SoylentNews

I would be writing Mac OS X security software. That is, if I get the job.

A recruiter contacted me on LinkedIn quite a long time ago. I don't check LinkedIn very much at all. I apologized for my late response then asked her to email me. She and I spoke on the phone a few days ago, then I emailed her my resume this morning.

The manager responded just one hour after she submitted me. She said he was very enthusiastic.

She called to ask when I could interview on-site. I said "anytime". She must now ask the manager when he wants to see me, but she expects it will be late next week.

Happily I just bought a new dress shirt at Nordstrom Rack. It looks really sharp with a tie. I'm going to wear blue jeans with the dress shirt and tie; I used to have a suit, a really nice one that I enjoyed wearing, but I donated it to a thrift store because I got the impression that no one believed I was really a coder.

Real coders don't wear suits, see.

My shoes are thrashed. I'm hoping saddle soap and shoe polish will make it less apparent that I live in poverty.

My new apartment is working out well. Happily it is close to the best bus line in Vancouver. I can stay out late in Portland, then get home at one in the morning.

I've developed a problem with sleeping excessively. I'll be up for one day, sleep round the clock the next day, up for one day then round the clock again. In part it's because I have no commitments of any sort, in part it's because the bus doesn't run during the early morning.

If I go out after waking up, I have no problem staying awake, but if the bus isn't running there's no where to go. Eventually I go back to bed.

A friend is going to lend me a bicycle. That would enable me to go to a 24-hour restaurant if I wake up early in the morning.

I don't know yet but the kind of work I'd be doing, I expect they'd be cool with me working at night. It's uncommon that employers object to that, but sometimes they do.

I have grown weary of eating rice and beans.

This is a story that can only be found on NextBigFuture and wire services:

Super controversial Brilliant light Power aka blacklight power claims to be generating bursts of megawatt power and claim independent validation

Wikipedia article.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
To Our Beloved Users,

The Russian Government has passed a new law that mandates that every provider must log all Russian internet traffic for up to a year. We believe that due to the enforcement regime surrounding this new law, some of our Russian Servers (RU) were recently seized by Russian Authorities, without notice or any type of due process. We think it’s because we are the most outspoken and only verified no-log VPN provider.

Luckily, since we do not log any traffic or session data, period, no data has been compromised. Our users are, and will always be, private and secure.

Upon learning of the above, we immediately discontinued our Russian gateways and will no longer be doing business in the region.

To make it clear, the privacy and security of our users is our number one priority. For preventative reasons, we are rotating all of our certificates. Furthermore, we’re updating our client applications with improved security measures to mitigate circumstances like this in the future, on top of what is already in place. In addition, our manual configurations now support the strongest new encryption algorithms including AES-256, SHA-256, and RSA-4096.

All Private Internet Access users must update their desktop clients at https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/client-support/ and our Android App at Google Play. Manual openvpn configurations users must also download the new config files from the client download page.

We have decided not to do business within the Russian territory. We’re going to be further evaluating other countries and their policies.

In any event, we are aware that there may be times that notice and due process are forgone. However, we do not log and are default secure against seizure.

If you have any questions, please contact us at helpdesk@privateinternetaccess.com.

Thank you for your continued support and helping us fight the good fight.

Sincerely,
Private Internet Access Team

So, I went into the bathroom for something. I look into a corner, where a bath towel has been dropped. Peeking out from under the towel, I can see three pairs of sandals, two pairs of sneakers, and a lonely leather flat shoe without a mate. I peer around the corner into the walk-in closet, and there are piles of shoes. Shoes on the shelf, shoes on the floor, shoes peering out from under other items dropped on the floor. The wife comes in, I ask her, "Are you related to Imelda Marcos?" She laughs, "NO! Why?" I ask, "How many shoes do you own? More than a thousand?" "NO! I don't know how many shoes I have."

I just shake my head, close my mouth, and wonder about women.

