fnordfnordfnord

I think the FBI should have been burned to the ground after what Hoover used it for.

I don't quite understand your question but if you're just interested in a Stratum 1 time server you can build it yourself with an rPi and a GPS.

The only sort of maybe non-sketchy theory I have is that the deputy had that information from a flyer, or a BOLO (Be On the Look Out), or that it had somehow been transmitted to him by people searching for the Theresa, and he wanted to confirm it. It's a pretty thin sort of maybe justification. I can't think of why he would need it confirmed.

> * There is physical evidence that corroborates specific, idiosyncratic details of the story Dassey told investigators

I have zero confidence in any of the Dassey testimony. It's entirely possible and IMO quite likely that the details you're referring to were fed to Dassey by the investigators. There is nothing defensible about the investigators' handling of Dassey.

According to some, they're all justified. But that's of course ridiculous.

* I'd wager that a good fraction of the justified ones ought not be. It's too difficult to prosecute bad actors here. * I'd also say that a good fraction of the justified ones weren't strictly necessary. Better tactics and technology could make an impact on this.

>They have an inherently dangerous profession.

True, but the danger is often overstated, and there are a couple of ways to cut their risk of harm. ex: Requiring the wearing of seat belts would dramatically cut their risk.

>but the risk is much lower than, say, black shootings.

I also doubt whether that's the case. Got a source?

>Once you spend enough time on activities which sharpen your visual aesthetic sense, you see a clear difference between mainstream bland models from H&M and Topshop on hand and small designer shops on another and understand why it's worth to spend more on them.

Fair enough, but it makes little sense for someone who hasn't 'spent enough time on activities which sharpen your visual aesthetic sense' to shop for expensive clothes; the result is usually going to be terrible.

> If you've ever thought "I'm going to buy the brand-name [pasta|batteries|phone|insurance]" you're susceptible too.

I'm not so sure. Recently our dishwasher crapped out. I've already repaired it once, but this time something else broke and we decided we were done with it. So, time to buy a new one. I reckon myself to be a pretty good value shopper, but shopping for a dishwasher got to me. Knowing that there are many fewer manufacturers than brand names, I set out to find what I though was the best value. I wanted to find a good quality one that will last a long time and I wanted to pay less for it than an average consumer would. It was overwhelming, I'm sure I could have done a better job, but I had other things to do as well; I couldn't/wouldn't make this task my primary job. In the end we just punted and bought a Miele, a fairly expensive brand with a good reputation. I'm sure that given enough time we could have saved 30% to 50% of the money we spent, but it would have taken a lot more of my time and we risked paying too much for a substandard appliance.

$.106 and free weekends.

>The right of freedom from murder.

How are you going to enforce that right after it's been violated?

>It seems that you're trying to argue that freedom from murder is a positive right, in that it necessitates that someone else provide you protection from harm.

I wouldn't say necessitates, but I would predict a lot more murdering absent the expectation of reprisal from your tribe or government.

> And as such, because universal inaction would be just as good as any active protection by a government

It would be better since governments murder people too, and since because universal inaction is universal. So sign me up! We can get started right away. I promise I won't murder you if you'll promise not to murder me. Deal?

>An unalienable right can exist without being granted (that's the definition, in fact), and it exists whether or not something is in place to protect it.

Would you mind naming an example?

>They are not mutually inclusive.

I have a feeling that this may devolve into an argument over trivia, but I hope not.

They are not completely different things, they are related. How can you claim to have a right without some means of keeping it?

I don't agree that it is so much easier to find a file on Windows, but yeah searching for files on Linux could be a lot more user (or new user) friendly.

Because updatedb needs to look at your system's private parts. Try

    find /. | grep [string]

which will look everywhere for [string]

Other auto emissions related shoes beginning to drop? I'm surprised it took this long.

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people would enjoy the rights in the absence of something like government (specifically a gov't which effectively protects rights).

And ARM

A lot of people are probably okay with the US having an organization that murders and tortures people, sabotages other sovereign nations' interests, and helps US corporations compete globally through espionage; but not one that does so much of it as the CIA. An organization like that needs to be neither seen nor heard, and it ought to be used infrequently enough that our country can ostensibly say that we only do those kinds when we have to.

To turn your question on its head, what's not wrong with them? It's not controversial at all that there are many people who don't wish to work in the defense side of aerospace, or on other weapons tech, why would it be controversial that someone wouldn't want to work in intelligence. Some people take professional codes of ethics (or their own personal ethics) more seriously than others.

Seems like a good place to drop the Ableson report http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd...

There is a fun conspiracy theory surrounding the crash and the armed status of the bomb; something about a Strangelove-esque conspiracy to initiate WWIII against the USSR, except in this case an alleged saboteur causes the plane crash. I made a brief search for it but you may have to go deeper into the bowels of the internet than I am currently willing in order to find it.

Republic comes to mind. I can't say which is "better" since I don't have phones from both vendors with which to compare, and I also can't define better for you.

>because they're usually entirely dependent on the big four networks (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) for voice and a variety of data platforms.

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of an MVNO.

>and are the most advanced amongst the American wireless carriers around integrated WiFi services.

If you exclude MVNOs

>I support the EFF with donations,...

vs

>If the EFF wants my support back...

Eh?

also,

>I have a choice in my mobile provider

What great choices those are!

It's really just kind of sad.

I've had a little experience with this and I agree. If they can improve here (and what's to say they won't in the next decade), what's left to hold them back?

Isn't 10-20 years a while? PS thanks for the linked article.

Stability is arguably the preferable method to retain control.

> in 10-20 years the top 3 markets could be China, India and the US.

What about Brazil? (not that they are transparent/credible, but that they ought to have huge economic growth over the next ~20yr)

That comic doesn't explain "what entrapment actually is" but rather it explains how a few trite but common misconceptions about the law as it pertains to those circumstances are not precisely entrapment. I don't think his reasoning is very good. ie: "It's amazing that this myth has stuck around so long when tons of undercover arrests prove it wrong every day" I'm not sure how an arrest can prove that since an arrest is not a finding of fact. IMO lawcomic is rather biased toward a prosecutor's definition of what s/he thinks the law ought to be.

Maybe it's my own cognitive dissonance about the difference in what the law is and what I think it ought to be, but I don't have a favorable opinion of lawcomic. Now you've posted it here in defense of the prosecution of a mentally retarded man/child for an offence which he is probably incapable of committing without a non-trivial degree of assistance, and most likely would not have committed if he'd simply been left alone. Even though this case the prosecution may prevail in court, IMO it does not serve any useful purpose for the gov't to aggressively ferret out easily manipulable people by manipulating them until they sufficiently incriminate themselves.

>Do the agents not ever question what they're doing morally?

Somewhat perhaps, but the victims are morally inferior to the agents, so the ends (career advancement for the morally superior agents) justify the means (unjust oppression of the inferior). It's a lot like when Islamist terrorists justify the killing of kafirs; but it's okay in this case because the injustice is committed by educated people wearing nice clothes, and for a good reason (justice!, or the children, maybe? or something else which I can't recall at the moment but I'm sure it's good for America).

A middle-man is necessary! brb (making business plan and YC summer 2016 application).