Torgo

you will find the exact same pages as included in the finders fbi file. Even if you choose to believe the report, this demonstrates that it didn't actually have anything to do with the finders and in any case was not done for, or by, the fbi or police. it was (presumably) included in the file because it had similar claims to ones made against the finders.

I have read the entire finders fbi file. Repeatedly there are the fbi and police fielding claims that the finders were satanists, or that they were sexually abusing the children, but in every case they document they found no actual evidence of this.

the claim of an fbi cover-up was documented in the fbi file (that would be weird if you think about it) but this claim was made by a single junior member of the manhattan beach police, and is never repeated or corroborated anywhere.

the claim that the finders were tied up in the intelligence community seems to be based on uncorroborated claims as well. nothing in the document or linked resources supports it.

I hope you find this helpful, I had multiple of my friends bring up this fbi release as "proof" that SRA was real all along but after reading every page of the file I just don't think there's anything compelling in there.

Comment · 6 years ago

I don't know how to fulfill this that makes every auditor happy, but so far what we're doing is, we have a restricted-access role on the db that denies access to certain sensitive tables, create a time-restricted temporary user for the developer, and then give them access to the read-replica.

Comment · 7 years ago

Every single overpriced Mac Pro I've seen sitting on a desk was bought with other people's money.

Comment · 7 years ago

You're arguing that everything can be subject to exploration via scientific method, and he's arguing that some people reject this anyway. Here is a quote about an ideological split that happened in the anthropology community:

>The divide is trenchantly summarized by Lawson and McCauley (1993) who divide between ‘interpretivists’ and ‘scientists,’ or, as noted above, ‘positivists’ and ‘naturalists.’ For the scientists, the views of the ‘cultural anthropologists’ (as they call themselves) are too speculative, especially because pure ethnographic research is subjective, and are meaningless where they cannot be reduced to science. For the interpretivists, the ‘evolutionary anthropologists’ are too ‘reductionistic’ and ‘mechanistic,’ they do not appreciate the benefits of subjective approach (such as garnering information that could not otherwise be garnered), and they ignore questions of ‘meaning,’ as they suffer from ‘physics envy.’

cite: https://www.iep.utm.edu/anthropo/#SH4b

Comment · 7 years ago

Not necessary. Science advances when entrenched proponents of the old theory die out.

Comment · 7 years ago

As a contractor I used to construct special websites for both universities and government agencies. I would bring up in meetings "this site is required by law to be accessible" and invariably I was told "accessibility's not in the list of requirements". So in my opinion, they've had this coming for a long time.

Comment · 7 years ago

I inherited a production system with a PostgreSQL 8.1 database. It's one of the most reliable systems I have.

Comment · 7 years ago

The type of banana you get at the grocery store now is called Cavendish. When the slip on banana peel meme was invented, the common banana was the Gros Michel, which has a more slippery skin.

Comment · 7 years ago

What I learned was, "be yourself" is terrible advice if "yourself" is the kind of person who writes for Gawker.

Comment · 7 years ago

The entire movie/captioning analogy is off. Language spoken in movies isn't meant to be adversarial but gameplay is. It's just not an accessibility issue. I hate this argument because it feels manipulative. If it's about accessibility and if you still say no, you're a monster.