Sure I'd hire him. Write down his every single recommendation.It would be the best advice you could buy: All you have to do is exactly the opposite of what he recommends...
It is estimated that the manager's approval of fraudulent time-and-attendance records cost the government more than $500,000...
...but it was cheaper and easier than firing him.
she believed [...] that Mr. Beale worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. She never questioned Mr. Beale further, she said, because she believed the questioning might compromise national security...
I'm actually surprised there isn't more of this. There's so much secrecy these days that it's hard to verify anything. Take National Security Letters, for example: How do you really know that the "agent" handing you the letter is an FBI agent? You're not allowed to ask anyone else, so it seems to me it is perfect for false-flag NSL's.
And now, Mr. Beale: How would the supervisor check to see if he was a CIA agent? The CIA would deny they employ him, whether he's an agent or not. What action would comprise "due diligence" under these conditions?
"Being good researchers, they did just that, looking at whether the number of works created in the United States from 1870 to 2006 increased as the government strengthened copyright law. They found that stronger copyright indeed led to more works being created."
I can't believe you used that sentence (emphasized) in an article. Now, just sit back and watch as 90,000 copyright lobbyists use that paragraph out of context as proof that copyright is desirable; as they demand more copyright restrictions. Believe me, they won't mention that you were kidding (the next paragraph) in their quote.
Please take care what you write; you are an authority.
Like this will do a lot of good: If they win, we'll all get to easily read the name of the PAC that bought that advertisement. Which we can see right now, with a DVR and a magnifying glass. (The DVR to stop motion during the half-second the message is displayed and the magnifying glass to help us read the Flyspeck 4-point font.)
Then all we'll need is a psychic to learn who financed the PAC. And since that doesn't work very well, all we'll learn is that the advertisement was paid for by "The We for Us Political Action Committee" or some other equally pithy thing.
In other words, if they win these lawsuits, we will still know NOTHING.
Rich person: "When are you mouthy, insubordinate, insufferable little peons going to get it?! First Amendment privacy is only for people who can afford to finance a PAC!"
"The use of technology to tailor instruction for individual students is still an emerging concept and inBloom provides a technical solution that has never been seen before. As a result, it has been the subject of mischaracterizations and a lightning rod for misdirected criticism."
use of technology - for only the best of all possible purposes
tailor instruction - determine admissibility to higher education institutions
individual students - so each student can grow to his/her potential (within their limitations, of course) by having their lives reduced to simple bureaucratic rules
emerging concept - grand new profit opportunity from a whole new area of privacy invasion
technical solution - solves "all your problems" automatically so you no longer have to think about how this all affects students for the rest of their lives
never been seen before - no one else had the nerve
subject of mischaracterization - we only meant the best, trust us, so why do they say we are evil?
lightning rod for misdirected criticism - why are they picking on us?
"Justice Kagan suggested, correctly, that people don't always know what is stored on their device and what is stored 'in the cloud.'"
And by this, demonstrates her own issue with understanding the implications. Because whether or not the document is in the cloud or the phone is irrelevant, since the whole point of having it in the cloud is so that I can have it in my phone, in seconds, on demand.
So there isn't really a distinction between cloud and phone; not a useful one, anyway.
I understand the judge's point. It's called a warrant, but it is executed as if it were a subpoena by the company that is holding the user's data. They're not giving the warrant to the user, they're giving the order to Microsoft, ordering it to turn over data on its servers in Ireland.
Nevertheless, it stinks. As a U.S. citizen, I could have the warrant quashed; I have Rights and I would have access to the legal system here. The "victim" over there would be told, well, sir, you're a foreigner and so you have no protection under our Constitution, so you're out of luck.
So in the end, if things were fair: They can have their warrants when the foreigners have recognized Constitutional protection from invalid probable cause.
Looked to me (and apparently to Muslims) like the unit was mostly intended to "shock and awe" Muslim minority groups. Same goal as Stop-and-Frisk; different approach.
Will the Court revoke the First Amendment "free press" clause?
