nwp90

Apparently there's a difference between a Royal Pardon and a Statutory Pardon. Parliament would have been debating the latter; this is the former (which the government had previously ruled out), it seems.

It's on the front page of the Guardian. Not fake.

You could not be more wrong. Technological "solutions" can only punt the issue down the road a few months or years, after which your "solution" will also be outlawed, and never mind the collateral damage.

The problem lies in folk lacking understanding and being scared. That's what needs fixing.

Your problem, on the other hand, is perhaps in lacking understanding and being scared of politics... unfortunately politics is all-pervasive. You cannot make that fact go away by burying your head in the sand and trying to work around the roadblocks that it throws up. While you're busy trying to avoid politics, those who are playing the game are winning.

Just remember that every time you are tempted to put your head back in the sand - while you are trying hard to pretend politics doesn't exist, the fundamentalists, spooks, industrialists, bankers etc. are playing hard & to win at all costs. The easiest targets for them are the ones who don't push back because they aren't playing. Which means you.

Avoiding politics == getting shafted.

It doesn't make sense. It's set up that way for historical reasons, and because the folk in charge have always really prioritised 1) over 2), and hence have had no motivation to suggest a better alternative.

While a separate organisation might be best, even a division within NSA etc. explicitly tasked with protection rather than intelligence gathering would be preferable to the status quo, so long as its head could be publically known. In the end it comes down to there being no individual with that responsibility. You need someone who is visible in that role, whose mission is purely to protect, overseeing a staff whose mission is purely to protect.

What am I missing?

First time I came here, I was so out of it (through being tired) by the time I got to Auckland that when the dog came up and started wagging at my bag I found myself bending down to pet it before thinking "What's this dog doing in an airport?..." Response "Er, that's a drug dog mate, any idea why he's so interested in your bag?" Can't remember exactly what I said then; I guess having had a dopehead flatmate a short while previously probably had something to do with it, and I think I mentioned that.

It's been and gone a few times over the years on that route. At times immigration but no baggage claim, at times transit lounge (actually I'm not sure I ever did go through when that was in force, I think it came and went in-between trips for me), at times full re-check-in... anyway, I think the setup was different every time. And every time they found a way to make it a PITA. I eventually got fed up with it, and don't travel that way any more.

I prefer via Dubai, Hong Kong, or Shanghai. Border control officers there, while still clearly doing their job meticulously, manage to be polite as well.

This is utter rubbish; the negative effects on health of any activity or substance clearly cannot be judged by merely trying it. Think DDT, asbestos, thalidomide, and a massive list of other misadventures that we've tried over the past 100 or so years.

In case the author reads this - just FYI your site is being blocked by Fortiguard as "malicious". I'm guessing either your site has been compromised or something nasty has been served up by an ad network at some point (maybe now, maybe past).

While this is a subject I would be interested in, I took one look at the front page, saw that it appeared to be video-only, and gave up.

This is precisely the reaction that news sites get from me when I click on a link to a story and find video-only content.

Am I the only one, or would it be a really good idea to provide transcripts of the interviews?

No. It might be a rip-off if you have your own phone, though.

It could be all sorts of things (cheap credit, loss-leader etc.) but I doubt it ever qualifies as subsidy.

"Literally; Al Qaeda, and an substantial proportion of all muslims everywhere"

Non-sequitur. No matter how true it may be for Al Qaeda, for which people may feel they have seen evidence, you provide absolutely no backing for your assertion that a "substantial proportion of all muslims everywhere" agree with what you assert Al Qaeda feel.

"it's not even possible to learn price without talking to sales" - that turns out not to be the case. Price is listed at http://nginx.com/products/

$1350 a year for 1 server, standard support.

Edit: I realise others have mentioned price, but no URL.

I don't think there's any indication that they actually thought destroying the hard drives would stop anything; seems more likely that:

1) They didn't want anyone else to get access to the material that the Guardian had but would not end up publishing;

2) The rules said that that's what they had to do, so they did it;

3) That's all they could do on "their patch", so CYA;

4) A little intimidation would never go amiss, surely...

Sounds familiar; I used to use it on our II+, so I was rather bemused by all these people telling me they (II+) didn't have it.

I don't have access to my Apples at the moment, so can't check the details, but I'm now curious to know exactly what might have changed between various II+ - what did others gain that we were missing, or why did we have room for it when they didn't...

Mini-assembler was in all II, II+ and //e. II had Integer Basic, II+ and //e had Applesoft. Can't remember which ones had SWEET16 though. May also be "all of them".

If all you want is LISP, burn it into an EPROM and replace the stock one.

I would assume that the NSA had already forcibly installed something that would compromise all further access to lavabit mail. Therefore the only option that doesn't reveal data is immediate shutdown.

"No longer"? It could never be trusted, and many of us said so when it was first introduced. It's just taken a while for everyone else to realise that we were right.

That'll be because it's only been in the docs since they reported their issue.

I'm interested to see reference to a failed assassination attempt on Churchill, using a pistol - I've not heard of this before, and can't immediately find it referenced anywhere else. Anyone?

I can't quite decide whether hiding the stupid with SSL would be a good thing or not. If done properly (incl. pinned cert(s)), it would mostly hide the stupid, which would help protect users - but also make it less likely that users would ever know just how bad the app is.