only arresting their own agents.
If they tried to arrest a US employee, they'd likely have to confront the fact that most of this is probably authorized under the broad information-sharing agreements that they're party to.