Posts by Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan

1) Message boards : The Lounge : The Seti is Down Cafe (Message 84432)
Posted 18 Jan 2018 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Hello Jord, I hope you and Holly are felling better.
Best Wishes
byron
2) Message boards : The Lounge : These are no longer with us, may they have peace. (Message 84396)
Posted 15 Jan 2018 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
RIP

:-(
3) Message boards : News : Client version 7.8.6 released for Mac (Message 84388)
Posted 15 Jan 2018 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Thank you David.
4) Message boards : The Lounge : These are no longer with us, may they have peace. (Message 84387)
Posted 15 Jan 2018 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
RIP
5) Message boards : The Lounge : Science and Technology in the News (Message 84343)
Posted 11 Jan 2018 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Meltdown and Spectre Expose the Dark Side of Superfast Computers.
As CES gets into full swing in Las Vegas,
one of the researchers responsible for part of last week’s security bombshell weighs in on the possible consequences

Scientific American

www.Scientific American.com/

By Larry Greenemeier on 9 January , 2018

quote

Hundreds of gadget makers and software companies at this week’s annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas are staking the success of their newest products on the latest and greatest processors from Intel, AMD, ARM and others. But those bets are looking shaky, even by Sin City’s standards, after last week’s bombshell that many of those processors are plagued by serious security vulnerabilities known as Meltdown and Spectre.

Processors lend a degree of intelligence to just about any electronic device—including the thousands of automobiles, home appliances and gaming systems displayed at the exhibition. It is now clear that the insatiable need for faster processors has had a dark side, as chipmakers cut corners on security, exposing potentially billions of personal computers, mobile devices and other electronics to a new crop of digital attacks for years to come.

Every computer relies on a piece of software known as a kernel to, among other things, manage the interactions between end-user applications—spreadsheets, Web browsers, etcetera—and the underlying central processing unit and memory. The kernel starts and stops the other programs, enforces security settings and restricts access to a device’s memory and data resources. Not surprisingly, the kernel’s speed determines how fast the computer performs as a whole. Chipmakers protect the kernel by isolating it from other programs running on the computer, unless those programs are given specific permission—or “privilege”—to access the kernel.

/quote

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Larry Greenemeier is the associate editor of technology for Scientific American, covering a variety of tech-related topics, including biotech, computers, military tech, nanotech and robots.
Credit: Nick Higgins
Recent Articles
Net Neutrality Loss Could Rekindle ISP Alternatives for Internet Access
How NASA's Search for ET Relies on Advanced AI
New Net Neutrality Bill Has Glaring Loopholes
6) Message boards : The Lounge : five extra words that could fix the Second Amendment By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010 (Message 81845)
Posted 6 Oct 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
I would just like to repeat the words and thoughts of:

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.

Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents.

Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce.

It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used.

Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that:

“a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes,

and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.

Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities.

During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense.

And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens.

I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise.

Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.
In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty

Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling.

Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”

“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”

In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School,

some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.

First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion,

the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.

Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or

use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.

A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected.

The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice.

Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.

Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment.

What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.

There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself.

Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament.

And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.

In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense.

But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state.

The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations

of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.

Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington,

may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

so amended, the Second Amendment would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

as opposed to:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

--- By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010.


Washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.15b2d53b8705
7) Message boards : The Lounge : five extra words that could fix the Second Amendment By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010 (Message 81816)
Posted 5 Oct 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
is there any thing to stop a Congressman, or Senator from introducing such an Amendment, which of course would fail?

Yep they are called the NRA and the weapons industry.

yes, good point.

So the five extra words that might fix the Second Amendment ... when serving in the Militia

so amended, the Second Amendment suggested by --- By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

as opposed to:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

---Washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.15b2d53b8705


I am guessing that because America seems soo divided right now ... that pigs will fly before this Proposal to Amendment the Second Amendment -(by John Paul Stevens)- will ever be considered.

