ParanoiA Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 Can I also add that labels are actually necessary? They serve a logical function in discussion of ideas. People do tend to think in patterns and there's a practical necessity in being able to reference a particular thought structure or ideology. Personally, I'd like to see us expand our confidence into more parties, and free ourselves from the "siege". Is there any benefit for continuing to think of ourselves as an isolated country instead of an isolated globe? I would think so. It causes us to compete and improve the quality of life and the species.
foodchain Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 Not to go off topic but when Clinton was involved against radical Islam with that whole black hawk down episode most all the republicans back home were talking about nothing but cutting and running, in fact demanding it, it must have showed them we cant stand to fight.
ParanoiA Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 Not to go off topic but when Clinton was involved against radical Islam with that whole black hawk down episode most all the republicans back home were talking about nothing but cutting and running, in fact demanding it, it must have showed them we cant stand to fight. Just like it was the media and the Clinton administration back in 1998 that initially claimed Iraq had WMD's. They were going on and on about it for some time which, if you remember, was GWB's campaign platform. Everyone seemed to forget ALL of that when GWB echoed that claim and proposed to do something about it. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around, which is what wears some of us down because we just see dems and repubs screwing the country with partisanship instead of being honest and doing their job. We should fire them. And Osama has referenced the black hawk incident in the past as an example of the american will to run away when things get tough...he was right.
CPL.Luke Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 As I recall immediately after the black hawk down evnt a large task force (of several thousand marines) was set up in order to pressure the somalian warlords to give back our pilot, they did, and we decided that somalia's problems weren't our problems. We originally went in to prvide aid to a country that was starving, then later peackeepers were thought necessary. And then wen 35 troops were killed we decided it wasn' worth providing aid to a country that will fight and kill you.
doG Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 Technology has certainly changed the communications landscape. There's no reason for anyone with something to hide to specifically use the types of communications this law covers. Heck, you can hide communications in plain sight all over the web. Just a plain list of numbers might decode some post on the web like this one to say something else. I could just post them on some lotto sight where a partner could grap them and decode this message. Only those of us that know where to look for the message would be able to piece it together. With all the pics on the web I could just hide the message in a jpg and place it somewhere on the web. Here's a sample. One of these pics contains the entire Declaration of Independence. Can you tell which one?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 Time to write a letter to my congressman demanding that photos uploaded to Flickr are screened by advanced stenography-detecting algorithm, then.
doG Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 is it the one on the left? You'll know if you can find the steganography utility called jpgx. The embedded message is not encrypted so you won't have to hack any passwords to find it....
Pangloss Posted August 8, 2007 Author Posted August 8, 2007 Cool. Now if I can just figure out how to use that thing on politicians at press conferences.
bascule Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 This is just another example of "We want to solve problem X, but first we're going to cave to the administration for 6 months". Every time the Democrats try to play chicken with Bush they flinch. You can consider this indicative of Bush's stubbornness or the Democrats' cowardice. At least this bill has a built-in sunset clause in the near future. That said condoning this is f*cking abominable. I'm none too happy about what the Democrats are doing.
bascule Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 UPDATE: Slate has an awesome article on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2172461/fr/rss/ Looks like this was a case of incompetence
insane_alien Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 You'll know if you can find the steganography utility called jpgx. The embedded message is not encrypted so you won't have to hack any passwords to find it.... oh, i just used the gimp to highlight differences. and you left it with a dodgy filename.
doG Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 oh, i just used the gimp to highlight differences. and you left it with a dodgy filename. Gimp will not reveal what you are looking for. Again, find the utility named jpgx and use the "Extract Message" function on the "File" menu...
insane_alien Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 i know it won't reveal the text but it will reveal anomalies in the picture if you tweak it just right.
doG Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Looks like this was a case of incompetence When will the democrats figure out, and the republicans for that matter, that they need to send all of their representatives home and elect new ones? When are the people as a whole going to wake up and see that the government "for the people" is only working to satisfy the people that are in government instead of the people they were elected to represent?
Reaper Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 The New York Times lead says Congress accidentally gave President George Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures when it passed a wiretapping bill earlier this month. Democrats are embarrassed they voted without understanding language that would allow—among other things—some physical searches, and the collection of business records, without a court order. http://www.slate.com/id/2172461/fr/rss/ Maybe our congress members should have a dictionary with them every time they vote from now on. I thought "warrant-less" is a pretty straight forward concept that our "representatives" all understood /sarcasm When will the democrats figure out, and the republicans for that matter, that they need to send all of their representatives home and elect new ones? When are the people as a whole going to wake up and see that the government "for the people" is only working to satisfy the people that are in government instead of the people they were elected to represent? I really don't know, and I'm sure that the people who do know about this are more worried about paying their bills and getting their kids to college.
ParanoiA Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 When will the democrats figure out, and the republicans for that matter, that they need to send all of their representatives home and elect new ones? When these same representatives stop winning elections. When our countrymen stop voting for them. When are the people as a whole going to wake up and see that the government "for the people" is only working to satisfy the people that are in government instead of the people they were elected to represent? When we wake up to a mushroom cloud. Or, when the dollar becomes as worthless as the german Mark after WWII. We're going to have to pay for ignoring the corruption of our government, of our constitution, for our apathy and our preoccupation with pop culture bullshit.
bascule Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Maybe our congress members should have a dictionary with them every time they vote from now on. I think this is a prime example of why we need a Read the Bills Act
doG Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI October 15' date=' 2007 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned... Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack. Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage. A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers. Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first. For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission. Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began. .. [/quote'] More at the NY Post... Yet another example of Al Qaeda using our own laws against us...
bascule Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 More at the NY Post... Yet another example of Al Qaeda using our own laws against us... Yet another example of a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece propagandizing a tragedy to make a cheap political point? Not to cheapen the circumstances of Alex Jimenez kidnapping, but these events occurred in May, and the role of the FISA court system in delaying a response to the kidnapping is debatable.
Pangloss Posted October 16, 2007 Author Posted October 16, 2007 Oh my god, soldiers died because of FISA! Can there be no end to this left-wing madness?! The Post can be pretty ridiculous sometimes (always?).
doG Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 ...and the role of the FISA court system in delaying a response to the kidnapping is debatable. OK, it's debatable. Are you saying the surveillance actually started sooner with waiting for the court? Have you any evidence to suggest that could be the case?
Fred56 Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 How long ago did a certain procedural "fault" occur with those decommissioned nukes? I was just wondering how many Americans have been dreaming about a nuclear weapon poised over the US? Or this this too OTT?
swansont Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 OK, it's debatable. Are you saying the surveillance actually started sooner with waiting for the court? Have you any evidence to suggest that could be the case? here's the timeline http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fisa-timeline/?resultpage=3& The NSA general counsel was convinced at 12:53 pm, but the administration people "discussed various legal and operational issues associated the surveillance" and by the time they were done, couldn't find anyone at the DOJ who could sign off on it, and spent another two hours on that. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/wiretapping-lie.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/reyes-gop-cynically-usin_n_68563.html
doG Posted October 16, 2007 Posted October 16, 2007 So did the surveillance start at 10 AM as it should have or not?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now