Look what happens when journalists who are anti-gun are approached with the idea of having a Gun Free Home sign posted. Some have armed guards. See any hypocracy?
By JULIA ANGWIN Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens—even people suspected of no crime.
Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.
A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.
Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency—how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored—and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.
Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.
The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.
"It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.
Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.
Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.
But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or members of the public. "All you have to do is publish a notice in the Federal Register and you can do whatever you want," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant who advises agencies on how to comply with the Privacy Act.
As a result, the National Counterterrorism Center program's opponents within the administration—led by Ms. Callahan of Homeland Security—couldn't argue that the program would violate the law. Inste
consider that you can pretty much play the game on any PC -- much like Steam it's going to be easily portable. No more dragging around a CD and having to have the key to install it. For a quick fix here and there it's a good bargain. Hell, if you play 2 hrs a month that's only $1/hr. A cup of coffee at Starbucks costs more..
I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but this sure helped put things into perspective for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE
I know it's not 100% on topic with the defense cuts, but it still helps to illustrate the scale of the problem.
some people mat not realize this, but IMO they won the MINUTE we started changing the way we do things. The motivation behind their acts isnt to see how many buildings they can blow up, people they can kill, etc. It's to attack our way of life. The way we try to "win" the way is to kill the terrorists, but we really need to kill their (false?) hatred toward our way of life.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush
"The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes."
If anyone has looked at the C2D specs, the MHz race is over (for now). AMD stopped publishing their MHz and relied on the relative performance to the P4 counterpart. Now with Intel releasing the E6300/6400/6600 what will AMD do? We used to have MHz, MIPs, bogoMIPs, FLOPs, etc.. What will be the new benchmarking standard?
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wt1Zy_ASNyA
Look what happens when journalists who are anti-gun are approached with the idea of having a Gun Free Home sign posted. Some have armed guards. See any hypocracy?
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/143029-empowered-can-high-efficiency-power-supplies-cut-your-electricity-bill/
By JULIA ANGWIN
Top U.S. intelligence officials gathered in the White House Situation Room in March to debate a controversial proposal. Counterterrorism officials wanted to create a government dragnet, sweeping up millions of records about U.S. citizens—even people suspected of no crime.
Not everyone was on board. "This is a sea change in the way that the government interacts with the general public," Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security, argued in the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.
A week later, the attorney general signed the changes into effect.
Through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews with officials at numerous agencies, The Wall Street Journal has reconstructed the clash over the counterterrorism program within the administration of President Barack Obama. The debate was a confrontation between some who viewed it as a matter of efficiency—how long to keep data, for instance, or where it should be stored—and others who saw it as granting authority for unprecedented government surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.
Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.
The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes.
"It's breathtaking" in its scope, said a former senior administration official familiar with the White House debate.
Counterterrorism officials say they will be circumspect with the data. "The guidelines provide rigorous oversight to protect the information that we have, for authorized and narrow purposes," said Alexander Joel, Civil Liberties Protection Officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the parent agency for the National Counterterrorism Center.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution says that searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects" shouldn't be conducted without "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. But that doesn't cover records the government creates in the normal course of business with citizens.
Congress specifically sought to prevent government agents from rifling through government files indiscriminately when it passed the Federal Privacy Act in 1974. The act prohibits government agencies from sharing data with each other for purposes that aren't "compatible" with the reason the data were originally collected.
But the Federal Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt themselves from many requirements by placing notices in the Federal Register, the government's daily publication of proposed rules. In practice, these privacy-act notices are rarely contested by government watchdogs or members of the public. "All you have to do is publish a notice in the Federal Register and you can do whatever you want," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant who advises agencies on how to comply with the Privacy Act.
As a result, the National Counterterrorism Center program's opponents within the administration—led by Ms. Callahan of Homeland Security—couldn't argue that the program would violate the law. Inste
Seriously. How much crap do you really need to keep around?
I wonder if that's the real reason.
FWIW : http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/19/the-engadget-interview-hps-stephen-dewitt-discusses-the-state/
Everyone should have seen this coming. Makes me wonder what will happen with FB and Twitter.
http://www.keybowl.com/ You could also try the Frogpad but I don't know how ergo that is.
consider that you can pretty much play the game on any PC -- much like Steam it's going to be easily portable. No more dragging around a CD and having to have the key to install it. For a quick fix here and there it's a good bargain. Hell, if you play 2 hrs a month that's only $1/hr. A cup of coffee at Starbucks costs more..
I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but this sure helped put things into perspective for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE I know it's not 100% on topic with the defense cuts, but it still helps to illustrate the scale of the problem.
some people mat not realize this, but IMO they won the MINUTE we started changing the way we do things. The motivation behind their acts isnt to see how many buildings they can blow up, people they can kill, etc. It's to attack our way of life. The way we try to "win" the way is to kill the terrorists, but we really need to kill their (false?) hatred toward our way of life.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush "The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes."
Get over it. It will be back, but under their control. They are creating a joint venture with Fox to distribute their shows online.
If anyone has looked at the C2D specs, the MHz race is over (for now). AMD stopped publishing their MHz and relied on the relative performance to the P4 counterpart. Now with Intel releasing the E6300/6400/6600 what will AMD do? We used to have MHz, MIPs, bogoMIPs, FLOPs, etc.. What will be the new benchmarking standard?