I'm a Brit, I know the horsemeat scandal well. No-one died, most people never even noticed (not as surprising as you'd think, meat looks like meat on the whole) so it's not SO toxic. And everything can pass on toxins - see BSE/CJD.
As for Paprika having traces of nuts, well do you think the heat treatment planks, and the grinding mills etc. are ONLY used for Paprika? Plant I used to work at (evenings while at college) would run 13-ton a shift through single heat treatment unit, all hand-shoveled. They'd change all the time, and you could tell when they were going to do turmeric because they'd wear onsies to stop the staining, and damn the heat! Nut cross-contamination isn't as rare as you'd think. Especially as some nuts are not nuts (peanut's a legume)
A terrorist is someone who uses violence, or threat of violence, to [or attempt to] intimidate or cooerce societies to follow an ideological position which is usually political.
Saying 'you can't be a terrorist unless you belong to a terrorist organisation' is like saying 'you can't be a criminal unless you belong to a criminal organisation'. You don't suddenly become a terrorist when you need more than a minibus to get you around.
He has lots of convictions for violence, for attacking people based on their thoughts and beliefs, and prefaces them all with a justification based on his political ideology. That would fit him into the "terrorist" mold by pretty much any definition I've been able to find. Sure, he never blew anyone up, or shot them, but that's mostly because he's smart enough to know that never really works.
Is he a "terrorist" as most people would think of it? No. But then again, he's not really an 'activist' either. My experiences with him are more that he was a spoiled brat with minor aptitude in exploiting sql databases. However, instead of turning that to the hard, thankless work of actual activism, he acted like a spoiled brat, and now plays the Martyr card, because he isn't as smart as he thinks he is (the drug convictions alone should prove that!)
I'm reading the docs, and it seems like he was added to the screening center list in 03 (during his early days, when he was arrested at the RNC convention protests)
It also doesn't list his felony mob action conviction from 2010 (the announcing that Chicago wasn't getting the 2016 olympics - when he got home after being released, he was proud of is arrest, and the violence/damage he caused and openly boasted of it.
and it also doesn't mention the 04 battery conviction, or the 2010 'storming' of a restaurant as part of a masked group of 5 because he didn't like one of the people eating there's views.
He's without question a thug and an incredibly intolerant one at that. He's hit out at his victims for speaking out ("Snitches get stitches" is a favorite phrase of his), so is it really such a stretch that he should be on a list of people to watch?
He's not some innocent caught up in an overzealous dragnet, but precisely the kind of person these lists are designed to help monitor. That is to say, those that just don't care and have no hesitation to lash out at any they deem to be worthy of attack, because they don't share their views, or just because they dared to speak out against him.
No, they have an easy-to-understand motive. So easy to understand, in fact, that it's in the name.
Their motive is to make you be afraid. To either abandon your freedoms and liberties in a quixotic attempt to prevent these rare and selective acts from happening (what the western world has done for the last 15 years) or to give in so as to make them stop.
The other way to combat it is to not capitulate, and ignore it. To not give in to Terror, like Sarah turning to Jarrod and saying "you have no power over me".
I'm a little older than you (as I noted above, I was at the 93 Warrington bombing) and as a scouser, remember all of them only too well, but since 03 have lived in the US. there's been a definite change. Up until Major, British politicians were all about projecting power and confidence (well, as much as Major could) and that particular 'stiff-upper-lip-ness' that's quintessentially British. Tony though, listened to his advisors (like Rupert Murdoch, and Mandy) and knew that 'fear sells', and that by providing the fear, AND promising to deal with it, you can stay in office easier. It's the American way of dealing with it.
And shortly after 9/11, my (American) wife came back to the US to visit family, and then I had a job of my own in the US. I flew in to SF on Halloween, while there was a 'terror warning' on the 4 bay area bridges. There I saw firsthand the utterly useless, but panic-driven 'response', as I daily dealt with 3 of those bridges - I was staying in Sausalito, and we were filming on Treasure Island (yes, the same one as in Little Brother. we'd take the Richmond bridge way in the morning, and Golden Gate at night because of traffic flow) - and noted the military vehicles EVERYWHERE. They left an abandoned 2-ton box truck on the Bay bridge for more htan 3 hours after me and my driver reported it to the unit on the TI bridge exit (we could see it from the studio, and had put a spotter there just 'in case' - we had a lot of ROV's and safety gear and wanted to be sure we could go radio dark if needed)
I've rambled a bit, but the end result is, it's more profitable for politicians to sow fear, and then the solution, than to tell them to 'keep calm and carry on'. Anyone can tell you that, while only these politicians can 'deal' with the issues they themselves are creating.
