|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
Guardian
Impeach DNI Clapper for
perjury? What a jolly thought.
No wonder he squealed so loudly at
Snowden.
Tinfoil Hat Footnote:
My NZ ISP's dns to the Guardian this
morning
gets lost in an infinite loop within Fairfax Media.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- nsa & friends - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 09:38 PM EDT
- cynical view - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 10:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/us/thomas-penfield-jackson-outspoken-judge-
dies-at-76.html
I had a good laugh during the MS antitrust trial when he said:
"The code of tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a
dead
horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
In law firms, we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the
following: buying a stronger whip; changing riders; saying things like 'this is
the way we have always ridden this horse'; appointing a committee to study the
horse; arranging to visit other firms to see how they ride dead horses;
increasing the standards to ride dead horses; declaring that the horse is
better,
faster, and cheaper dead; and finally, harnessing several dead horses together
for increased speed."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Now I know the name,
I have
to check my calendar.
When the
news
broke yesterday I wondered
...
These are not thethered balloons.
They drift on the wild winds of
the tropopause.
Google really has more money than sense,
unless they're
also into climate control...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
"Thomas Penfield Jackson, a federal judge who ruled in
2000 that Microsoft
was a predatory monopoly and must be
split in half, only to see an appeals
court reverse his
order because he had improperly discussed it with
journalists, died at his home in Compton, Md., on Saturday.
He was 76. link
Judge Jackson discussed the case with
the journalists with
the understanding that his remarks would not be released
until after the judgement was handed down. It was the
Microsoft lawyers who
perceiving they were going to lose the
case, leaked the discussions, and then
requested Judge
Jackson be removed for .. leaking the
information.
"Judge Jackson agreed to be interviewed several times
after testimony in the trial had ended, with the
understanding that his
comments could not be published until
the case had left his courtroom. The
discussions, beginning
last September, were friendly, informal and
unstructured" link June 2000
"The published press accounts indicate that
all of the
judge’s discussions of the case with reporters occurred
after
conclusion of the trial, which ended on June 24, 1999.
Although the exact
number and dates of the press interviews
remain unknown, it appears that all
but two occurred after
the judge entered the findings of fact on November 5,
1999" link<
/a>[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vruz on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
Motor vehicle deaths in U.S. in 2011
Total --> 32,367
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in
_U.S._by_year
Deaths in terrorist attacks, *Worldwide* **all time**
Total --> 23,840 (approximate)
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_viole
nt_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks
If you actually look at facts "The War on Terror" and the
new Cyberwar that Congress and the Obama Administration want
to sell so badly, it's just nuts, sheer insanity.
Possible solutions: hide all statistics, generate more
sinophobic fear, buy more weapons and give tons of money to
the cyber-military-industrial complex.
Alternatively: Do less of what's not helping anybody's
freedoms at all.
---
--- the vruz[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kjs on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
that's what they admit to and who cares about the missing 0's at the end of the
number....
---
not f'd, you won't find me on farcebook[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reiisi on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
The details may be gruesome, but if you want to be able to consider the case in
a meaningful way, you can't skip facts just because they are gruesome.
Learning to be a free person means learning to deal with gruesome facts without
being biased by them.
Ms. Christy's 4th amendment rights were violated by the wording of the second
search warrant. You cannot apply a semantic filter to data without looking at
the data.
That means that the search starts out overly broad.
Then the government must pretend to close its eyes to the data discarded by the
filter. And, at the same time, it has to pretend that the filter will not
produce false positives.
While the legal fiction of ignoring facts improperly brought up is used daily in
court, there is no judge present when the police use the semantic filter in the
search.
The sad thing to me is that the computer was apparently used to try to cement a
case that shouldn't have needed cementing. The facts of the baby's death should
have been enough to convict Ms. Christy of criminal negligence resulting in the
death the baby.
This shows several of the points being ignored by the government in the
discussion of the NSA's actions relative to Prism and similar programs.
A semantic filter requires an overly broad search to start with. You can't
un-infringe 4th amendment rights by a police officer applying a semantic filter
after having performed an un-Constitutional search. A judge could order the
irrelevant facts set aside, but the judge is not present during the search.
This is the reason fishing expedition searches are not allowed, that you have to
start the trial before you start it to prevent abuses. Since you can't start a
trial before you start it, it is impossible to avoid abuses.
Computers are fancy books, but they are books in the end. We have to quit
believing they are magical black boxes that will make the world a perfect place
in spite of our mistakes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
link
I appreciate the article for trying to explain this but it still
boggles my mind. It seems that you only have a right to remain silent if the
cops tell you so which is extremely bizarre especially since the mainstream
media has been flooded for decades with cops telling people they have the right
to remain silent and that whatever you say can and will be used against you. So
someone during a police interrogation wises up and clams up and their
silence is used against them. The SCotUS decided that you only have the
right to remain silent if you speak up and say "I plead the fifth". Now that
we've spent fifty years indoctrinating people with the idea that they have the
right to remain silent, let's change the rules on all of them. I guess the
SCotUS is dead set on further increasing our already astronomical incarceration
rate. We already have more people imprisoned than any other country on Earth.
Not just the highest percentage (we have that too) but the highest in absolute
numbers.
The obvious take away is to never talk with the police and
never be helpful. If you are ever approached or questioned say "I plead the
fifth. I want a lawyer" and then shut up. I have no doubt that given the
chance, this Supreme Court will find a way to make even these actions
self-incriminating. They seem determined to make it impossible for the lower
classes to avoid self-incrimination even with silence.
Well, I'm disgusted
but I'm not surprised. All of the important parts of the Bill of Rights have
been trampled into the dirt.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that
there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|