Maybe I'm too much into a different kind of cartoon, but I think bullies who pick on a kid named Grayson Bruce might be asking for trouble, especially if he's hanging out with his best friend Wayne Richard.
Imagine that the courts accept this so-called excuse. And imagine that you are a manufacturer of surveillance equipment, in a meeting with police buyers the next day.
"So, if we buy this system, are you going to make us sign an NDA that forbids us to tell the courts about how we use it?"
"Very clever, Dr. Hwang, but which of us are you going to sue? Remember, if you do find a way to tell us apart, that will be proof that your technique is flawed!"
we interpret interference as spam and route around it
So those three links will be at the top of the list, just after the (ordinary) sponsored ones? So now I have to scroll down past the top five to get to the real results? That's easy enough, although a browser plug-in to do it for me would be nice...
"Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons."
That is exactly as it ought to be.
On the one hand, I'm annoyed that these Reps would ask such questions, as if the civil rights of members of Congress were different from those of any other citizens.
On the other hand, if this revelation makes Congress sit up and pay attention to these abuses, then I'm for it.
Gripping hand: they'll probably rush some new rules into effect, exempting themselves from such surveillance, then go back to business as usual.
"One of the things that's been glaring about all of the investigations and panels and research into these programs is that they almost always leave out actual technologists, and especially leave out security experts."
Remember what happened when they let Richard Feynman onto the Rogers Commission, investigating the Challenger disaster? One physicist on a panel full of astronauts and military brass, and he went and got to the bottom of things ("Feynman is becoming a real pain."). Ill say this much for politicians, they sometimes learn from really embarassing mistakes.
"When this fly flaps its wings, it confuses its predators -- but some observers say the images are of spiders (not ants) and trick spiders into thinking about mating (not eating)." (Boldface added.)
The idea that these markings must be images of ants or images of spiders (but not both) is a silly human idea. They are markings that tend to reduce the fly's danger of being eaten. They were not put there for any purpose, nor in any deliberate imitation of ants or spiders. How much they beguile spiders is testable, how much they confuse other predators is testable, but there is absolutely no reason why they can't do both. (And in a sense, the spiders and other predators collaborated on the design.)
Umm... could you separate those two ideas, and maybe say a few words about what the first one (increasing the minimum wage) does to the unemployment rate, and what the second one (corporate welfare) actually means?
Bear in mind that the subject of the article is philanthropy, and philanthropy isn't giving away someone else's money.
This puts the government in an interesting dilemma: to allow her to fly or not?
If they don't allow her to fly, then they will have to admit that they put her on the list and then lied about it. They can claim that the decision to put her on the list had nothing to do with the trial, but not many people will believe that. And then the judge might order them to allow her to fly, which would be a wonderful show in itself.
If they do allow her to fly, they either admit that they put her on the list and then took her off (which is about as bad as the first option), or else claim that they never barred her, which would expose them to the terrible risk that the plaintiff might come up with a crowd of witnesses and a paper trail to prove that oh yes they sure as hell did!
And the best part is that they have to decide in a hurry! Oh, this is going to be good.
Thank you for your inquiry. In response to such a request from a member of the public, NSA protocol requires that the files are to be printed on a reserved teletype using specially yellowed paper and Eisenhower-era ribbon (see Public Access Protocols section XIV appendix 5.ii), then reviewed by a senior clerk (retained for that function alone) by the light of a single incandescent ceiling bulb (c.f. appendix 5.iii) while wearing half-moon glasses, fingerless black woolen gloves and brown woolen scarf (c.f. 7.ii, iv,v). Inquiries involving sensitive current events may also call for coal-oil lamps and a rolling librarian's ladder. Unfortunately, your request would require quantities of goosequill pens, tallow candles and artificial cobwebs not currently available under our operating budget of 5 silver dollars per lunar eclipse.
Banning the terms would make it hard for MPAA’s lawyers and the witnesses to describe the events that took place, according to the movie studios.
By which they mean that it would make it hard for them to describe the events that didn't take place, at least not without consciously realizing that they were committing perjury. This reminds me of Lee Siegel's utterly beautiful statement about magic:
Real magic, in other words, is the magic that is not real, while magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.
Yes, the MPAA is making statements that are outright false, but I don't like the idea that the court is forbidding the use of certain words. If they want to claim that there was theft, let them make the claim. If the defendants disagree, they can object and rebut. If the judge finds the terms inappropriate, she can sustain the objection and give the plaintiffs a good dressing-down in front of the jury for making false claims. Repeat as necessary.
"...After trying to avoid the question, over the weekend, the NSA admitted that Keith Alexander had never briefed the President about spying on Merkel... How can President Obama seriously allow Keith Alexander and James Clapper to remain in charge when they've just made him look like a complete fool?"
He may have had to promise not to fire them, in order to get them to say they never briefed him.
