Are the robbers your family members? Not a cruel world for the victim?

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.


According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

"Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities," said the NRA in a blog posting.

"This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second," warned the NRA's lobbying shop. "Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published," it added.

At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.

The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.

State's proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:

"In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the 'public domain.' Essentially, this means data 'which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public' through a variety of specified means. These include 'at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.' Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

"The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

"With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be 'clarifying' the rules concerning 'technical data' posted online or otherwise 'released' into the 'public domain.' To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible."


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-gun-blogs-videos-web-forums-threatened-by-new-obama-regulation/article/2565762


---------------------------------------------------------
0bama's internet...

Very sad situation. I fell really sorry about that dude when I read the story...

-------------------------------------------------------------
Rat burger...

This lady is not telling the truth

I was actually on this flight on Friday evening from ORD to DCA. I have been a reader of this forum for a long time but seeing this all over the news made me sign up so I could tell you what really happened here and hopefully stop this liar in her tracks. I was sitting close enough to her to hear everything that was said. The flight attendant came up to the lady (I believe she even took her order first in the entire cabin as she was seated in the bulkhead 7d) and took her order. She ordered a coke zero and a hot green tea with a Splenda. The flight attendant handed her a full diet coke with a cup on top and then told her that the green tea would take a few minutes and she would get it to her ASAP. The lady said very rudely and condescending to the FA that she ordered a coke zero and basically pushed the soda back to the flight attendant. The FA said she was sorry and attempted to find a coke zero for her (which she did not have many of) and told her that she could only give her a portion of the can not the full can. This is when the lady in question started to freak out and told the FA "What do you think I will use this as a weapon?! Why can't I have the whole can? I think you are discriminating against me. I need your name...." The lady just kept yelling to her "I need your name... I am being discriminated against." This is when a few passengers told her to calm down and one guy told her to "shut her mouth and she is being ridiculous over a can of coke". No one ever said anything anti-Muslim to her at all. She was the one who started screaming discrimination when she did not get what she wanted. The FA asked her numerous times if she would like anything else when the lady just basically pushed her away with a hand in her face. The lady then got onto her phone with her credit card and paid for the internet so she could start spinning this story on social media and she was never in tears. This person is a liar plain and simple and is just pulling the discrimination card.


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/24902619-post222.html



----------------------------------------------------
I smell a rat...

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, has written a scathing new letter to President Barack Obama pressuring him to explain why Obamatrade has been so secretive.

“On May 6th of this year, I sent you a letter (enclosed) regarding your request for Congress to grant you fast-track executive authority,” Session wrote to Obama on Friday in a letter provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release. “Under fast-track, Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers.

“These concessions include: the power to write legislation, the power to amend legislation, the power to fully consider legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote.

“The latter is especially important since, having been to the closed room to review the secret text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is clear it more closely resembles a treaty than a trade deal.

“In other words, through fast-track, Congress would be pre-clearing a political and economic union before a word of that arrangement has been made available to a single private citizen.”

The letter hones in on the new global governance, as Sessions calls it, that would be created by the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)—which would almost certainly be approved by Congress should the House of Representatives vote in favor of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to fast track TPP and other trade deals. TPA, which passed the Senate a couple weeks ago, would ensure—barring some unforeseen development—the congressional approval of TPP, and collectively the two have become known as Obamatrade.

“The letter, which received no reply, asked several fundamental questions Congress ought to have answered before even considering whether to grant the executive such broad new powers,” Sessions wrote to Obama on Friday referencing his previous letter. “Among those, I asked that you make public the section of the TPP that creates a new transnational governance structure known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. The details of this new governance commission are extremely broad and have the earmarks of a nascent European Union, with many similarities.

“Reviewing the secret text, plus the secret guidance document that accompanies it, reveals that this new transnational commission – chartered with a ‘Living Agreement’ clause – would have the authority to amend the agreement after its adoption, to add new members, and to issue regulations impacting labor, immigration, environmental, and commercial policy.

“Under this new commission, the Sultan of Brunei would have an equal vote to that of the United States.”

President Obama has ignored and rejected bipartisan calls for transparency on Obamatrade, and refuses to release to the public the text of TPP that TPA would fast-track. In fact, currently, only members of Congress—and certain cleared staffers with high enough security clearances, and those staffers can only go with a member—are allowed to go into a secret room in the U.S. Capitol to go read the text of Obamatrade’s TPP component.

“The implications of this new Pacific Union are extraordinary and ought to be discussed in full, in public, before Congress even contemplates fast-tracking its creation and pre-surrendering its power to apply the constitutional two-thirds treaty vote,” Sessions wrote to Obama. “In effect, to adopt fast-track is to agree to remove the constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures before those structures are even made public.

“I would therefore ask that you provide to me the legal and constitutional basis for keeping this information from the public and explain why I cannot share the details of what I have read with the American people. Congress should not even consider fast-tracking the transfer of sovereign power to a transnational structure before the details of that new structure are made fully available for public review.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/05/exclusive-sessions-to-obama-why-are-you-keeping-obamatrades-new-global-governance-secret/

This is a stickup — of your virtual cash!