“We are still shaken by what hit us, but we never give up our values. Our answer is more democracy, more openness and more humanity, but never naivete.”
(and for what it's worth, I not only grew up in Liverpool during the IRA attacks of the 80s and 90s, I very narrowly escaped injury in the 93 Warrington Bombing, which the Boston bombing was nearly a carbon copy of 20 years [and one month] later. Terrorism actually means something to me personally, it's not an abstract as for most people
I got hit with a bunch of questions over this, because I work the EFForums track at Dragoncon, which uses the Marriott Marquis, Hyatt Regency, Hilton Atlanta, Westin and Sheraton in downtown Atlanta. 60,000+ attendees all after wifi. Even SMS failed half the time in 2013, but the cellphone companies brought in a whole bunch of extra capacity for this year.
We run our own hotspots (including a wall-o-sheep, sponsored by DC404; and one based on a rasperry pi. Plus a connection for the space track to run their late-night live astronomy in Chile) and not noticed any issues. You can bet we'll be on the lookout for any issues.
I know I had a conversation with Gigi (https://twitter.com/GigiBSohnFCC/status/497534413354586113) and David Bray (https://twitter.com/fcc_cio/status/511685826208874497) about my comments not showing up on the system. Even now, search for "Andrew Norton" and you won't find it under that proceeding (you have to know the confirmation number to find it the second time I submitted it)
I'm in the same boat. I understand the theory behind SSL just fine. I understand tech pretty damned well (I'm the lead researcher for TorrentFreak for a start, my main degree is in Robotics, and I even interned at ARM) But when it comes to trying to move my own site (and the Copyright trolls wiki) to https, I too gave up after a few hours reading.
Don't confuse inability on the 'how', with ignorance of the 'what' or 'why'. I know what it does, and why it does it, the problem is implementing it.
That's not a fault of ours. It's a fault of you, the 'expert'. So little thought is given to the 'how' that it becomes somewhat arcane knowledge. However, "you" (figuratively, not personally) didn't 'make' SSL with "us" in mind. It was created with the thought of only certain kinds of people will need it, and they'll have an expert handy to do it. So nothing was done on the process itself, because the feeling was that everyone that needed to do it, could.
It's the "I'm alright, Jack" philosophy again.
Doesn't matter how good something is, and how easy you find it to use now. If it's not easy (or at least not awkward) to use, then it won't be used. Look at Linux for example. Good powerful, stable OS, certainly. But it wasn't until the likes of Lindows/Linspire, and then Ubuntu (with a sprinkling of help from knoppix and other liveCD based distros allowing people to try before they commit) where the usability problem of Linux started to be addressed, that home/personal use started to increase.
Other hosting-related things have taken the hint. Part of what makes Wordpress so popular is their '5 minute installer' (which can be made even easier with the likes of Softaculous - took me 2 minutes to install two wordpress installs, and a mediawiki with that)
SSL is still incredibly user-unfriendly to implement.
The issue is that aliens are unlikely to use EM for extra-solar communication. It's too easily blocked by anything. Neutrinos are the answer. not really stopped by anything, and you need a substantial tech base to be able to detect them which makes you a more viable candidate for first contact.
[plug starting] and if you want to help us get to that point, you could take part in the only 2nd generation (evolutionary algorithm, rather than brute force) distributed computing program out there - Muon1, working on designing the best and most efficient neutrino generating accelerator with the RAL and Brookhaven National Labs.
Chambliss is out now though. He 'retired' (odds on a defense lobby job?) but instead there will be Crooked Sonny's cousin (Georgia politics is as bad as federal for dynasties)
It's odd though, I had EFF telling me 'support this bill', and Fight for the Future saying 'object to the bill because it doesn't go far enough'. Looks like FFTF got the same result as those that opposed AV+ in the UK because 'its not proportional representation' - we get nothing except a symbol that the status quo is ok.
But Saxby doesn't surprise me, he's been a big NSA supporter for years, and since he's now a lame duck, he could spout anything he wants.