I understand fireworks on the 4th of July. I understand fireworks on New Year’s Eve. I don’t understand fireworks on Christmas Eve.
Especially around midnight.
This isn’t Jesus’ Independence Day, people! The three wise men didnt bring gifts of Glock, H&K and Sig. There’s no “fweeeeee….. POOOM” in “Silent Night”.
Keep the small explosives locked up until the 30th. Try that “peace on earth” thing just for today.
A sincere Merry Christmas to all from the Christmas fireworks Grinch.
CISA was just signed into law on the same day the new Star Wars movie came out.
CISA was attached to the Omnibus “keep the lights on” spending bill, flew through congress and was signed by the president. Few people knew about it, and even fewer people said anything online as it was happening.
Meanwhile, the Star Wars movie has hundreds of thousands of people rage posting on social websites in a relentless and concentrated attempt to block “spoilers” from getting out.
And, once again, to everyone mad at Obama for sneaking CISA into the Omnibus bill, you do realize this was done by a Republican controlled congress, right? Both congress and/or Obama could have raised hell about CISA in the Omnibus bill and the gross loss of our online privacy. Neither did.
Welcome to the new world of no online privacy and warrant-less searches. Enjoy the movie.
To everyone who still says 9/11 was an inside job since “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”, please watch this little 2 minute video.
Steel strength can be compromised at temperatures FAR below its’ melting point.
To put it in “kitchen” terms, grab a big handful of spaghetti. Tie the bunch together with a little string, and stand them straight up on their end. Now put a salt shaker on top. It holds the weight!
Now put that handful of spaghetti in a pot of boiling water for just three minutes. Take them out and try the same thing again.
Water can’t melt pasta. The spaghetti isn’t melted, but its’ strength has been significantly compromised and the salt shaker will not hold anymore.
So, to sum up….
EDIT: There’s also this video from National Geographic. Jump to 3:48 for the short version.
To everyone saying the solution is to ban or turn away all Syrian refugees, let me ask you a few questions…
Let the fireballs commence!
We need you to wait in the elements overnight and get into physical altercations with borderline psychotics to feed the homeless.
YOU’RE CRAZY! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO DO THAT?
We need you to wait in the elements overnight and get into physical altercations with borderline psychotics to save $20 on a TV.
HOT DAMN! CAN I DO THAT EVERY YEAR? SIGN ME UP!
Don’t eat at Jack In The Box. Ever.
This is their grilled chicken salad from the McAllen 1601 S 23rd St location. Two slices of old rubber chicken, slime under the slices on the salad, and muck on the lid where it touched the chicken.
Just a personal happening I wanted to share.
Today while visiting my 6 year old niece, I asked her what toy she wanted her Tio to bring her today – a Barbie or a lightsaber.
Without hesitation, she said “Barbie!”
Without hesitating myself, I pulled both out from my bag of goodies. A Halloween Barbie and a Star Wars SFX lightsaber.
She’s been a green blade swinging Jedi for hours. Excuse me. Let me add some completely unnecessary exaggeration for effect… hoooourrrssss!
She challenged her older brother to multiple lightsaber duels, expertly bounced a deadly purple balloon high through the air, explored pitch dark rooms by humming green light, and even managed a half cartwheel with the lightsaber in full twirl.
Barbie who?
Give the little baby girls in your life the best of both worlds, ya’ll. It’s absolutely glorious.
On Tuesday October 6, one of the biggest mind-shifts in online data and technology this decade finally came to pass via an EU court ruling. This ruling will have serious repercussions for both US consumers and all US intelligence agencies, and nobody over here has said peep about it.
The headline says it all… “EU ruling means Facebook and Google can’t send data to the US”
HA!! This is wonderful! This is titanic! This is… well, kinda hard to explain.
OK, supposing you move into a new neighborhood. Walking in the door, you meet a fellow named “Bo” who lives across the street in a funny looking house.
For the most part, Bo seems friendly. He mentions he has a cousin in another far away city named “Luke” who also sounds just as friendly.
A few months into living in the city, Bo makes a copy of your house key and takes it to Luke.
Luke uses the key to open your front door to your home and takes your TV.
Luke gives your TV to Bo.
When you confront Luke, he says since he lives in another city the local laws in your town do not apply to him and he wasn’t breaking any laws in his town. Luke also says Bo gave him the key directly and said he could do whatever he wanted with whatever he found inside. Luke insists he has no idea what he was doing was wrong. You need to take it up with Bo.
When you confront Bo, he says he didn’t steal your TV and never touched your TV. Bo says he had no idea Luke was going to do what he did, and is shocked you have the nerve to accuse your neighbor of such a terrible thing. You need to take it up with Luke.
Ridiculous, right? A cheap shell game from two obvious criminals no police officer, DA or judge would let fly.
Here’s the catch – the part of Bo and Luke are being played by the US government and certain governments in the EU. They were (NOTE: probably still are) doing the exact same thing with our data.
The US gave access to overseas intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on our conversations and bypass encryptions, and then the overseas intelligence agencies told the US agencies what information they found.
Technically the US didn’t steal the information or eavesdrop on our conversations. Technically the overseas intelligence agencies didn’t break any of their own laws in the process.
Finally, with this EU court ruling, part of this “technically” foolishness was brought to a screeching stop.
This epic win for privacy and the upholding of constitutional law is all thanks to Austrian lawyer Max Schrems, who brought the lawsuit “against Facebook in 2013 for participation in US mass surveillance.”
I’m going to have to add Max Schrems to my Christmas card list. Like, forever.
Now, companies’ (and probably certain governments’) “ability to pool data from both sides of the Atlantic for analysis will be affected”.
Will this ruling actually change anything?
Maybe.
The last two paragraphs in the article are the best…
“The ruling basically says US surveillance cannot be allowed to override our fundamental rights, but US law says surveillance must override fundamental rights… The EU court is largely saying that indiscriminate gathering of data is enough to interfere with fundamental rights, and therefore you shouldn’t be able to do it.”
“US companies that obviously aided US mass surveillance may face serious legal consequences from this ruling when data protection authorities of 28 member states review their cooperation with US spy agencies”.
I’ve learned one thing well. Evil people may have an abundance of allies, money and power, but the one thing they never have is the truth.
Truth is everything. It is the best and only weapon to have. It cannot be destroyed. Only hidden.
To find it, to go through the fire and darkness, you must have the focus of a monk. The strength of a prizefighter. The faith of the innocent.
Fight. Endure. Believe.
You. Will. Prevail.
I have a serious question about police body cameras.
Supposing a police officer with a body camera apprehends a suspect.
In the process, the suspect says something very incriminating about the issue at hand.
The suspect had not been mirandized yet. (The whole “you have the right to remain silent” bit.)
Does the admission on the police officer’s body camera count?
On a traffic stop, the courts have found the stop to be a variation of an arrest and detention, so anything said or caught on the police officer’s vehicle camera during a traffic stop is admissible as evidence. However, in the “normal” performance of their duties, a police officer only arrests and detains an individual upon the announcement of such, which is always followed by a miranda warning to that suspect.
Speaking to a police officer with a body camera, about anything, is a whole new paradigm.
Assuming the admission of anything in the proximity of a police officer with a body camera WILL count as admissible evidence, is the very notion of a police officer present with a body camera mandate a “standing/universal” miranda warning? Or will the concept of a miranda warning need to be re-examined and re-evaluated?
Thoughts for the near future, folks.