Two armed bandits robbed a Crown Heights man of $1,100 in bitcoins on the street last week, police said.
The 28-year-old victim had arranged through a Craigslist ad to meet with a man who purportedly wanted to buy his online currency May 27, sources said.

After the pair met up at Troy Avenue and Crown Street, the supposed would-be buyer asked the victim to come to his car, a silver Honda, to seal the deal, sources said.

But once inside, a second man in the back seat pulled a gun on the victim, demanding that he transfer the bitcoins to the two men.

The creeps also stole the victim’s cell phone before fleeing.

Police said they’re looking for two men — one of whom is believed to be 19 years old — as well as a woman, whose involvement in the mugging is unclear.


http://nypost.com/2015/06/05/nyc-man-robbed-at-gunpoint-for-his-bitcoins/




----------------------------------------------------------------
Trust no one.

Imam bruce lee will say that does not prove anything... "Honor crimes" also are very common everywhere in the world. Ask any Inuk............

 
at least 0bamacare is safe and secure...
 

Pakistan: Entire Family Murdered In Latest “Honor Killing”…


Pakistani police Wednesday were looking for four men believed to have killed a couple and their four children as retribution for a perceived “honor crime.”

Police officer Mohammed Aslam said the killings happened Tuesday in the town of Athara Hazari in central Pakistan.

Aslam said the men are believed to have hacked the family to death with axes and knives. One daughter, identified by police as Aisha, survived and relayed what happened to authorities. She and the other bodies were found after a man delivering milk to the house noticed that no one was coming to the door, Aslam said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/pakistani-honor-killing_n_6300908.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000017


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888757.msg9799830#msg9799830


Was it the family's fault to be a natural ax and knife magnet?

I don't know if #gamergate is an organisation per se, more like a organism in self defense mode. To me #gamergate represents the gamers who said "enough is enough". But I get what you mean though    Somehow this FTC directive proved their "tactics" worked.

We had a perfect example of an social attack vector in a thread (I will not point to) trying to test the whole bitcoin community. Very methodical. Pushing for questions but never with any kind of feedback to advance her/his/its/they project... I was invited to participate via a private message but I realized throughout the point was never what was stated at first. Ever.


You can never compromise with a virus.

A large component of #GamerGate’s effectiveness stems from its diversity and flexibility. They’re like a swarm of bees attacking from every direction, so while any individual victory might not be a fatal blow, opposing them gets increasingly painful over time.

When Gawker whacked the beehive last fall, it ended up costing them some seven figures in ad revenue, and while some gamers were contacting the advertisers directly, other gamers were letting the Federal Trade Commission know about business practices they’d seen that they considered shady.

It appears that effort has finally paid off, as the FTC has updated its endorsement guidelines in ways that directly address the concerns raised by gamers.  The endorsement guidelines are essentially the rules governing proper disclosure in regards to product reviews and advertisements, particularly when it comes to the Internet.  Though they don’t have the direct force of law, “practices inconsistent with the Guides may result in law enforcement actions for violations of the FTC Act.”

The most prominent update noticed by the gamers that reflects their complaints involves “affiliate links”, which are essentially when somebody links to a product and gets paid a commission for visitors purchasing through that link.  For example, if I were to write a glowing review of Mary Katherine Ham and Guy Benson’s new book End of Discussion for HotAir and included a link to buy the book, I would be obligated to clearly disclose if either myself or HotAir received some sort of commission on purchases made through that link.


Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?

Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate.

Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?

Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.



They also included several passages dealing specifically with video game reviews and streaming and the like.



I’m doing a review of a videogame that hasn’t been released yet. The manufacturer is paying me to try the game and review it. I was planning on disclosing that the manufacturer gave me a “sneak peak” of the game. Isn’t that enough to put people on notice of my relationship to the manufacturer?

No, it’s not. Getting early access doesn’t mean that you got paid. Getting a “sneak peak” of the game doesn’t even mean that you get to keep the game. If you get early access, you can say that, but if you are paid, you should say so.

I guess I need to make a disclosure that I’ve gotten paid for a video review that I’m uploading to YouTube. When in the review should I make the disclosure? Is it ok if it’s at the end?

It’s more likely that a disclosure at the end of the video will be missed, especially if someone doesn’t watch the whole thing. Having it at the beginning of the review would be better. Having multiple disclosures during the video would be even better. Of course, no one should promote a link to your review that bypasses the beginning of the video and skips over the disclosure. If YouTube has been enabled to run ads during your video, a disclosure that is obscured by ads is not clear and conspicuous.

I’m getting paid to do a videogame playthrough and give commentary while I’m playing. The playthrough – which will last several hours – will be live streamed. Would a disclosure at the beginning of the stream be ok?

Since viewers can tune in any time, they could easily miss a disclosure at the beginning of the stream or at any other single point in the stream. People should see a disclosure no matter when they tune in. There could be multiple, periodic disclosures throughout the stream. To be cautious, you could have a continuous, clear and conspicuous disclosure throughout the entire stream.



