Recent Posts

1551

Living Room / Re: Gadget WEEKENDS

« Last post by Renegade on August 09, 2014, 08:59 PM »

Hah, you got in ahead of me Ren -
I wanted to post yesterday about my latest aquisition but the connection went:
it's a similar adjustable safety razor from Gillette. They were made from 1959 up to '86. Not sure how old my one is - I got to say I was amazed by the shave - clean, easy, very smooth; I'd have to try hard to cut myself with the thing (I used use an older similar style no/unknown-brand non-adjustable razor, if you didnt 100% focus while shaving, you'd take a chunk out of yourself...)

(Took a nice pic of it but it's on main machine, will post tomorrow or sometime.)

-tomos (August 09, 2014, 01:57 PM)

Get 'er posted!

And now you need to get one of these, (a safety razor strop):
 (see attachment in previous post)
Stretch your dollar a little further.

Nifty little things, blade holder pops out the side, put a blade in, slide it back in and pop the crank handle out the other side to give it a few turns.

My dad has one of these, (doesn't use it), I gave up shaving when I was 18 ... 35 years ago ... so much easier 

-4wd (August 09, 2014, 02:41 PM)

I tried looking, but I couldn't find any new ones, and I'm guessing that antique ones won't be useful due to the leather being too old & unmaintained. But, I'll keep looking.

Every time I change blades, I keep thinking of straight razors and stropping them, and wondering why I'm wasting a blade that can perfectly well be sharpened to use again. It seems wasteful. God knows a "dull" razor blade is still incredibly sharp.

1552

General Software Discussion / Re: Best Independent web page about security (fight against viruses, pc security...)

« Last post by Renegade on August 09, 2014, 10:41 AM »

The Blackhat conference is good to keep track of.

1553

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: ProjectSend

« Last post by Renegade on August 09, 2014, 09:59 AM »

That's excellent! Thanks for the review! I really need this, and this sounds perfect. 

I'll get it installed, use it for a while, then post back.

1554

Living Room / Re: Gadget WEEKENDS

« Last post by Renegade on August 09, 2014, 09:55 AM »

This is a low-tech adoption... Nothing so grandiose as some others here.

I am one of the poor SOBs with an extremely heavy beard. Electric razors simply burn my face - they're unbearable.

I also decided that I'm sick of paying insane amounts for the razors I was using, which were very nice, but expensive at almost $5 each (disposable cartridges). I'd get 2~3 good shaves out of one, and I could push 5, but it wouldn't be all that great. If I wanted to look good, I had to use a new blade. (Gillette "fusion" or whatever they're called. The ones where you get sick to your stomach, light headed, and just about puke when you see the price.)

That actually wasn't my primary reason though.

My primary reason/motivation - Political and pig-headed

My primary reason for switching was to try and take money that I was spending all the time and shift it away from a large company and spend my money more effectively with small companies.

My purpose there is entirely political. By spending less on blades, I can deprive the state of a tiny bit of tax revenue there. etc. etc. etc. Many reasons and motivations. I'll skip all of that as it's ranty and I'm lazy.

tl;dr - Putting my money (as much as possible) where my mouth is. (Skipping the snarky comments there as well.)

So I started looking around and decided to go with a safety razor after reading a lot and watching some videos about them.

This is the gear I bought:



I ended up with a Merkur Futur 701 (761? whatever...) adjustable razor (against all advice people gave). It's nice as I can adjust it and am not locked into buying multiple razors then. It's also more expensive than others, but I figured the flexibility would be worth it.

Here's a review of that razor:

http://www.shaving10...le-safety-razor.html

I also picked up some Personna, Feather, Shark, and Merkur razor blades. (The order is my preference - I don't like the Merkur blades.)

Once my canned shaving gel ran out, I ordered some real shaving cream - Taylor of Old Bond Street - Jermyn Street Collection shaving cream for sensitive skin, and a stick of "Arko Shave Stick Soap" just for the heck of it (not tried it yet).

I also needed a shaving brush, so I picked up a "Frank Shaving Silvertip Badger Shaving Brush Black" - excellent price point at $44. (They can go over $300.)

Well... HOLY MOTHER OF THE UNIVERSE!!! Real shaving cream is NOTHING like that canned crap! It's crazy! Insane! I'd never used it before... WOW! Just. Wow.

