"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.
"There may be very real and very earnest commentors that want to stick up for Fox, but they will find zero purchase because the wider public is going to assume that [they may be] part of the astroturfing campaign."
Umm... I wouldn't take Fox News defenders seriously even if I'd never heard of the astroturfing campaign.
The first excuse, about the shutdown, is an obvious lie, but the second part actually makes sense. Checking boarding passes prevents people from flying without paying or swapping tickets (so the airlines like it), and allows the government to track everyone's movements ('nuff said), but it does nothing for actual security.
Wouldn't it be great if this started a movement to eliminate the ID/pass requirement?
Wanted: Executives for new US-based Internet Exchange company. Competitive salary and benefits. Must be prepared to act as hostages of the US government, up to and including imprisonment for failure to obey impossible orders. Dutch holding company will not pay ransom or legal costs. Applicants with relatives in Amsterdam will not be considered.
"Pure intellectual dishonesty"? Like talking about people whose chose family over career as if they'd been unfairly terminated? Like claiming systematic disadvantage without evidence (or perhaps without standard meaning of English words)? Like labeling a link "being drummed out of the fields" when the cited material says nothing of the kind?
I asked what was wrong with letting women make their own career decisions-- decisions with consequences. If that's what you call dishonesty, then you and I are simply speaking different languages.