Direct link to pdf: richards.pdf.

The shredder is the only one I didn't use, but a friend did when we were in training on the ship. I had no idea what he was doing that day and he showed up at lunch looking like he just walked through a snowstorm.

When I was in the Navy, we had equipment to destroy classified (paper) material onboard the ship. I always wondered what the logic in equipment selection was, but there were certain approved ways of destroying classified materials based on classification. Lower levels of classification could be disposed through this garbage disposal like thing that had sea water running through it. Next level up was an JP-5 fueled incinerator, and for the highest level was a mechanical shredder that would turn paper into the finest powder.

What if someone just wants to have a 'supplemental' income? Offering services or selling small items of some sort. Bitcoin would present a great way for these people to avoid taxes, which is the goal of many people involved in such activities. The higher the tax rates, the more difficult it is to transfer from bitcoin to USD, the more likely that people will begin operating exclusively in Bitcoin. Rest assured, if people begin amassing wealth in the form of bitcoins, a market priced in bitcoins will develop.

Unless they don't use conventional currency at all. They get paid in bitcoins, and they spend bitcoins.

Many days, I don't understand the mods.

Napster was a wake-up call for the politicians, who acted quickly to squash piracy, thus our piracy-free Internet.

Bitcoin is not easy to trace when it is not linked to something like a bank account transaction. It has to be linked to delivery of goods, but the problem here is that receiving a delivery is not evidence of a crime. There has to be evidence that the person receiving the goods also paid for them.

I can't see Schneier as a Libertarian since he states in the article that "Fixing this requires strong government will...". No Libertarian would suggest such a fix, which I imply to mean that this issue goes beyond Libertarians.

We can turn our cell phones off and spend cash. But increasingly, none of it matters

I agree with this because people traveling without cell phones and paying cash tend to be the minority, meaning that anonymizing efforts often end up doing the opposite. Another good quote from the article:

If the director of the CIA can't maintain his privacy on the Internet, we've got no hope

I think there is more to the demographics than he mentioned. Quite likely that younger generation will only know the Blendtec brand (versus other brands of blenders), so when they are older and equipping their own kitchens they will purchase a Blendtec, possibly most especially the ones that did not manage to convince their parents to purchase one.

War powers were probably the most discussed topic in the debates over the Constitution. A declaration of war entails many different things, but as far as rights go, it gives the President totalitarian control over the war zone. The war zone is to be defined by Congress stating specific geographical areas. Congress has not done a declaration of war. The Constitution defines what the Government can do, and so far as I know, the limitations placed on it have no basis in political boundaries (the amendments, as well as the document, always apply).

These things are being used to confuse the issue. What Paul is asking for is a clear statement that drones will not be used to single out and kill targets, because this is how the drone program is actually being employed. There is a reason that 92% of Pakistanis don't like the U.S. government flying drones over their country. That's why if you watch C-Span, you'll see them mentioning over and over killing families sleeping at night or eating dinner. In fact, it's the issue that he discussed the most in the early hours, which is the confusion between imminent threat and immediate threat. An imminent threat that is not an immediate threat should be arrested, not obliterated.

Says the whit middle class kid. You know why they don't talk to cops in inner-city areas? Because cops are everyone's enemy. They harm both victims and perpetrators. They are only there to arrest, and if you call the cops, they immediately suspect you of a crime, because, after all, why did you snitch on that guy? Why did that guy want to harm you? What are you hiding? I think I smell pot in your apartment...

UO? I picked halberd from the earlier days (I, II, III?) of Ultima.