With the F&S shaving brush, it's like spreading foamy, liquid heaven on your face. In fact, "foamy" is probably wrong - it's silky... wonderful, marvellous, it's spreading... err... I'll skip the graphic metaphors... You get the idea. (Yes - it's awesome like sex!)

The white stick (in the photo above) is a stypstik pen (alum) for when you cut yourself. I never actually need it, but it's good to have in the house for multiple reasons. The stuff has been around for thousands of years (literally).

The blades make a big difference though. I'll be trying out more in the future, but for now, I like the Personna best with the Feather blades coming in a close second. I forget about the Shark blades - been a while since I used one. I'm not all that keen on the Merkur blades.

Shaving is a real PITA, but I find that I'm enjoying shaving a lot more with this setup. The razor's weight and feel are really nice. It glides over my face nicely with no pressure, and using a real shaving cream makes it infinitely nicer.

A good friend of mine can use a cheap $0.10 disposable blade for a month before he needs a new blade... sheesh... (And he's got a relatively "heavy" beard for a Korean.) Must be nice. (Yes - you can buy cheap $0.10 razors individually in Korea... No wonder why. I tried them once. Once. I bled horribly.)

The shaving cream I use only takes a very, very tiny amount. So far I have not managed to get "just enough" on. I keep using a bit too much. I'm guessing this is going to last a long time. Given how much nicer this stuff is, I am a bit baffled about why anyone would every use canned shaving cream. Seriously. It's the difference between a rusty bike that you pulled out of the river and galactic star cruiser equipped with Lambos and a teleporter.

I REALLY wish that someone had have told me about this a LOT sooner.

If you're in Australia, I ordered through here:

http://www.shaverhut.com.au/

They seem to have about the best prices for most things.

If you think you might like to look into a safety razor or non-canned shaving cream or something, check out these fellows:

https://www.youtube.com/user/geofatboy

https://www.youtube....ser/ChiCityTimelapse

They put out some decent videos and reviews.

1555

Living Room / Re: Celluloid vs digital: what are the REAL differences?

« Last post by Renegade on August 09, 2014, 12:18 AM »

e.g. Satanic death metal appeals to a relatively small audience, while techno-pop has a much broader appeal and larger audience. But the techno-pop audience has no real influence on Satanic death metal artists, and vice versa.

-Renegade (August 08, 2014, 09:47 PM)

Ummm... you haven't been listening to any Satanic Death Metal lately, have you?  "Bass drops" and "Dubstep Breakdowns" are getting to be the norm in those circles.  I'm not kidding.   

-Edvard (August 09, 2014, 12:15 AM)

Hahaha!

Ok, Old skool Satanic death metal then?

And yes - I've been out of touch with modern Satanic death metal lately.

1556

Living Room / Re: New "censorship" technique on Youtube

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 11:40 PM »

I live in the US, and several years ago, I ran across a video that had that muted audio claim on it. I haven't seen it recently tho. All I have seen recently is just videos that have been removed due to copyright claims, or not available in my country.

-nite_monkey (August 08, 2014, 11:22 PM)

Hmm... I'm a bit surprised that I've not run across this before then. I've had lots of completely blacked out videos, but this was the first time I'd seen this particular bit.

1557

Living Room / Re: Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 10:36 PM »

There is also a reasonable expectation that the subjects will use that photo for personal use only, and won't sell the photo to Time magazine.

But if that could end up being their intention, the photographer might have a leg to stand on in court, in the absence of a contract.

And if you think that the photo having a real market value seems far fetched, consider what kinds of things could accidentally be captured in the background of such a photo. What if some tourists to NYC had some random stranger take their picture on 9/11, and in the background you could clearly see a plane hitting the WTC. A photo like that could have had a market value.

Or what if in 3-5 years, one of the subjects became a famous celebrity? Or the photographer did? Or it ends up being a celebrity photobombing?

-app103 (August 08, 2014, 12:40 PM)

Argument about work involved

The tourists:

Choose the location
Choose the time
Set up (frame) the picture

The "photographer":

Clicks the shutter button

As far as the work involved in the actual photograph, the subjects of it have invested far more than the person who takes the picture.

Argument about no human agent

Now, let's say that they have a tripod and set up the camera on that, then set the timer.

There is no photographer anymore. Somebody set a timer, but nobody clicked the shutter button.

