Cruel Wife ordered this for me when I saw it on eBay.
Because the interwebs are just full of information it’s pointless to ask if you can tell me what it is, but the question is really is “Did you recognize it when you saw it?”
And no, I’m not asking if you recognize the Cheshire Cat…
Thanks to veeshir’s post – not that I read his blog, because we’re boycotting each other’s sites in a seriously hurtin’ way – I was told indirectly by this friend who knows this guy who has a barber who knows this guy’s girlfriend whose hairdresser knows this guy who knows this guy who knows this guy’s sister’s poodle’s hairdresser’s boyfriend who stumbled upon doubleplusundead, and so that is how I have this link.
So I followed links and drilled down to to http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/robert-farago/gun-grabbers-to-boycott-starbucks/ and found this useless idiot:
“Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence,” says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. “Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S. If we had England’s gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England’s gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry.”
Seriously? It’s the open conceal and carry laws that lead to so many homicides? Really? And here I thought it was because of a bunch of lawless punks and felons. Who knew that the vast majority of CCW holders are not the responsible adults we thought they were?
Starbuck’s coffee generally tastes to me as if they took a very old and dry worn-out boot, roasted the hell out of it until it was all burnt and crumbly, crushed it into powder, and then ran hot water through it until it gave up the remains of the ghost. I don’t usually get their coffee unless I’m dying for a caffeine fix. But by God, I’ll drink their crappy coffee even if only to show that I support their support of our rights. Attaboy ‘Bucks.
Before anyone points out that they support Planned Parenthood, I already know it. One thing at a time – give credit where it is due.
So here’s a question for you: If the judge orders that the government cannot use the information on your computer against you, why would he order that you decrypt the hard drive so everyone can see what is on it?
Am I missing something here?
The defendant, Ramona Fricosu, had unsuccessfully argued that being forced to do so would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination, Wired reports.
“I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,” Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Monday.
Blackburn ordered Fricosu to surrender an unencrypted hard drive by Feb. 21. The judge added that the government is precluded “from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted hard drive against her in any prosecution,” Wired reports.Is “act of production” the key set of words here? It reads like the government cannot use her production of the information as a confession but they can use whatever they found there as if it were turned up in an investigation. Are we splitting legal hairs?