Perhaps most amusingly, the FTC received so many FOIA requests concerning Gawker that they’ve added a form letter to their frequently requested records section explaining the records are exempt because they could “interfere with the conduct of the Commission’s law enforcement activities.”


So dismiss #GamerGate all you like, but they’re winning.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/04/gamergate-scores-again-ftc-updates-disclosure-guidelines/


https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

9 years old... The age of willing to do...

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets New High in May



Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.

Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was the third lowest on record but essentially the same as it was a decade ago – marginally above the levels recorded in 2004 and 2006.

NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – some 12 per cent above the long term average for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 10.79 million sq.km. May sea ice extent in Antarctica is growing at a rate of 2.9 per cent per decade, according to NSIDC data.

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was 12.65 million sq. km, some 5 per cent below the long-term average for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 13.38 million sq. km. but broadly in line with the sea ice extent reported a decade ago and just 2 per cent below the average over the period from 2005 to 2015.

Over the last ten years, the extent of Arctic sea ice in May has remained within the range 12.61 million to 13.4 million sq. km. notwithstanding the fact that the linear rate of decline in sea ice extent for May through 2015 over the satellite record is 2.3 per cent per decade and that May sea ice extent has now declined for four years in a row.



Here is the data from NSIDC for Arctic sea ice extent (measured in millions of square kilometres) for each May over the last decade:






http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-new-high-in-may.html

... And all of those facts are adding a huge weight on global warming... These humans should show how the rest of us should act to save a whale or two... I have 50 000 gallons of kool aid and and a nice private jungle for them in guyana...

Obama admits that climate change will be in Obamatrade



In a speech on the Senate floor on May 22, Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon ridiculed those who thought climate change regulation would be part of Obamatrade:

We’ve heard suggested, for example, that it’s a backdoor route to immigration reform or action on climate change…. My sense is that the rate these hypotheticals are going, you’re bound to hear that a future president working on a trade deal might have second thoughts about the Louisiana purchase.

But in an interview on NPR’s Marketplace yesterday (June 3), President Obama said that enforcing climate change regulations will indeed be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obamatrade pact that he is currently negotiating with Malaysia and 10 other countries.  He said:

If we want to solve something like climate change, which is one of my highest priorities, then I’ve got to be able to get into places like Malaysia, and say to them, this is in your interest. What leverage do I have to get them to stop deforestation? Well part of the leverage is if I’m in a trade relationship with them that allows me to raise standards.

In December, Obama will negotiate a multi-country climate agreement in Paris.  We already know from Obama’s joint announcement with China that he will commit the United States to a huge reduction in carbon emissions of 26%-28% from 2005 levels, but he will let China, already a much larger carbon emitter, continue to expand its carbon emissions until 2030.

Obama would not need to get Congress to approve the unfair climate change treaty terms that he negotiates.  Instead, he could get the Commission set up by the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to add those terms to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

After that, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Provisions, set up by that agreement, could enforce Obama’s terms through the threat of multi-billion-dollar fines upon the U.S. government.



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/obama_admits_that_climate_change_will_be_in_obamatrade.html

There's been a fair share of leaked trade deals raising hackles in recent memory, but the latest could have some big repercussions for your data privacy. WikiLeaks has slipped out details of the in-progress Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), and one of its clauses would prevent the US, European Union and 23 other nations from controlling both where your data is stored as well as whether or not it's accessible from outside of the country. Germany, for example, couldn't demand that Facebook and Google store residents' account information on local servers.

The pact might also be bad news if you're a big fan of open source programs. One article would ban countries from requiring access to the code of "mass-market" software in order to provide services related to that software. A TISA partner could still use Linux, OpenOffice and other software with easy-to-dissect code, but it couldn't require that kind of software.

Negotiations for TISA are happening behind closed doors, and it's not clear whether or not these measures would make the final cut. However, they're definitely problematic. The restrictions on exports would prevent Russia-like control over data that makes it easier to censor and snoop on your communications, but they'd also make it hard to stop your info from traveling overseas. Likewise, while the open source clause would allow for more flexibility in software, it also risks weakening security by making it harder to check for spy agency back doors. As a whole, the agreement's tech-related elements favor businesses over privacy rights and transparency.



http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/03/tisa-limits-data-exports-and-open-source/


-------------------------------------------------------
Pushing for closed source software... I wonder why...

Unless they can scan multiple billions of billions of star systems in full 3D (up, down etc) there will be very little chances they will know were we'll be located exactly just with this flag. Also keeping pluto on the flag as a planet is a good assurance to mess up with their google cosmo-map system, just in case...

 

You are all for a secret contract made by people who do not respect you as a person because you'll get one new client for your book in france and another one in dubai? "Screw national sovereignty" you say. OK. So your book is a big success in dubai because it is critical of how they abuse their migrant workers. Now dubai is not happy about that and wants you to travel to their court and face their justice system. Because of some secret deal made in that secret contract the US and dubai sovereignty are now equal. The concept of an extradition is no more as we all are living in a village... Would you still call for help?

The thing is we do not know what they are putting in this "contract". No one can be sad or happy yet. Although wouldn't it be more prudent to be skeptical of people who deal in secret; deals that will change your individual sovereignty forever?