The camera isn't human, so therefore the picture is in the public domain.

What if some tourists to NYC had some random stranger take their picture on 9/11, and in the background you could clearly see a plane hitting the WTC. A photo like that could have had a market value.

-app103 (August 08, 2014, 12:40 PM)

This is a great point, and one that I was hoping someone would bring up.

Argument about permission to use property

The tourists have only given permission to the "photographer" to take pictures of them, and not permission to run around taking all sorts of pictures of other things.

So now you have a conflict involving the (mis-)use of the tourist's property versus the interests of the photographer.

Imagine you get someone to mow your lawn (for pay or otherwise), and they proceed to build a nice shed in your backyard out of materials you have, then demand to use it for their own purposes. Well... err...

Who owns the shed?

I think you have a much stronger claim on the shed than the person that built it.

The same applies to the tourist's camera.

Argument about duty/responsibility to preserve property

*IF* the photographer that takes a picture of some tourists has IP ownership in the photo, then the tourists would be guilty of destroying the photographer's property if they deleted or lost the photographs.

This is pretty absurd as it puts an onerous burden on the owner of the camera.

Back to the photobombing event example, imagine that the picture ends up with rockets exploding and people being blown apart in the background - blood, death, gore and nastiness (or imagine that the rocket is visible before it impacts/explodes). A war has just started. Now the owner of the camera may be your stereotypical little old lady with fragile sensibilities, and rather than have that "horrible" picture on her camera, she decides to delete it.

If the photographer owns the picture, then she has destroyed his property.

Argument for camera traps

Naturalists often set up cameras with motion detectors to take pictures of wildlife as they pass. No human is involved in actuall taking the picture.

What then?

Argument for public disclosure of all surveillance video

Surveillance cameras are automated with no human interaction. Is all that video then in the public domain?

The road that Wikimedia has chosen is fraught with issues.

Maybe I'm a bit off base here, but it seems to me that asking a random stranger to take a picture of you and your friend/family/pet/whatever at any given location/event in lieu of the ubiquitous "selfie" is subject to something we used to call a "gentleman's agreement".  Nobody in these situations even entertains the thought of whose copyright the damn thing is, because usually it's just a snapshot intended for your home photo album with a few copies for grandma and auntie, and if either party demanded any rights or recompense, you'd get anything from a blank stare to a poke in the nose; it just isn't civil. 

-Edvard (August 08, 2014, 01:46 PM)

Yep. That.

What if a photographer had his camera stolen, and the thief took a marketable photo, was apprehended by authorities, and the camera returned to it's owner?  Does he own copyright to the photo?  Can he sue for royalties if the owner of the camera capitalizes on it?  I don't think so.  IANAL, but I seem to recall precedent that says the thief surrenders his rights to property because he did so under unlawful circumstances.  e.g. a car thief could not demand recompense for the gas he purchased to fill up the tank of a vehicle he stole.  The photographer did say the monkey "stole" his camera, but then again, monkeys are not beholden to human law, so more of blah blah blah, ad nauseum undecided

-Edvard (August 08, 2014, 01:46 PM)

Yep. And that.

What if someone's camera was stolen, and the thief took some incredible photos that were worth a fortune before getting busted. Then cops return the camera - yeah I know far fetched...but just work with me - to the rightful owner. Does the thief then deserve a piece of the action??

-Stoic Joker (August 08, 2014, 01:54 PM)

And again.

The point that the camera is stolen goes back to the camera being the rightful property of its owner. Anything done to/with the camera is something that the owner must deal with.

Extending the shed example I gave above, imagine that someone comes into your backyard completely without your permission (no invitation at all) and builds a shed with materials you have.

Does that person have any kind of a claim on the shed?

It's all kind of silly. I doubt any court will extend IP legal protections to a non-human at this stage of the game.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)

It doesn't make any sense to extend IP to non-human agents. (I've tried to make that point above regarding surveillance cameras, camera traps, etc.)

The question then gets around to how in the presence of a non-human agent (monkey, automated device, etc.) ownership is transferred.

The Wikimedia argument is that it becomes public domain. I've tried to show how this can have absurd consequences.

And the fact the photographer didn't himself take the shot rules out his claiming copyright as the photographer.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)

I tried to argue above how this leads to absurd conclusions. (Surveillance cameras, sheds, etc.)

