The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
but I started a new hobby back at the end of February, the money pit called astrophotography!
I see why you call it a money pit - those are some heavy equipment you got to use.
It would be good to gauge if I have interest through your videos. Will share if find anyone with similar interest of yours. Though in India, for such activities, all I have seen is some big telescope (and no heavy gadgets around.)
I've always had a massive interest in astrophotography, but never had the time nor money.
The Canberra winter sky's were brilliant for star gazing when I lived there, they were cold and crisp. I now live south of Brisbane, which has a lot more heat shimmering and light pollution, but there are still some really good nights.
I'm looking forward to going through your videos, it's given me a nice reminder of what I'm working towards.
With so much current press coverage on the Presidential primaries,
a professor of an American Government Course at Florida State University was discussing the qualifications to become a U.S. President:
Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, shall be eligible to the office of President;
neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years,
and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Almost immediately, one girl in the class threw up her hand with a very disturbed look on her face.
The professor called on her and she stood up and rambled on and on about how unfair this requirement is to be a natural born citizen.
In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
All eyes were on her as she got more an more passionate about this subject.
The class was taking it in and patiently letting her rant, until she wrapped up her argument by stating,
“What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?”
I was reading about the alleged E-mails from Hunter Biden that some evidently "random" computer technician "found" while fixing Biden's computer. Is there any way for an investigator to be able to definitely say that these E-mails/files weren't surreptitiously planted?
Just writing code for a FAT32 file system. Pretty low level stuff. With this I could easily plant some files on a suitable drive, including fake dates and a trail of file updates and some now unused clusters that still contain fragments of older versions.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
I feel another non sanctioned political thread brewing here in these backwoods.
No, it wasn't meant to be political per so, but the motivation for asking the question is to determine the veracity of a claim in the political sphere. And it just so happens that I have always suspected that it is very easy for a rogue investigator to plant something on someone's drive.
All very interesting however, when did evidence, proof or even "the truth" ever matter when money, power, influence and politics were involved?
I reckon this story might well fade into obscurity pretty quickly.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Yes, but that does not add them to the actual email server, which is where the audit trail is kept.
So you saying that the only way to prove this one way or another is to do this audit. Of course in the instance that motivated my question, since even if the allegation were true, it wouldn't be a crime, and thus there would be no compelling to do the audit.
You have to remember there is no "smoking gun" in real law, cases are built on an amalgamation of pieces of evidence until they gain enough strength to be considered true, even if some of those pieces are circumstantial or otherwise weak.
For example we have the case that Hunter is innocent, in which case all we have to believe is true is that he was hired for millions by a foreign company in which he doesn't speak the language and has no knowledge of the sector, and that Russian agents injected fake emails onto a hard drive and sent them to a computer shop where more foreign agents "discovered" these emails and used them as a weapon.
We have another case where the emails are simply real and Hunter was employed so that company could gain access to his father, access that proved incredibly useful.
Looking at it like that, the former is far more likely so Hunter must be innocent. Even Washington Post says so.
Yet another reason why it is a pity that SMIME has not become a standard. If everybody signed their emails with a PKI-based certificated, the autheticity of the email could have been asserted regardless of origin or transport paths.
That is why the first thing forensic investigators do is make a bit-for-bit image of the device. They then work only on the image, so any tampering is easily discoverable. This is elementary "preservation of evidence" procedure.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 26-Sep-21 2:22