On the post: Kid Bullied For My Little Pony Backpack Told Not To Bring It To School Anymore
genre savvy
On the post: Former NSA Official Thinks A Blog Containing Nothing But His Own Tweets Is 'Defamatory'
Re:
On the post: Italian Officials Claim American Gun Ad Featuring Michelangelo's David Is 'Illegal'
Art History majors, to arms!
Does that mean they'll be chiseling away the sling?
On the post: Police Tell Courts Non-Disclosure Agreement Prevents Them From Getting A Warrant For Cell Phone Tower Spoofers
"So, if we buy this system, are you going to make us sign an NDA that forbids us to tell the courts about how we use it?"
How will you reply? Take a minute, think it over.
On the post: Chicago PD Believes It Can See The Future, Starts Warning Citizens About Crimes They Might Commit
All the Troubles of the World
If that includes being shot by police in their own homes in the middle of the night, those computers might just be onto something.
On the post: USPTO Awards Patent To Disgraced Scientist For Fraudulent Work
kick the cat
On the post: Google Promises To Point To Competitor's Results To Settle Antitrust Claims In Europe
we interpret interference as spam and route around it
On the post: DOJ Admits That NSA Collection Of Phone Records 'Probably' Sweeps Up Congress As Well
some animals are more equal than others
That is exactly as it ought to be.
On the one hand, I'm annoyed that these Reps would ask such questions, as if the civil rights of members of Congress were different from those of any other citizens.
On the other hand, if this revelation makes Congress sit up and pay attention to these abuses, then I'm for it.
Gripping hand: they'll probably rush some new rules into effect, exempting themselves from such surveillance, then go back to business as usual.
On the post: Open Letter From Security Researchers Explains How NSA Has Weakened Our Communications Infrastructure
going off-message
Remember what happened when they let Richard Feynman onto the Rogers Commission, investigating the Challenger disaster? One physicist on a panel full of astronauts and military brass, and he went and got to the bottom of things ("Feynman is becoming a real pain."). Ill say this much for politicians, they sometimes learn from really embarassing mistakes.
On the post: DailyDirt: Nature Creates Some Cool Stuff
Re: Re: Re: Re: painting without a painter
On the post: DailyDirt: Nature Creates Some Cool Stuff
Re: Re: painting without a painter
On the post: DailyDirt: Nature Creates Some Cool Stuff
painting without a painter
The idea that these markings must be images of ants or images of spiders (but not both) is a silly human idea. They are markings that tend to reduce the fly's danger of being eaten. They were not put there for any purpose, nor in any deliberate imitation of ants or spiders. How much they beguile spiders is testable, how much they confuse other predators is testable, but there is absolutely no reason why they can't do both. (And in a sense, the spiders and other predators collaborated on the design.)
On the post: DailyDirt: Charity 2.0
Re:
Bear in mind that the subject of the article is philanthropy, and philanthropy isn't giving away someone else's money.
On the post: Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So
cruel horns
If they don't allow her to fly, then they will have to admit that they put her on the list and then lied about it. They can claim that the decision to put her on the list had nothing to do with the trial, but not many people will believe that. And then the judge might order them to allow her to fly, which would be a wonderful show in itself.
If they do allow her to fly, they either admit that they put her on the list and then took her off (which is about as bad as the first option), or else claim that they never barred her, which would expose them to the terrible risk that the plaintiff might come up with a crowd of witnesses and a paper trail to prove that oh yes they sure as hell did!
And the best part is that they have to decide in a hurry! Oh, this is going to be good.
On the post: NSA FOIA Response Claims Data On Vendor Contracts 'Unsearchable'
amber is transparent
On the post: Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: And police wonder why...
On the post: Surprise: MPAA Told It Can't Use Terms 'Piracy,' 'Theft' Or 'Stealing' During Hotfile Trial
how to ruin an illusion
By which they mean that it would make it hard for them to describe the events that didn't take place, at least not without consciously realizing that they were committing perjury. This reminds me of Lee Siegel's utterly beautiful statement about magic:
On the post: Surprise: MPAA Told It Can't Use Terms 'Piracy,' 'Theft' Or 'Stealing' During Hotfile Trial
we dare you
Yes, the MPAA is making statements that are outright false, but I don't like the idea that the court is forbidding the use of certain words. If they want to claim that there was theft, let them make the claim. If the defendants disagree, they can object and rebut. If the judge finds the terms inappropriate, she can sustain the objection and give the plaintiffs a good dressing-down in front of the jury for making false claims. Repeat as necessary.
On the post: Cop Shoots Cuffed Teen In The Face With A Taser, Claims He 'Feared For His Safety' [UPDATED]
Re: Ugh
The problem is that cops generally leave each other alone when they're BREAKING THE LAW.
On the post: President Obama Says He Had No Idea His Own NSA Was Spying On Angela Merkel
one hand whitewashes the other
He may have had to promise not to fire them, in order to get them to say they never briefed him.
Next >>