dram

Corruption on this level only existed 50+ years ago. Nowadays our politicians, popes and corporations would never do what they'd did in the 20th century.

I like the name didapper mail. A fun sounding duck inspired protocol.

This says that debit cards are "online transactions" that could cost 10 cents vs 2% for an "offline" credit transaction - http://banking.about.com/od/checkingaccounts/a/debitvscredit...

I believe the transaction fee is higher and there's a percentage rate taken for non-pin debit card transactions.

The investigative reporter lives nearby. He recorded the surveillance camera playback with his camera or phone. Perhaps the recording of the playback slowed down the video slightly?

Maybe someone could load the video up in Physics Toolkit (http://www.physicstoolkit.com/) or another program (http://jabryan.iweb.bsu.edu/VideoAnalysis/) and get a more accurate estimate of how fast Hastings was travelling.

Let's be fair. Krikorian had access to the ENTIRE video and this professor only a short Youtube video clip. Kirkorian wrote, "Three seconds later, another vehicle goes by, traveling from the restaurant front door to the crash site in about seven seconds." And you can see from the video clip, that Hastings' car travels the same distance in about 3.5 seconds- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaPHWNzTHQ

The car that slowed down was travelling the other direction. There's no indication the two cars travelling the same direction slowed down.

Why wouldn't Krikorian, a former LA Times reporter, want to not break the biggest story ever, proving Hastings was driving 35MPH? His investigation also contradicted other things Miss Dvorak claimed- http://krikorianwrites.com/blog/2013/7/24/michael-hastings-i...

EDIT: I did a rough estimate of the professor's math. The pizza shop to the impact is about 200'. Looking closer, it appears it takes Hastings 2.5 to 3 seconds to travel that distance. So if the video surveillance is played at real time, Hastings was travelling between 45MPH and 55MPH? To be 35MPH, the time would have to be about 3.8 seconds.

Sure someone could do a more accurate estimate but it seems very unlikely that he was going 80MPH assuming the video surveillance is not delayed. It'd be interesting to get accurate measurements and use some video analysis to get a real answer.

Here's a story about an FBI FOIA document that included the language, "planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary." The plotters names are redacted but seems rather disturbing-

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/27/fbi-document-deleted-plots-...

Fair points but the author of the article, Kimberly Dvorak, appears convinced that Hastings' was murdered. It seems she found someone to support a theory that his car was travelling 35MPH. I think you can deduce from him speeding through the red light, the lack of brake lights in the 2nd video, the witness who said the car was travelling 100MPH, and the nature of the impact that he was in fact driving very fast.

If the video evidence was so clear that he was travelling 35MPH, I'm sure other people would be supporting this claim which would easily confirm a bomb was used.

The article and your comment are misleading. Despite the professor's calculation, it contradicts other evidence including the eye witnesses.

Michael Krikorian observes that Hastings' car was going at least twice as fast as the other cars in the video. He estimated that the car was travelling at least 80 mph.

And the video from Loudlabs' clearly shows Hastings' car speeding through a red light prior to the crash.

And in the Krikorian article, a special effects expert said the bright flash of light could be due to the auto exposure of the camera causing the explosion to look bigger than it actually was. The "pre-explosion" appears to be the car hitting the 30" x 2' wide metal protusion for a water main between the curb and the tree.

And the expert noted that a bomb would blow the car and engine upwards and not forwards.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-...

The investigator that released the video wrote a good article debunking a lot of the claims out there- http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-...

Although I'd never heard the story about Charles Colson, the Special Counsel to President Nixon ordering to kill Jack Anderson, a pioneer in investigative journalism. They considered dosing his steering wheel with LSD among other things but were stopped when they were arrested for the Watergate burglary- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist)#Targe...

In 2008, President Bush gave Mr. Colson the Presidential Citizens Medal for all the good work he did after prison.

Who'd believe that a White House lawyer would order CIA agents to kill a famous journalist if those involved hadn't confessed to it under oath?

Try renaming it gfacemail and hiring 50 Cent as a partner.

9/11 was definitely planned by KSM and indirectly by his nephew Ramzi Yousef. But it's also true that we accidentally let it happen.

It's remarkable that this interview with Richard Clarke only has 53,000 hits- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8

It's sad that people just ignored the chief of counter terrorism on 9/11 stating that CIA knew terrorists were in the US planning an attack and purposely withheld it from the White House in an effort to develop sources. Not to mention ignoring the involvement of Saudi Arabia.

He was responding to a retired US Senator who wrote him an e-mail. You think it's pompous to respond to him?

Sounds like great news for Glenn Greenwald. Can we see the audit trail for Team Themis and understand more about how Palantir was contracted to be paid $3.6MM for malicious datamining to attack a US journalist?