Guys like me have two or three pairs of shoes. I actually own a pair of slippers. Seldom wear them, but someone bought them for me for Christmas, and they lay around the house collecting dust. There is a pair of sneakers laying somewhere around the house. I have a pair of dress shoes - nice, shiny brown leather shoes, with laces. They are here for weddings, funerals, or whatever. I have one pair of Wolverine half-Wellingtons, with composite toes, steel shank, arch support - protective foot gear that I wear all the time. They are about three years old now - maybe a little more.

Just what is it about shoes, that make people - mostly women - want to collect them?

Do people actually LOOK AT shoes when they are being worn? I never look at mine. I just wear them. I don't look at any other people's shoes. Well - maybe. If I see an attractive female, my eyes may travel over her, admiring her legs and calves, and just maybe, I will notice her shoes.

Most likely, when I notice someone's shoes, I am noticing how silly they look, or how "out of place", or even how ugly they are. A lot of people at work wear huge-looking sneakers, that appear to be three times the size of their foot. Big, puffy things, often made of white canvas or plastic or whatever. Huh? People working in an industrial setting wearing WHITE shoes?

Oh, please, gimme boots. One pair of comfortable boots, that support and protect the feet. They need to breathe, so I want natural materials, like leather. No plastics, thank you very much, except the soles. I want non-skid and heat resistant soles. (Yeah, I bought a new pair of boots years ago, came to work, and stepped on a bit of slag from a welder. POOF! I instantly had a nice round hole melted through the sole, and a blister on the bottom of my foot.)

There's something psychological here. Why DO people collect more shoes than they can ever wear? I think it's gender linked for the most part. Lotsa guys only have one, two, three pairs of foot gear. Few women seem to have less than a couple dozen pair.

I did mention Marcos, earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imelda_Marcos

"After she left Malacañang Palace, she was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 1,000 handbags, and pairs of shoes.[63] The exact number of her shoes varies with estimates of up to 7,500 pairs.[64] However, Time reported that the final tally was only 1,060."

http://www.vice.com/read/oakland-underage-sex-work-scandal

Not so long ago it was possible to point to Oakland as a police reform success story. In the last decade, the cops have gone from conducting an average of 3,000 searches without probable cause every year to 280 in 2015. Officers are now required to wear body cameras. After decades of abuse, violence, and corruption, the police department seemed to finally be changing.

In the last few weeks, though, a scandal has emerged that threatens to tear the department apart. In brief, 14 Oakland police officers are currently under investigation for sleeping with an 18-year-old sex worker—three of them when she was 17, thus allegedly committing rape and sex trafficking under California law. The woman, using the alias Celeste Guap, told the East Bay Express earlier this month that she was having sex with the cops for money and protection; she had been given a friend's arrest history and information about undercover prostitution stings.

Hints of the scandal surfaced last year, after a suicide note written one of the officers involved, Brendan O'Brien, mentioned Guap, prompting an investigation. But the higher-ups allegedly dragged their feet, and the supposed cover-up has only widened the sordid scandal has since expanded. (According to Guap's later comments to the media, she's actually had sex with "more than 30 officers" from multiple agencies around the Bay Area.)

The shocking and salacious events were the catalyst to Oakland appointing four police chiefs in two weeks. Initially, Sean Whent, who was promoted to top cop at the end of a similarly messy 2013 shuffle that saw three new police chiefs in three days, got canned because he allegedly knew about Guap sleeping with Oakland cops but didn't press for a speedy and public investigation.

To make matters worse for Hillary, it recently emerged that at least one of the emails she handed over to investigators under subpoena in fact did contain classified information that was marked as such. The April 2012 email chain discusses an impending phone call with Malawi’s new president. The important part is an email from Monica Hanley, an aide, to Clinton, including the “call sheet” for the secretary. In layman’s terms, this was a note for Secretary Clinton telling her what she needed to discuss during her scheduled phone conversation with a foreign head of state.