However, because he owned the means (i.e. the camera that took the shot) and in the absence of any other human claiming to have been the photographer, he probably has the best claim to legal ownership of the picture.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)

Exactly.

Yup...it's insane.

Copyright and related IP law needs to be reformed. Pronto.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)

+1

1558

Living Room / Re: Celluloid vs digital: what are the REAL differences?

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 09:47 PM »

Unless, of course, you actually like that sort of thing. No accounting for taste, but far be it from me to tell somebody what they should be listening to or watching.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 03:58 PM)

Yes. But...

But if you want somebody else to experience it, it's a little more complicated.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 03:58 PM)

Yes. Much more so. But...

The audience has rights too.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 03:58 PM)

Which are to stay or go now.

The audience has no rights beyond deciding whether or not to be a part of the audience. They have no right to dictate what an artist does, or how an artist does it. We have a word for forced labour - slavery.

They have a vote with their money & feet. Artists that want money from their audience are aware and will cater to that.

It's not all about the artist once you take it public.

-40hz (August 08, 2014, 03:58 PM)

Yes.

Successful artists can be true to themselves and still deliver something that many people will want. They can find a part of themselves (or a skill within themselves) that they can put out there for others to either appreciate, or not.

Some artists can even make the audience a part of the performance. (And no... I don't mean sing-a-long for a chorus, but yes - that counts superficially.) Stage magicians and the like do this all the time with varying degrees of involvement/success. Street performers do a lot of this as well. Stand up comics are a great example. We often expect heckling there, and the comics are expected to respond.

But the degree to which the artist involves the audience is up to the artist (stand up comics are a notable exception - heckling). In the broadest sense, this is measured by how broadly the artist appeals to people - how large their audience is. (Throwing rotten vegetables at a vaudeville show might qualify though... )

e.g. Satanic death metal appeals to a relatively small audience, while techno-pop has a much broader appeal and larger audience. But the techno-pop audience has no real influence on Satanic death metal artists, and vice versa.

1559

Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 08:42 PM »

Perhaps only posturing, but it makes a nice line in the sand for the moment.

-Stoic Joker (August 08, 2014, 02:31 PM)

It's good to hear, though I'm not sure that people can really have much faith in anyone anymore. It would be nice to think that they're serious and genuine.

1560

Living Room / Re: Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 09:47 AM »

@app103 - So what about the tourist case? How would any fallout be handled? Random strangers owning pictures on your camera? This still seems odd. The case isn't the same as your daughter borrowing your camera.

-Renegade (August 07, 2014, 08:18 PM)

So, in addition to giving them a dollar to take the photo for you, you would likely have to also get them to sign a contract where they agree to relinquish copyright to you, as a work for hire. 

-app103 (August 07, 2014, 06:02 PM)

-app103 (August 08, 2014, 03:18 AM)

That merely dodges the issue.

I would argue that there's a reasonable expectation that the subjects of the photo own the photo, and that the photographer is merely being asked for an act of charity.

1561

Living Room / Re: New "censorship" technique on Youtube

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 08:40 AM »

They used do that a few years back - but maybe that was just here in Germany. I've also seen videos where the music was replaced by YT with copyright free music.

-tomos (August 08, 2014, 08:01 AM)

Oh, FFS! This is what I hate about all this geo-location BS.   

Does it really matter where you are? Sigh... 

Why must they always screw everything up? Oh, that's right... we have laws... 

1562

Living Room / Re: Celluloid vs digital: what are the REAL differences?

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 08:23 AM »

Check it out:

-40hz (July 31, 2014, 12:37 PM)

I LOVED that!

At first I'm thinking of a specific song as a stellar example of great playing & audio engineering, then the first band he plays - same band!

(I loved the Brittany jabs!)

But on a bit more meta level, abstracting out a bit, the core of this boils down to the ability of humans to be imperfect in interesting ways.

Here's an example of combining that high tech stuff with that more fluid human "groove" (also NSFW):

Right at the start in the melody line (cello), you can hear a slow down in the tempo -- like a "stagger" -- but it still keeps the beat. That's done by a human playing to start - it's not programming. But, it's still all done electronically.

It gets to the point of homogeneity or uniformity or conformity or predictability - I hope I've sort of made the point. I don't feel like typing an essay.

The same principle goes on and on for many other things.

People often crave predictability like junkies crave heroin. Sometimes there is little to distinguish humans from much lower lifeforms.

