|
Post by Sue on Oct 8, 2008 20:47:18 GMT -5
I doubt (at least I hope) that this kid hasn't "ruined his life" but it sure will take a BIG detour that neither he or his parents expected. How utterly stoopid. What did he think? That hacking someone's email was like reading their diary? Hey, kid: would you think it was legal to take something out of someone's snailmailbox and open it and read it? Huge, huge federal offense. The kid who hacked Palin's email: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/palin_hackedI feel a tiny bit sorry for him, but, uh, NO, we really can't have that kind of behavior go unpunished. And not just a slap on the wrist. It really, really stretches the definition of "hacked" though: he guessed her password. The whole situation is full of foolishness, starting with Palin using Yahoo Mail, one of the least secure webmail services, for official communications, and ending with the dimwit who did it posting about it on 4chan. Julia, humans find new ways to disappoint me every day. Yeah, but even if it's ridiculously simple it's still a password. I mean, my mailbox doesn't even have a lock on it. (And sometimes, if the mail-lady doesn't force it shut hard enough it hangs open.) But it's still illegal for my neighbor to take my mail out of it and open it.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 8, 2008 20:51:51 GMT -5
So, I'm voting for Obama over McCain I'm perhaps even more adament about voting for Biden over Palin. But most of all I'm so voting for Michelle over Cindy.
She's on Larry King (which I never watch) right now and I"m sure it will be repeated later. She'll be on Jon Stewart tonight as well.
Also, who knew? During the 8 pm central hour Fox News' Sean Hannity pulls down 3.2 million viewers; Larry King pulls in 2.1 and Rachel Maddow is pulling 1.7. At least King and Maddow combined total 3.8.
Does Larry King let his political affiliation hang out? I don't watch him enough to know.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 8, 2008 23:12:07 GMT -5
It really, really stretches the definition of "hacked" though: he guessed her password. The whole situation is full of foolishness, starting with Palin using Yahoo Mail, one of the least secure webmail services, for official communications, and ending with the dimwit who did it posting about it on 4chan. Julia, humans find new ways to disappoint me every day. Yeah, but even if it's ridiculously simple it's still a password. I mean, my mailbox doesn't even have a lock on it. (And sometimes, if the mail-lady doesn't force it shut hard enough it hangs open.) But it's still illegal for my neighbor to take my mail out of it and open it. Yeah, I know. And right now, Email doesn't have that protection. Which is why it's a bad idea to use Yahoo mail, which is not secure, for anything you would prefer kept private. And why there's laws in some states to prevent government officials from using anything except .gov addresses for official communication. Julia, the law doesn't adequately protect online privacy, and people tend to act as if Email is as protected as physical mail, is all I'm trying to point out
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 9, 2008 7:45:32 GMT -5
Yeah, but even if it's ridiculously simple it's still a password. I mean, my mailbox doesn't even have a lock on it. (And sometimes, if the mail-lady doesn't force it shut hard enough it hangs open.) But it's still illegal for my neighbor to take my mail out of it and open it. Yeah, I know. And right now, Email doesn't have that protection. Which is why it's a bad idea to use Yahoo mail, which is not secure, for anything you would prefer kept private. And why there's laws in some states to prevent government officials from using anything except .gov addresses for official communication. Julia, the law doesn't adequately protect online privacy, and people tend to act as if Email is as protected as physical mail, is all I'm trying to point out Thanks, actually. I guess I knew in the back of my mind that email doesn't have the same legal protections, um......legally. The whole "don't write anything you wouldn't want the world to read" thing. I guess I was asking this kid, rather rhetorically, if he would think it was OK to steal and open paper mail, as a matter of morality (ethics? hmm. fuzzy morning brain---who can quickly tell me the difference). Obviously he just didn't think it through. Or maybe he would open stuff in Sarah Palin's mailbox as well. Although, there must be some legal protection if the paper says he could get 5 years in jail and a $50,000 fine.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 9, 2008 12:14:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 9, 2008 12:34:39 GMT -5
Yeah... I think they need to hire a psychology consultant when they're discussing economic reform, since a large part of the economy is psychological. Instead of decrying greed on Wall Street, try to change the conditions that permit and encourage that greed in the first place. Even the best people can fall victim to temptation. And I thought there was like an additional 150 bil added to the bailout package. It makes me so sad. Like, what, adding proper regulation and so forth wasn't enough? Geez.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 9, 2008 17:13:02 GMT -5
God, I really hope Obama's Secret Service detail is on the ball. The tone of the McCain/Palin rallies is starting to scare me. I know it's good for poll numbers, but I sorta wish he'd stop doing that Clintonesqe "wading into the crowd" thing.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 9, 2008 19:39:35 GMT -5
So...it may sound insane, but I'm actually starting to research stock market investing...assuming we don't completely go down in flames, soon will be the time to buy.