We don’t know what that was, however, since most of that email has been redacted as classified at the Confidential level, the lowest classification level in the U.S. Government. The smoking gun here is that the call sheet begins with the line: “(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing pf President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.”

Everything after that has been redacted. But that “(C)” is what is termed a “portion marking,” a tip-off to the reader that the paragraph following is classified. (For how this all works in practice, see this explainer.) In other words, Hanley knew she was sending classified information in an unclassified email to Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, an unambiguous violation of Federal law.

and

Last week the Associated Press broke a big story about how Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included the true names of CIA personnel serving overseas under cover. This was hardly news, in fact I broke the same story four months ago in this column. However, the AP account adds detail to what Clinton and her staff did, actions that placed the lives of CIA clandestine personnel at risk. It also may be a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a 1982 law that featured prominently in the mid-aughts scandal surrounding CIA officer Valerie Plame, which so captivated the mainstream media. More recently, former CIA officer John Kiriakou spent two years in Federal prison for violating this law.

To make matters worse for Team Clinton, last week it emerged that several of the classified emails under investigation involved discussions of impending CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. Clinton aides were careful to avoid hot-button words like “CIA” and “drone” in these “unclassified” emails, engaging in a practice that spies term “talking around” an issue.

However, the salient fact is that the CIA—which has the say here—considers this information to be Top Secret, as well as enormously sensitive. It had no business being in anybody’s unclassified emails. As the secretary of state, Ms. Clinton and her top staff had access to classified communications systems 24 hours a day. They chose not to use them here—a choice that clearly violated Federal law. Moreover, this new report demonstrates that a previous Clintonian EmailGate talking point, that discussions of drones in emails were no more than pasting press pieces, and therefore innocuous, was yet another bald-faced lie.

You can read the original article to view embedded links in the quotes above.

It makes little sense, except perhaps to further some false flag operation, to continue to make the argument that Clinton didn't break serious laws here.

A funny article I found on NBF:

Do not "blame" life extension for Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, If Murdoch died Fox would still be right wing

Which is a response to: Bonus Level: The World's Most Powerful Humans are Getting Another 10-15 Years on Earth

A common argument against life extension is that it would allow the elites to live indefinitely, accruing more power, wealth, and influence for themselves. To that I say: If you're so worried about it, stop waiting for them to die, and start killing them.

Alabama ACLU and Newspaper Criticize Police for Arresting Citizen Journalist by Bama Camera

The Alabama police department that had a man arrested on a felony charge of jamming up their emergency lines – even though he did not make a single call – is now taking heat from the local ACLU as well as the local newspaper.

But the Wetumpka Police Department is still sticking to its guns, threatening to arrest anybody else who posts their non-emergency phone number of (334) 567-5321.

They claim that by calling that number, it somehow leads turns into a 911 call, which they claim makes it difficult to respond to actual emergencies.

But all they were doing were exercising their First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances by complaining about how officers ripped a camera out of Keith Golden’s hands for recording the police department from public property.

First Amendment Audit (Wetumpka PD) "I don't care about your 1st Amendment Rights"

Arrest Update by Bama Camera
**UPDATE**FPS-USMS-BAM CAMERA by News Now Houston

On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”

Or some CYA discussions by the firm which ended up handling backups of the server at the end before it was seized:

In the letter, Johnson quotes from emails sent by and to employees at Platte River Networks, which indicate there was discussion about how the duration of data backups could be reduced, apparently at the direction of the Clinton Executive Service Corp.

Then this past August, a Platte River Networks employee wrote to a coworker that he was, “Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) s**t.”

“I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and that we can go public with our statement saying we have backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30days (sic), it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better,” the unnamed employee continued.

And now the various responsible parties are coordinating their defense:

Four central figures in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices are all using the same lawyer, a move described as a “red flag” by a former U.S. attorney who now runs a government watchdog group.

Lawyer Beth Wilkinson is representing: Clinton former chief of staff Cheryl Mills; policy adviser Jake Sullivan; media gatekeeper Philippe Reines; and former aide Heather Samuelson, who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to the State Department.