Digital delivers predictability in ways that analog doesn't.

For video vs. audio, I think there is a very big difference. Our visual environment is much more constant than our audio environment, so the predictability in video (visuals) is less of a "jarring" experience when digital. Sound on the other hand isn't predictable like visuals are. Things enter our field of vision more gradually than sounds do. (Usually.)

But, as mentioned above, the right tools for the right job to create the right product/experience. They're only tools for the artist.

There are engineers out there that can actually not abuse the b'jeez out of digital technology, or than can really make it work much harder.

Here is an example. Here's the original song:

And a "cover":

Now to illustrate a bit there, 2 screenshots:





The guys doing the original have a TRUCKLOAD of better equipment and professional audio engineers -- they have massive production behind them. The fellow doing the cover doesn't. He's just a dude at home doing cool stuff.

What you can see in the cover though is that Zhou Tong uses a far wider dynamic range and manages to build tension far better than the original.

Look for the slope in the waveforms.

In the original it's relatively flat. That's what commercial audio engineers do.

In the cover, it builds and builds much more. That's what artists do.

Check that same tactic out with a LOT of classical music. You'll see the same thing. They know how to build tension to rouse emotion.

The clinical approaches in a lot of what happens today are stale, dead, lifeless -- they're trapped in a sterile corporate culture of lifelessness fueled by LCD - the lowest common denominator. That's what buddy in the video 40hz was going on about - the lack of life.

It's not the tools. It's the artist.

1563

Living Room / New "censorship" technique on Youtube

« Last post by Renegade on August 08, 2014, 07:13 AM »

It seems Youtube has come up with a way to circumvent complete censorship at the hands of the MAFIAA, and instead reach a compromise.

I came across a video with it. Here's a screenshot:

Contains mildly graphic material

The Youtube message:

This video previously contained a copyrighted audio track. Due to a claim by a copyright holder, the audio track has been muted.

I've not seen that before, and assume it's relatively new.

I suppose this is a step in the right direction.

1564

Living Room / Re: Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

« Last post by Renegade on August 07, 2014, 08:18 PM »

@app103 - So what about the tourist case? How would any fallout be handled? Random strangers owning pictures on your camera? This still seems odd. The case isn't the same as your daughter borrowing your camera.

1565

Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested

« Last post by Renegade on August 07, 2014, 07:26 AM »

You highlighted the perfect bit there.

I do think there are some real issues with the case against Ulbricht, mainly focused on his liability for the actions done by users of Silk Road, but these kinds of broad attempts to throw anything at the wall are likely to be rejected, and can actually piss off judges who feel that lawyers are just trying to throw up a smoke screen.

Why is that? Because judges don't care about any of the laws that are supposed to restrict how the government can behave. Prosecutors and LEOs even less.

Fact is, if they didn't have their ducks in a row, then tough. Throw the case out.

Those limits placed on what government can do are there for a reason. They are what (ostensibly) separate the republic from an authoritarian police state.

I think we know pretty darn well what will happen. Due process is a joke.



Image source. (Illustration for Canadian Lawyer magazine, August 2008 issue.)

1566

Living Room / Re: Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

« Last post by Renegade on August 07, 2014, 06:58 AM »

The whole thing seems to just show how cracked & broken copyright is.

Someone else brought up this case...

You're out at a typical tourist destination when a couple hands you their camera and asks you to take a picture of them up against a background. You say yes, then snap a nice picture of them.

You own the copyright? On their camera?

So, if I can extend that a bit...

But of course! Because, Wikipedia and monkeys! Therefore you say to the couple that they can purchase your intellectual property (copyright) interests in the photo for the paultry sum of $25.00, as you firmly grip the camera and put it behind your back. After all... that's YOUR photo...


Now, I'm not saying yes or no there, but it brings up an interesting question --- who "owns" the photo?

• Would you please snap a picture **of** us?
• Would you please snap a picture **for** us?

Would the way the couple actually asked the question matter? Above, "of" and "for" are very different. i.e. I can snap a picture "of" you but not "for" you. It could be for someone else, like your mother or me or a trashy magazine/newspaper.

1567

Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.

