In Westminster, the "senate" is chosen exclusively by Betty Windsor.

True, but if your an honest speculator, it's likely BC's will be dirt cheap in the short term, how badly the exchange rate is hurt in the long term depends on how public this guy's flogging becomes. Silk Road was THE "leading brand" in the online black market, their successful branding campaign was their biggest PR problem, their demise will be noted briefly, the market will return to BAU, if it has not done so already.

I'm all for recreational drugs but the silk road guy has been charged with advertising and paying for a hit on his employee. In this scenario the silk road owner is the alledged "dick-tator" who is ordering the whistle-blower's assassination.

In the Westminster system the same dead locked funding scenario is called a "double dissolution". It's a constitutional trigger for a general election, the theory being that if the government of the day can't get their agenda funded by a hostile senate, then we pick a new government/senate that can at least keep the fucking lights on. What's the point of electing a bunch of public servants if they stubbornly insist on derailing the delivery of public services?

I sent it from a gmail account specially setup ahead of time, then logged in over a supposedly secure 'ssl' connection.

So the company you worked for was able to crack the SSL encryption for Google?

Because otherwise the connection should have shown ONLY that it was connected to the gmail server.

Once it was delivered to the gmail server THEN Google would have tried to deliver it to the destination. There should not have been any way (aside from cracking Google's SSL connection) that the company could read the final destination on that message.

In my experience, it's much more rare to find a company that knows about security than to find one that doesn't.

In my experience it is more about the managers and CxO's viewing it as a status issue. They are so important that they cannot be hampered by the demands of the lowly IT people. And the same goes for their people.

Security is IT's problem and if something goes wrong then it is the IT people who will be fired. Starting with the ones who were the loudest about there being a problem in the first place.

After all, other companies don't have those problems. So it must be because the IT people are incompetent.

First off, this would require the copyright holder to publicly assert their claim, potentially bringing attention to the pictures to begin with (a la Streisand).

Secondly, copyright laws are essentially focused on recouping lost revenue. Generally speaking, these pictures were not taken with the intent of monetizing them to begin with, and the "damages" as far as the victim is concerned are more of a "harassment" or "defamation" character, which a (good) judge probably wouldn't allow.

And finally we're talking about enforcing copyright on the internet. On Slashdot.

The paper's authors aren't federal government employees, and were working with data pulled down from Voyager previously.

"private road operator"?!

It's up to the owners (and their customers) to determine what level of risk they're willing to accept on their own property.

you are insane if you do not understand that society's rules trumps that

yes, consider alcohol, and consider that the costs of prohibition are greater than the costs of the drug itself

then consider meth, and consider that the costs of the drug itself are greater than the costs of prohibition

each drug is different. each drug deserves its own legal status quo

to think the same drug policy can apply to all drugs is ignorant of the subject matter

the costs of the drug war is less than the costs of hard drugs themselves, on individuals and society

consider a drug like meth

consider the costs, of the drug itself

weigh that against the costs you mention

because some people don't get the difference between decriminalization and illegality

portugal is very much invested in the war on hard drugs, but with far better tactics than the usa: treat it as a healthcare problem, not a jail problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

In July 2001 a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[7] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[8][9]

hard drug addicts represent a cost on society and civilization will always be at war with hard drug abuse, forever, in an attempt to minimize this cost

it is merely a maintenance function of society, this war. you need to take the trash out ever thursday: this is your "war on trash." because "the war on trash" never ends, is that an argument to let trash accumulate in your apartment?

no, taking out the trash is merely a maintenance function of your apartment. just like minimizing drug addicts is a maintenance function of society

portugal is still at war with hard drugs, as is every functional society on earth. forever

portugal just has much better tactics in this maintenance function

that's also the moral to the movie "zero dark thirty":

all the torture yielded nothing

classic gumshoe following the leads caught bin laden

Probably a loan guarantee, it's the same thing as military 'aid' to Israel/Egypt, the 'aid' goes directly from the US government to the US arms supplier. The recipient country pays the money back to the US government. If the recipient nation is run by a strategically cooperative dictator then non-payment may be overlooked/forgiven.

Yeah, just keep trashing this place, we don't need it, we will have that 8 billion seat interstellar transport ready any day now. When will space cadets understand that if we can't rebuild the life support system on our current circum-stella spaceship, we can't possibly build a brand one into the boot of your imagined interstellar ship.