“I think it would be a real red flag,” Matthew Whitaker, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, or FACT, told Fox News, in reference to the legal defense. He suggested having a single lawyer would help the four Clinton aides align their stories for FBI interviews.

It continues to amaze me how Clinton supporters can continue to ignore rather brazen signs of corruption and criminal activity.

My favorite radio talk show hosts pointed out some facts this morning. Republican voter turnout reached historical numbers this year. More Republicans voted in the primaries than ever before.

Kinda cool - but more noteworthy than that is, Trump has recieved more votes that any other potential nominee, ever.

Bear in mind that the season opened with 17 potential nominees. Early voting was split 17 ways. Not split equitably, of course, but split. The least favored nominee may have only won 10 votes in the first primary, but those were 10 votes Trump DID NOT get. So, with a 17 way split, Trump has defeated not only the 17 contemporary candidates, but EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE IN HISTORY! Wow.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/republican-party-sets-primary-turnout-record-28-million-votes-5-states-left/
Trump has received more than 11 million votes to date in the state elections according to www.thegreenpapers.com. This is 42% of all Republican votes received to date.

The Republican Party has set a party record this year in pre-convention state election turnout with over 28 million votes to date which is 136% of the record high voter turnout in 2008. That’s four million more votes than the Democratic primary race this year.

So - with Republicans voting in record numbers, and clearly stating which of the available candidates they are willing to accept - what about that other party?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/26/exclusive-data-analysis-democrat-turnout-collapses-4-5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/
Democrat Turnout Collapses Down More Than 4.5 Million, Nearly 20 Percent In 2016 Versus 2008

Wow. Even with Sanders' almost rabid following, the Democrats couldn't be bothered to turn out to vote. All this time, I thought Sanders was doing a helluva job, getting people out to challenge the DNC's annointed one. But, even with all of that, the Democrats are staying at home in droves.

We have witnessed not one, but two, political revolutions this year. The R's were adamantly opposed to the Trump - but voters over rode the party. The D's were just as adamantly in support of Hillary, the voters very nearly over rode the party, but the D's played two trump cards. Wasserman Schultz is Hillarys BFF, and that BFF has in turn played the super-delegate card. The voters were beaten in the Democratic revolt.

So, the question is, what might all of this mean in November?

Despite a significant number of sour-grapes holdouts who won't endorse Trump - I expect Republicans to turn out again in record numbers, and to mostly vote for Trump.

I expect Democrats to stay home again, in droves. Some disaffected Democrats will vote for Trump, to spite Hillary and Wasserman Schultz.

The swing vote - of which I am a member - is probably going to swing toward Trump. Not all, but a deciding number will go that way.

And, incidentally, a lot of the swing vote is going to vote for Johnson. I've talked to a number of people who are talking about it, anyway. Last evening, a guy told me, "I can't stand either of the choices, so I'll probably "waste" my vote on Johnson." We discussed that "waste". He audibly put that word in quotes to start with. I counseled that "Well, if the Libertarians get that magic percentage of the vote, they'll get federal campaign funds. So, a Libertarian vote IS NOT "wasted"!"

Rumors, grumbling, bitching, complaining - the "outsiders", the "swing vote", the "Independents" aren't happy with the current state of affairs. They are more unhappy with the Democrats, but they are also unhappy with the Republicans.

At this point in time, I think I expect Trump to win, and Johnson to capture enough votes to win federal funding. And, the Democrats are going to be big losers this year.

Of course, it's not to late for the Republicans to go full retard, and hand the election back to the Democrats. Trump is a wild card, after all. He COULD run off at the mouth, and alienate EVERYONE. The Republican Party could go just as crazy. But, I don't really expect that. All the stuffed shirts in the party are going to suck it up, and get behind Trump, or at least, STFU and sit down, so that Hillary doesn't win.

President Donald Trump. What a weird sumbitch - but still a better choice than what the Democrats are offering.