« Last post by Renegade on August 07, 2014, 06:41 AM »

Snowden's lawyer announces a three year extension granted to asylum.
Just heard it on the radio  - dont see any reports online yet, hang on here's one:
http://www.wsbt.com/...enextension/27349448

-tomos (August 07, 2014, 05:34 AM)

Nice! I imagine Putin is snickering, laughing, and joking with some FSB buddies about how much this will piss off the Americans.

Ah... the international arena of diplomacy shits & giggles.

1568

Living Room / Re: Everyone is brokenhearted.

« Last post by Renegade on August 07, 2014, 04:15 AM »

From what he says, the author seems to have an external locus of control, which is generally considered to be an unhealthy psychological state as it can erode the individual's ability to accept responsibility for and take control of their own lives.

-IainB (August 06, 2014, 03:40 AM)

Which is why MilesAhead's metaphor is so good.

When you're very young, you have zero control.

Add in that when you're very young and try to exert any control, you often get beat/disciplined.

The metaphor works.

The problem grows as you get older. Adults have few excuses for abdicating control and blaming everyone/everything else. (I have a few choice words there, but they border on political.)

1569

Living Room / Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

« Last post by Renegade on August 07, 2014, 03:48 AM »

This is interesting for the whole IP/copyright blabbering.

http://myfox8.com/20...-owns-the-copyright/

Wikimedia has denied a photographer’s request to remove a “monkey selfie” photo because the monkey pressed the shutter button making the photo ineligible for copyright, according to the Telegraph.

Nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 when a crested black macaque stole his camera and took hundreds of photos, including the famous selfie that was featured in publications across the world.

Many of the photos were blurry shots of the jungle floor, but among the throwaways were the selfie that gave Slater worldwide attention.

More at the link.

I'm tempted to type some bad puns...

1570

Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.

« Last post by Renegade on August 06, 2014, 11:55 PM »

"Unknown leaker" according to "unnamed sources?"

Why not just report: "The 'authorities' (whoever that may be this time around) are now saying "All we know is there's gotta be somebody else."

It's about the same thing - and equally well substantiated. (As in not.)

FWIW, I think this guy is his accomplice:
 (see attachment in previous post)

-40hz (August 06, 2014, 09:12 PM)

Yup. That.

The level of ambiguity is stretching a bit far.

These rumours have been around for a while, but... Doesn't mean much.

This could very well just be controlled leaks by an intelligence service. Who knows?

For the moment, this is a "wait & see".

1571

Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.

« Last post by Renegade on August 06, 2014, 08:23 PM »

A new Snowden?

http://www.defenseon...dward-snowden/90665/

Edward Snowden is not alone.

Authorities have concluded there is at least one other leaker spilling classified secrets about the government’s surveillance programs, according to CNN reporter Evan Perez.

Close observers of the surveillance leaks have for months speculated that there may be another leaker besides Snowden. The Intercept, a channel of First Look Media launched by journalist Glenn Greenwald, has routinely published leaks from Edward Snowden since it formed earlier this year. But two recent stories, including one published Tuesday about the government’s terrorist watch database, cited unnamed sources.

One document is from August 2013, months after Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, downloaded documents while employed at Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii and fled to Hong Kong, where he met Greenwald.

1572

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by Renegade on August 05, 2014, 09:55 PM »

NEVER interrupt a programmer:
from http://www.infoworld...nologist-work-247487
 (see attachment in previous post)

-Edvard (August 05, 2014, 04:41 PM)

^ THIS!!!

Yes. It is like that. Exactly!

All programmers are acutely aware of the butterfly effect.

1573

Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested

« Last post by Renegade on August 05, 2014, 09:53 PM »

So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)

-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)

You think his 4th amendment argument will work?

-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)

Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.

But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?

-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)

Got it. For a bit there I thought you were saying that it would work.

My guess is that nothing short of divine intervention will help Ross. The evidence doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. He is hated, and that's reason enough to punish him.

1574

Living Room / Re: Cody Wilson Interview on Idea City (3D Printing & Defcad)

« Last post by Renegade on August 05, 2014, 09:47 PM »

And just thinking out loud here...maybe you could get one and just print yourself a new continent and a new home - and be done with it?

-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:10 PM)

I think you're confusing 3D printing with the Star Trek TNG replicator.

But yes - sometimes I just wish I could get away from everything, and a new continent would be nice. Well, until someone decided that it needed more democracy...

1575

Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested

« Last post by Renegade on August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM »

So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)

-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)

You think his 4th amendment argument will work?