2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate voting affirmatively to Amend the Second Amendment Then 3/4 of The States must ratify a Proposed Amendment to the Second Amendment.

and because of the NRA and the weapons industry.
8) Message boards : The Lounge : five extra words that could fix the Second Amendment By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010 (Message 81807)
Posted 4 Oct 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Mods, I hope it's ok, I would like to start a new thread for this political topic.

As a Canadian I have always wanted to post the following for a long time.
Because Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy,
I am fascinated by the system of government in the United States of America.
I know it only affects our American friends, but I would like to get our American friends ... and everyone's ... criticism, comments and opinions.
The five extra words that could fix the Second Amendment By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010.
I had to copy and paste because I couldn't seem to make a clickable Link work :(
The following is an interesting read (about the Second Amendment) By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010.

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.

Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents.

Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce.

It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used.

Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that:

“a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes,

and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.

Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities.

During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense.

And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens.

I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise.

Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.
In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty

Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling.

Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”

“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”

In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School,

some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.

First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion,

the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.

Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or

use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.

A second virtue of the opinion in Heller is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected.

The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice.

Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.

Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment.

What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88 firearm-related deaths that occur every day.

There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself.

Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament.

And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia.

In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense.

But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state.

The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations

of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.

Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington,

may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

so amended, the Second Amendment would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

as opposed to:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

--- By John Paul Stevens associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010.


Washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.15b2d53b8705

I am guessing that because America seems soo divided right now ... that pigs will fly before this Proposal to Amendment the Second Amendment -(by John Paul Stevens)- will ever be considered.

2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate voting affirmatively to Amend the Second Amendment Then 3/4 of The States must ratify a Proposed Amendment to the Second Amendment.

is there any thing to stop a Congressman, or Senator from introducing such an Amendment, which of course would fail?
9) Message boards : The Lounge : BOINC Politics thread (Message 81489)
Posted 19 Sep 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
it's lovely to see you Byron :)

Hi anniet
it's nice to see you too :)
Best Wishes,
Byron.
10) Message boards : The Lounge : BOINC Politics thread (Message 81462)
Posted 19 Sep 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351268-nyt-mueller-warned-manafort-to-expect-an-indictment
Prosecutors on special counsel Robert Mueller's team reportedly told former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that they planned to indict him when they picked his lock and raided his Virginia home in July.

The warning, allegedly a shock-and-awe tactic, came as federal agents combed through Manafort's computer files, documents and any other potential pieces of evidence that could help them in their federal investigation, The New York Times reported Monday, citing two people close to the investigation.

The jarring comment is part of the approach Mueller and his team have embraced since May when the Justice Department named them to lead the high-profile investigation earlier, which aims to intimidate witnesses and possible targets of the probe, the newspaper reported.

The right to pick a lock and enter Manafort's home unannounced, even with a warrant in hand, means prosecutors had to convince a federal judge that Manafort would likely try to destroy evidence upon making themselves known.

So will the Grand Jury list an un-indicted co-conspirator?

I don't know if the following is accurate or not ..... ??????
But I read on the web somewhere (I can't remember where now) that it is a commond practise of US Prosecutors to use the threat of indictment to try to get a wittnes to "flip"
If Mueller's team can threaten criminal charges against Manafort, they could use that as leverage to convince him to cooperate ?????
The Daily 202: Mueller tightening the screws on Manafort washingtonpost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/09/19/daily-202-mueller-tightening-the-screws-on-manafort/59c0525130fb045176650d36/?utm_term=.27a979af4f8a

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Prosecutors+on+special+counsel+Robert+Mueller's+team+are+threatening+Paul+Manafort+with+indictment+to+try+to+get+him+to+%22flip%22&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8OLt1bHWAhUO3WMKHRILBjQQvwUIIygA&biw=1280&bih=643