And in two sentences after your excerpt, it says it's closely related to the push for popular sovereignty. This "higher ideal" that the American and French Revolutions prided themselves on is called the Citizen. Let's not forget we were serfs living before this in a time of oppressive monarchies and a very corrupt and powerful Catholic Church.

But a US citizen's rights are not derived from the Constitution. It's clearly hypocritical to say a German has no natural right to privacy. We could declare war on Germany, then we could morally justify violating their rights.

But we can't pretend they have no such rights. And I'd contend that this does violate the US organic law, although this is a minority opinion. It depends on how you define "all men" and rationalize the fact that every human right existed before any government ever did.

So from Wikipedia, Boundless Informant uses 504 separate DNR (electronic surveillance program records) and DNI (metadata) collection sources known as SIGADs. In a 30-day period, they collected 3 billion data elements from within the US from these SIGADS.

And the PRISM document says it is the "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports". Doesn't that mean that PRISM is the majority source of those 3 billion data elements?

And why did Page, Zuckerberg and Apple say they never heard of PRISM? Perhaps I am wrong but it's somewhat confusing!

We should be doing this. The United States' organic law is based on natural rights. Defined as the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights. If the US repealed or diminished the Fourth Amendment then we'd have the Right of Revolution to alter or abolish said government based on the organic law. (Many people will disagree with this saying the US organic law has no constitutional force.)

Every human being has the natural right to privacy regardless if they are a US citizen. It's sad and ironic that the US Government claims that foreigners have no natural rights. There should be a global agreement where countries respect the innate rights of all human beings and if not, are punished.

This is the worst aspect of globalization -- the refutation of "sacred and undeniable" rights.

I never realized how powerful HBGary was. I knew they employed dirty tricks but I did not know they had so many unpublished 0-day exploits and sophisticated rootkits. I had this impression from the Colbert Report that they were inept government contractors who taunted Anonymous. Reading this article from Ars is rather terrifying- http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/black-ops-how-hbg...

For a social site, they are doing great but how could they possibly have any technology that the CIA would need?

And while I realize their personas are a joke, to me, they represent everything I dislike about music.

Also advocating amphetamine use (not much different than meth) and openly talking about delusional theories of having sex on them would somehow produce smarter kids is just insane. I know some of it's a joke but their narcissism seems authentic.

The NSA is wholesale collecting data and later using a secret court to authorize them to query their own databases [1]. PRISM is not just an interface. It is officially known as SIGAD US-984XN which means it intercepts and collects electronic communications.

[1] Bamford, Binney and the ACLU at Defcon 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqIz-RNUL1g

This is the most interesting fact. There's video cameras everywhere and he had to know that. The reasonable answer seems to be a medical issue.

There is also a black box (electronic data recorder) on that Mercedes. If something manipulated the system, you'd assume the EDR would record it.

Not to mention it'd be a terrible place to try to kill someone, with cameras everywhere. And there's a ton of disinterested parties, from Mercedes, to the LAPD to voracious friends/fans to investigate the story.

Well it is officially SIGAD US-984XN, so by its own definition it intercepts signals- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGINT_Activity_Designator

It is not just an interface. The NSA is collecting data and using secret courts. The programs are clearly unconstitutional. If they are needed and the people want them, let's pass a Constitutional amendment. That's how it's supposed to work.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment but "can't imagine" is a figure of speech. I meant I was excited for the possibility.

And the last statement was just referencing my ignorance about metal-air batteries working in oxygen-limited environments.

May I add:

"To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it is necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own advantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, imaginary services, and often worse. Hence spring Sophisms in all their varieties. Then, since Force is held in check, Sophistry is no longer only an evil; it is the genius of evil, and requires a check in its turn. This check must be the enlightenment of the public, which must be rendered more subtle than the subtle, as it is already stronger than the strong."

-- Bastiat, Sophisms of the Protectionists

Tesla's filed eight patents for metal-air batteries. Phinergy said they'll have a 1000-mile EV by 2017. Can't imagine a 30k Tesla with this technology.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/23/199248/will-future-t...

But all I can really think about are electric supersonic VTOL jets. Which might crash if you fly too high...

Some places will charge you with "addressing words to officers". The real problem is a cop can arrest you for anything and call it obstruction of justice. And then either the prosecutor will reject the case or you'll get charged and have to spend $2000+ to plead not guilty. Or pay an attorney $250 to get a plea deal of the lowest possible infraction.

There are zero repercussions for a cop falsely arresting you and no one cares about the truth or justice. Just pay to make it go away.

Some video - http://allthingsd.com/category/d11/

He's given $60 million to the the College-Ready Promise coalition in Los Angeles that serves thousands of inner-city kids and has given $1.37B to the United Negro College Fund.