See, for e.g.:

"What is a "runaway" grand jury?" http://campus.udayton.edu/~gra...

Most grand juries are lapdogs of the prosecutor, it is true. When they go off on their own, they are called "runaway grand jurys" and courts and prosecutors don't want them to know it is possible. Much like jury nullification... no court will instruct a jury that they can nullify, similarly, no court is going to tell a grand jury they can subpoena on their own without the prosecutor saying OK.

But it is rare for a grand jury to go off on their own these days. This was not always the case. Historically, grand juries were independent of the prosecutors. But these days, it is a rare thing, and the Ferguson grand jury probably played the lap dog.

All the facts they asked for. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.

I've worked as an election judge in Colorado and in Pennsylvania and in both states I got paid between $100 and $150 a day for election day, and got paid for the training. It's not a bad way to spend a vacation day. Get paid for the vacation day, and the hundred and some bucks from the county, and get that vibe you get being a part of the democratic process. Plus, for places with electronic voting machines, it's good to have a technically oriented person there, because it is, after all, a computer and setting them up is usually not easy for non-techies.

That's why Linus uses Gnome, I suppose.

Not Debian stable.

This law does not ban indexing by libraries, by the legal system, and by a multitude of other means which have legitimate societal uses where there is a legitimate need for the information. The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.

This guy I replied to, who proposing the source be deleted does not understand the scope of the law. He proposes deletion of material, when that would countervene the intention of the law which is to allow proper and needed accees to historical record, not just up and deleting history.

If you can't see the difference between banning new creation and altering the historic record, I don't know what to tell you.

> If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it.

I disagree. A search engine creating links is new creation. New publishing. Banning the creation of news links is WAY different from altering a historic record. Where does it stop? Do you delete history books? You have read 1984, right? Deleting historic records is pretty damned close to changing it in the style of 1984's dystopian future.

If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola.

Yeah. By making sure the 150 flying people over from West Africa every day still can hop on a plane and get here. Because our economy would be devistated if those 150 could not get here.

Got ebola? Don't want to be cared for by pariahs in grass huts? Hop a flight to the USA and get a half million dollars worth of care for free.

I'm serious. You never know when you're going to have to deal with the fact that your IRS head is reaming the Tea Party a new one, or that you Attorney General just got done giving you a hummer and is asking what other parts of the Constitution you want him to piss on today. You can't just be 100% open about these things. You neck bearded basement dwellers have NO IDEA how the real world works.

They could, y'know, "pretend".

Write, compile and distribute code which bypasses integral security features in the software. What could go wrong?

"Prizes are for children." -- Charles Ives, upon being given, but refusing, the Pulitzer prize