It would be if I paid attention to mainstream US news, maybe.
But yes, news sources get to not only decide what to cover, but its priority and spin, and that's too much power I'd want to give to any mainstream news source.
To be fair, it does mean that I sometimes qualify as living under a rock when I completely miss the zeitgeist on Oscar snubs or Left Sharks or who played against who in the Superbowl. Frankly, it'd be hard for me to care less anyway.
It's possible that I'm a rarity in this regard, but given our accessibility to the internet (which is in some places more available than cable channels), I'd hope that there's a significant subculture of people choosing news sources off the web, rather than the standard channels 2, 4 and 7 defaults.
And was so horrified by the experience that he a) swore never to authorize gas attacks in warfare, and b) issued gas masks to his soldiers down to the last clerk and grunt, even in theaters where gas attacks were unlikely. Hitler was rather paranoid about gas.
Mobile mechanized armor was a critical element to Blitzkrieg, but the Battle of Britain focused on air superiority and military targets until a single bomb was accidentally dropped in an English civilian neighborhood. The allies used this to justify attacking civilian targets and military manufacturing, and the Blitz and later V1 and V2 programs were developed in response.
Governments sifting through your emails will look for reasons to throw you in prison.
Competing companies will look through your emails for ways to tie you up in litigation, or for loose words hinting at trade secrets.
There are many, many reasons to want to keep private communications secure, even if you haven't done anything wrong. Ambitious prosecutors make careers from discrediting people due to inconsistencies in their lives.
Not all emailers are climbers on vacation in France.
And Uriel goes on another anecdote that is strangely applicable.
One of my favorite parts of the Monkey Island games (specifically one and three) was the insult swordfighting bit.
As Guybrush (yes, that was his name learns to fight with a sword, it's established that in the Errol Flynn tradition, the insults and quippy responses that opponents make at each other are what really determine the outcome of a fight.
So you walk up and down the roads of Melee island looking for people to duel. And you rapidly realize that there's so many more insults and quips than the couplet that you were given (something about dairy farmers and cows).
But each time you were caught blindsided by a new insult, that insult became yours. Same with the responses, until you knew more than any pirate on the island.
I hope for an enterpriser to bring back the theater experience.
The Broadway Theater in Oakland only shows classics and cult films, but they do so in the Golden Age tradition, with news reels, a serial and a Warner Bros cartoon. There were drawings and an organist who would score the processions, and in the case of silent films, the feature itself.
That was cause to go to the theater. These days we're inundated with (often non-film-related) commercials from the box office all the way to the intermission. (I miss curtains, dammit!)
I read an Imponderables article once about the business budget breakdown of a movie theater (circa, early 80s) which pointed out that most of the ticket price goes to the studio, and the remaining pennies cover rent and overhead. All profits of a movie theater come from concessions, which is why a small popcorn costs more than a super-sized McDonald's meal.
Since then, the studios have been taking more and more of the ticket, so the theaters have been pushed into either higher concession profits or other more creative means to turn a buck. Here in California, this means advertising from the box office to...yeah that.
I don't go to the movies, generally, because in contrast to watching a film at home, the experience is gross and nauseating.
This reminds me of when AOL was berated for the jerks who used AOL
...which is to say the late-adopter crowd, who we had to educate one. at. a. time. as to netiquette and flaming and trolling and why we don't do such things.
Ironically, AOL's sin was being too easy to use, which gave a tidy push towards email becoming the norm for human communication.
It sounds like the same kind of complaint here. That the GNU club is full of losers isn't a criticism of the GNU technology rather of the limited number of people who still use it. That's solved by the AOL solution: make it too easy to use, so that you have to educate the inept late-adopters.
Who would make a good president? Or an adequate president?
I think the presidential elections are at this point moot. Sure, it will affect the agenda for their term regarding some controversial issues, but those issues are trivial in contrast to the ones we cannot change.
I'm pretty sure the average American doesn't want intelligence agencies spying on their communications. Even at risk of a terrorist infestation.
I'm pretty sure the average American doesn't want the US to have policies that condone torture, much less actually implement a torture program.
I'm pretty sure the average American doesn't want the police, the Department of Justice, an awful lot of US agents and elected representatives to be above the law, where they aren't even tried for crimes that would send the rest of us to prison for life.
No president is going to change these. No referendum is going to change these. No elected representative is going to change these.
I'm sorry, but that's a card that Hillary gets to use. When she was campaigning, it would have been appropriate for them to criticize her lack of scruples. They didn't and instead criticized her lack of penis.
If you're running for office, personally I could care less whether or not you have a penis. But some scruples would be nice.
Just because she's a 21st century politician doesn't make it less wrong when sexism guns are brought to bear in her direction.
As much as I'd like to have more optimism for the human species...
A lot of the anti-Obama sentiment expressed by bystanders in media has been on the grounds that he's a Kenyan Muslim Terrorist, and not, say, that he's completely failed regarding the transparency of his administration, that he's super-hostile to whistle-blowers despite his original claim otherwise, that he's pro-surveillance state, that he's allowing the CIA torture program.
In short, he's got about the same integrity of any other 21st century US elected representative...which is a crying shame.
After a campaign about hope and change (e.g. please undo all the terrible things Bush did), we got damn little in the way of actual reform. And with two candidates in a row who completely betrayed their identities as candidates (Remember Bush the Compassionate Conservative?) I know that I can't expect anything good from the next one, no matter how they behave when trying to win votes.
1) It's really freaking scary in an intelligence- / surveillance-minded civilization that our nation's top administrative offices can't get their email system in order.
2) It's really freaking scary that the office of a public agent is more interested in securing its communication from the public by way of legitimate channels than securing it from foreign threats by way of illegitimate ones.
The first can be attributed to incompetence, which is yet another recent blow to our democratic process as a means to keep tyrants out of power. The second raises questions of the office's interest in serving the public. When she's hiding her actions from people who have a right to know, isn't that more or less an indication of subversion?
Since they want a golden key, lets make it a golden key.
That is, rather than a backdoor key we provide interested agencies with a golden cryptanalytic algorithm based on the classic brute force attack
In fact, it's identical. Given a targeted data packet, the routine attempts to decode it with a hypothetical key 00000...00001, then 00000...00010, then 00000...00011 and so on until one test produces readable code.
Such an algorithm will, inevitably, crack any crypto (not just SSL) and allow an agency to access the unencrypted text. It's also intrinsically costly, so that only governments with immense computational resources will be able to break SSL. In fact, costly enough to protect end users against dragnet use of the key, so that warrants for specific decryption jobs will serve as a time and labor saving stopgap against Golden Key overuse.
(By costly, I mean it takes a very fast and powerful computer a very long time to derive an SSL key. Indirectly, it may cost a lot of actual money for renting and maintaining the computer and supplying it with power. Also considering the time requirements, upgrades, hiring and training new technicians, museum rights and so on.)
I'm sure that would be a novel approach to your suit.
Amazingly, since they charged the item and not you, your rights may not apply.
I remember in the middle ages we went through a period where we tried animals like people, so if some guy was out in the pasture having his way with a sheep, the sheep would be tried for bestiality along with the man.
But I think it comes down to this: Whoever can dispense with your rights will, and they have more guns than you do. Not very civilized.
If you're referring to the Chinook shootdown in 2011 in which thirty Americans died including fifteen members of Seal Team Six, those weren't the same guys, being part of Gold Squadron. Red Squadron carried out Neptune Spear.
We're certainly in an age when such a thing could happen, where the position of a transport could be leaked to the enemy because we wanted its passengers annihilated, but the ducks don't seem to line just right in this case.