Not yet. I think we still have a ways to go. But possibly the week before the general election, I might drop a small amount on the market and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 9, 2008 19:55:18 GMT -5
So...it may sound insane, but I'm actually starting to research stock market investing...assuming we don't completely go down in flames, soon will be the time to buy. Not yet. I think we still have a ways to go. But possibly the week before the general election, I might drop a small amount on the market and see what happens. I'm thinking of this myself- although it'll be a stretch to buy things unless prices go down further than I hope is likely. We're in a more comfortable position than most people one way- Franklin has almost thirty years of seniority with the state, and is pretty safe in his employment- but in another, we're sort of screwed because of consumer debt. I'm worried about my kids being able to find employment when they graduate, though. I graduated from college the first time in 1974, when there was a billboard saying "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?" and unemployment was hovering in double figures. I don't know what scares me more, the economy or the "Sidewalk to Nowhere" video. Julia, but I wish the heck the election was over, because the crazy is not getting better until it is
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 9, 2008 20:10:07 GMT -5
So...it may sound insane, but I'm actually starting to research stock market investing...assuming we don't completely go down in flames, soon will be the time to buy. Not yet. I think we still have a ways to go. But possibly the week before the general election, I might drop a small amount on the market and see what happens. I'm thinking of this myself- although it'll be a stretch to buy things unless prices go down further than I hope is likely. We're in a more comfortable position than most people one way- Franklin has almost thirty years of seniority with the state, and is pretty safe in his employment- but in another, we're sort of screwed because of consumer debt. I'm worried about my kids being able to find employment when they graduate, though. I graduated from college the first time in 1974, when there was a billboard saying "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?" and unemployment was hovering in double figures. I don't know what scares me more, the economy or the "Sidewalk to Nowhere" video. Julia, but I wish the heck the election was over, because the crazy is not getting better until it is I feel much the same way. This year, my job options look pretty good; I have concerns that if we don't settle on something this year, the budgets for new faculty and biotech jobs might be nonexistent next year. Luckily, we're decades from retirement, so my UC retirement fund will recover. My IRAs are all CDs, luckily, but my mutual funds have lost 40% of their value this year.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 10, 2008 1:46:21 GMT -5
This is a small rant about one particular federal earmark program: the Montana Bear DNA project. I read the article a few days ago (it's online and not hard to find), and don't have the link now, but it was a standard multiagency cooperative project- and followed another project in the same area very closely, with the same primary investigator and the same grad student co-authors.
What this means, in terms of field biology (or botany, or archaelogy) is that the second project was almost certainly a resultant of the first- which had been a standard field survey of bear population ecology. The DNA study worked the same area, and used a new application (extracting endo DNA from scat- the first study had used dna to study diet) to gain new information about the same population- most specifically, to measure actual numbers and the range of individual animals in a way which was cheaper and more efficient (and substantially safer for both bears and scientists) than classic trap and tag study.
The reason studies like this are funded through either earmarks or end-of-budget funds is that going through standard granting procedure is slow and:
1. Trained field biologists are not going to hang out in Montana waiting for the funds to come through for a follow-up program
2. Delay means that data from the initial phase becomes less relevant; in population and range studies, separation by more than one hibernation season adds new individuals to the population which could be returning wanderers as easily as new cubs, for instance.
3. In this specific case, there was a management plan being written for Glacier International Park, and a large amount of population data over a huge geographic area was needed quickly under a Canada US treaty; the earmarked funds allowed fewer scientists to do more work more quickly than had been planned.