This upcoming decision is where the true future of freedom of the press will decided, here in the United States, forever.
The government today uses "national security privilege" as a shield for all its activities and beyond. Even a public Supreme Court decision has been declared subject to national security: It's not hard to imagine a reporter being subpoenaed for publishing ("leaking") that decision.
In effect, if there is no press privilege, then whistle-blowing is banned. Of course this is what the executive branch wants: Our government "of the free" wishes to operate completely in darkness, without the "interference" of public participation. We have to assume that only propagandist-written government press releases will survive the end of reporting privilege. Any other revelation from a "whistle-blower" will be a declared "a treasonous violation of national security;" the the reporter will be forced to reveal the source, who will then be punished for the "treason."
Without some protection of privilege, free press reporting on government cannot exist. Since this is the whole purpose of the First Amendment clause on free press, in effect the revocation of privilege will be a revocation of that clause of the First Amendment.
He must be planning to retire; if he doesn't, they will force him out. How dare he "educate" someone who could boost the profit at some private incarceration center?
[Setting: Two chairs on opposite sides of a table, both empty. Bob and Ken enter: Bob sits in the left chair and Ken in the right.]
Bob: There ought to be a law.
Ken: You're right, there ought to be a law. Why don't you write one?
Bob (hands a piece of paper to Ken): This ought to do it.
Ken: Okay, this isn't going to be very palatable to the public. No problem; I can just bypass the public comment phase and publish... [A bell sound is heard] Whoops!
[Bob and Ken rise and change chairs.]
Bob: As I was saying, I can just bypass the public comment phase and publish it in the Federal register.
On the post: Would You Hire Former NSA Boss Keith Alexander For Cybersecurity Consulting?
Best advice you could buy
On the post: To Succeed At EPA: Watch Tons Of Porn, (Don't) Work From Home, Or Pretend You're A Secret Agent
...but it was cheaper and easier than firing him.
I'm actually surprised there isn't more of this. There's so much secrecy these days that it's hard to verify anything. Take National Security Letters, for example: How do you really know that the "agent" handing you the letter is an FBI agent? You're not allowed to ask anyone else, so it seems to me it is perfect for false-flag NSL's.
And now, Mr. Beale: How would the supervisor check to see if he was a CIA agent? The CIA would deny they employ him, whether he's an agent or not. What action would comprise "due diligence" under these conditions?
On the post: US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon
My turn
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Careful what you write
I can't believe you used that sentence (emphasized) in an article. Now, just sit back and watch as 90,000 copyright lobbyists use that paragraph out of context as proof that copyright is desirable; as they demand more copyright restrictions. Believe me, they won't mention that you were kidding (the next paragraph) in their quote.
Please take care what you write; you are an authority.
On the post: TV Networks Sued For Hiding Who's Buying Political Ads
Great, we'll finally learn...NOTHING
Then all we'll need is a psychic to learn who financed the PAC. And since that doesn't work very well, all we'll learn is that the advertisement was paid for by "The We for Us Political Action Committee" or some other equally pithy thing.
In other words, if they win these lawsuits, we will still know NOTHING.
Might as well be Sgt. Schultz.
On the post: US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'
PAC or bust
On the post: German Government Blocks Ed Snowden From Testifying Before Parliament So As Not To Upset The US
We're tough
I suppose there's a few whiners in our government that would get their feelings hurt, but who cares about them?
On the post: DailyDirt: Egyptian Pyramid Construction Techniques
This is another method
The video shows erection of 128 cubic-foot foot, 9.5 ton concrete block that looks to be about 20 feet long.
Man Moves Huge Blocks! (Youtube)
On the post: Student-Targeting Data Harvester inBloom Closes Shop, CEO Blames Parents For Their 'Misdirected Criticism'
Listen to the euphemisms fly
use of technology - for only the best of all possible purposes
tailor instruction - determine admissibility to higher education institutions
individual students - so each student can grow to his/her potential (within their limitations, of course) by having their lives reduced to simple bureaucratic rules
emerging concept - grand new profit opportunity from a whole new area of privacy invasion
technical solution - solves "all your problems" automatically so you no longer have to think about how this all affects students for the rest of their lives
never been seen before - no one else had the nerve
subject of mischaracterization - we only meant the best, trust us, so why do they say we are evil?
lightning rod for misdirected criticism - why are they picking on us?
On the post: Larry Lessig Launches Crowdfunded SuperPAC To Try To End SuperPACs
Fighting fire with fire?
I don't exactly see how that works here, though. Wouldn't we just wind up with a bigger fire?
On the post: The Supreme Court's Real Technology Problem: It Thinks Carrying 2 Phones Means You're A Drug Dealer
And by this, demonstrates her own issue with understanding the implications. Because whether or not the document is in the cloud or the phone is irrelevant, since the whole point of having it in the cloud is so that I can have it in my phone, in seconds, on demand.
So there isn't really a distinction between cloud and phone; not a useful one, anyway.
On the post: Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations
TPP started it
On the post: DOJ Is Still Investigating Wikileaks
Of course not
On the post: FCC's Wheeler Says That If These Lame Net Neutrality Rules Don't Work, He'll Implement The Real Rules Next Time
Later
On the post: US Judge Says Prosecutors Can Use A Warrant To Go Fishing For Information Held Overseas
Recourse?
Nevertheless, it stinks. As a U.S. citizen, I could have the warrant quashed; I have Rights and I would have access to the legal system here. The "victim" over there would be told, well, sir, you're a foreigner and so you have no protection under our Constitution, so you're out of luck.
So in the end, if things were fair: They can have their warrants when the foreigners have recognized Constitutional protection from invalid probable cause.
On the post: Former FBI Agent: NYPD's Muslim-Spying Demographics Unit Was Almost Completely Useless
What's that mission again?
On the post: State Dept Launches 'Free the Press' Campaign Same Day DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Jail Reporter
Will the Court revoke the First Amendment "free press" clause?
The government today uses "national security privilege" as a shield for all its activities and beyond. Even a public Supreme Court decision has been declared subject to national security: It's not hard to imagine a reporter being subpoenaed for publishing ("leaking") that decision.
In effect, if there is no press privilege, then whistle-blowing is banned. Of course this is what the executive branch wants: Our government "of the free" wishes to operate completely in darkness, without the "interference" of public participation. We have to assume that only propagandist-written government press releases will survive the end of reporting privilege. Any other revelation from a "whistle-blower" will be a declared "a treasonous violation of national security;" the the reporter will be forced to reveal the source, who will then be punished for the "treason."
Without some protection of privilege, free press reporting on government cannot exist. Since this is the whole purpose of the First Amendment clause on free press, in effect the revocation of privilege will be a revocation of that clause of the First Amendment.
On the post: Virginia Prosecutor Educates Sexting Teens Rather Than Prosecuting Them
Retirement pending...
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Excessive fine?
(Poor, poor millionaire, having to pay $500 for battering hs girlfriend. Governments are just so cruel and unfair!)
ThinkProgress: Millionaire Who Allegedly Beat His Girlfriend 117 Times Complains That He Recieved A $500 Fine
On the post: Telecom Musical Chairs: Regulators And Lobbyists Swap Roles, Everyone Wins! (Except The Public)
There's room for a skit
[Setting: Two chairs on opposite sides of a table, both empty. Bob and Ken enter: Bob sits in the left chair and Ken in the right.]
Bob: There ought to be a law.
Ken: You're right, there ought to be a law. Why don't you write one?
Bob (hands a piece of paper to Ken): This ought to do it.
Ken: Okay, this isn't going to be very palatable to the public. No problem; I can just bypass the public comment phase and publish... [A bell sound is heard] Whoops!
[Bob and Ken rise and change chairs.]
Bob: As I was saying, I can just bypass the public comment phase and publish it in the Federal register.
Ken: Sounds good.
Together: Profit will follow.
Ken: There ought to be a law.
Next >>