There's been considerable bitching about this particular bit of money under the rubric of "peer review" but it's really unlikely that either FWS, NFS, or the Park Service would have gone to the elected branch without the chief scientists having signed off on it. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are not the only agencies with established research protocols and professional peer review, and there are often financial shortfalls in research budgets which need special money patches.
Julia, having actually pushed paper in a complex field research project, and got to see funding sausage being made
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 10, 2008 4:29:59 GMT -5
I'm thinking of this myself- although it'll be a stretch to buy things unless prices go down further than I hope is likely. We're in a more comfortable position than most people one way- Franklin has almost thirty years of seniority with the state, and is pretty safe in his employment- but in another, we're sort of screwed because of consumer debt. I'm worried about my kids being able to find employment when they graduate, though. I graduated from college the first time in 1974, when there was a billboard saying "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?" and unemployment was hovering in double figures. I don't know what scares me more, the economy or the "Sidewalk to Nowhere" video. Julia, but I wish the heck the election was over, because the crazy is not getting better until it is I feel much the same way. This year, my job options look pretty good; I have concerns that if we don't settle on something this year, the budgets for new faculty and biotech jobs might be nonexistent next year. Luckily, we're decades from retirement, so my UC retirement fund will recover. My IRAs are all CDs, luckily, but my mutual funds have lost 40% of their value this year. Same here. I've actually pretty much decided to work over here for the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 10, 2008 7:21:53 GMT -5
Now, see? That last question, about what don't they know and how will they learn it, that's the sort of question that the candidates should be asked. Unfortunately, they both used it to give their closing statements. That was an interesting question. It would be nice if Bob Schieffer would ask some more open-ended questions like that, rather than the same things we've heard at debates #1 and #2. Like, "If there were no budget constraints, list you dream plans" On the one hand, maybe it wouldn't produce any specifics but it might help us get an idea of their individual "visions." And, really, haven't we already heard all the sound bites? However, unless Bob Schieffer is a much tougher moderator (and I think both campaigns negotiated "rules" to pretty much keep the moderator from being able to do much followup or pressuring) no matter how creative the questions you might still only get the pre-canned stock speeches. Pretty dangerous to give flight of fancy "what if" answers where you might say one single thing that will come back to haunt you in the press. Still, what are some other good potential non run of the mill questions? I'd like to hear the candidates have to talk about what criteria they will use or how they will go about making appointments, from Cabinet positions and minor appointments as well as Supreme Court, if necessary. Cause that's a big part of what the Presidents do. They talk so much about about their policies and what they will do as President when actually much of that is delegated and the delegation process is rarely discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 10, 2008 7:26:34 GMT -5
God, I really hope Obama's Secret Service detail is on the ball. The tone of the McCain/Palin rallies is starting to scare me. I know it's good for poll numbers, but I sorta wish he'd stop doing that Clintonesqe "wading into the crowd" thing. Eetah. I think if it gets much worse, it would be really irresponsible of McCain and Palin to continue this line of attack. I also wonder how they feel about knowing that these kinds of people are among their supporters.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 10, 2008 7:37:24 GMT -5
God, I really hope Obama's Secret Service detail is on the ball. The tone of the McCain/Palin rallies is starting to scare me. I know it's good for poll numbers, but I sorta wish he'd stop doing that Clintonesqe "wading into the crowd" thing. Eetah. I think if it gets much worse, it would be really irresponsible of McCain and Palin to continue this line of attack. I also wonder how they feel about knowing that these kinds of people are among their supporters. I cheered aloud last night when Anderson Cooper had on a group of 3 of the usual pundits and they were all "yeah, dirty campaigns, both sides getting personal, yada yada" They showed clips of Palin and McCain doing the Ayers bit and then showed Obama's commercial about McCain being "erratic" and (of all words) "lurching." And Paul Begala finally said to Cooper and the other 2, "Now just hold up here a minute. Sure, Obama isn't pristine when you do the Fact Check thing, and yes, calling someone "erratic and unfit to led" is a personal attack rather than issues-based, but come on now, what's coming out of the Obama camp is no where near as offensive, ugly, and low-down as the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing and crowd-baiting as what McCain and Palin are doing."
|
|