U.S. Antitrust Law and Enforcement: A Practice Introduction
https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0195388992
Douglas F. Broder - 2010 - ‎Law
If the time comes for the witness to testify, the prosecutor and grand jurors are after.22 [2] Indictments, Pleas, and Trials ... Instead, they use the threat of increased charges and jail terms to “turn” or “flip” reluctant witness.
11) Message boards : The Lounge : The Seti is Down Cafe (Message 79459)
Posted 4 Jul 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Happy Independence ... fourth of July Birthday America :-)
12) Message boards : News : Thanks to Kathryn for 10 years of moderation (Message 76107)
Posted 24 Feb 2017 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
We're not set up for donations to BOINC.
But if you donate to SETI@home and add a note "for BOINC" it will get used to support BOINC.
-- David

Thank you David, Thank you Kathryn and Thanks to all the Volenteer devlopers and Volenteer crunchers,
for making BOINC a Great World wide scientific success!

Best Wishes,
Byron
13) Message boards : The Lounge : Merry Christmas! (Message 74930)
Posted 25 Dec 2016 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas!








:-)
14) Message boards : The Lounge : The Einstein & BOINC forums make-over discussion (Message 74103)
Posted 16 Nov 2016 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Hi Byron,

It looks like the "If RAC < 1 one cannot edit their profile" solution is in play here. I've reported it to David, thanks.

Hi Jord,
Thank you so much,
Best Wishes,
Byron.
15) Message boards : The Lounge : The Einstein & BOINC forums make-over discussion (Message 74101)
Posted 16 Nov 2016 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Hello everyone,
In the new BOINC forums make-over,
I can not "see" or find the button to edit my Profile,
I have tried Browser Chrome and Browser Microsoft Edge,
with no luck in either Browser :(
also to let you know ... I am Logged in,
also on my account page, I can see the button to delete my profile,
but I can not see any button any where to edit my profile?
is any one else seeing the same?

thanks in advance for any help,
Best Wishes,
Byron.
16) Message boards : The Lounge : These are no longer with us, may they have peace. (Message 74065)
Posted 13 Nov 2016 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
I am so sorry to hear of passing Celttooth :(
My last message from Ian aka Celttooth -- to me,
was 18 Oct 2016, Ian posted to me:
Byron, is that you?

it is me Celttooth.
Condolences to the family and all his friends and acquaintances here on BOINC and over at SETI@home.
Celttooth ... we will all miss you so much.

R.I.P. Celttooth
17) Message boards : News : Book about volunteer computing (Message 71047)
Posted 27 Jul 2016 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
The book Community, Competition and Citizen Science by Anne Holohan documents the history of volunteer computing.

Good news indeed,

thank you David,

Best Wishes,
Byron
18) Message boards : Projects : News on Project Outages (Message 65151)
Posted 30 Oct 2015 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Re: ClimatePrediction.Net (AKA CPDN)


The CPDN project will be taken offline for a scheduled downtime starting at 1000 UTC on Monday the 2nd November.
This is in order to perform firmware updates to the controllers of the storage array on which the CPDN servers reside. The firmware updates will correct an issue with the controllers that was a cause of the recent unscheduled downtime.
This work should not affect the climateprediction.net pages of the website, however the climateapps2.oerc portion of the website will be taken offline.
Will in OeRC support will be performing this work on the controllers of the storage array. At present we don't have an expected length of time that this firmware update will take, however we will endeavour to restore the project as soon as the updates have completed.

Source:
http://climateapps2.oerc.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/forum_thread.php?id=8096
19) Message boards : Projects : News on Project Outages (Message 65104)
Posted 27 Oct 2015 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Re: ClimatePrediction.Net (AKA CPDN)

I think the servers must be getting hammered with all the uploads,
and so I think I will suspend my network activity on BOINC,
for a day or so to give the servers a break.
patience is required :)

10/27/2015 9:33:42 AM | climateprediction.net | Temporarily failed upload of hadam3p_afr_e1uy_2011_1_010355437_0_3.zip: transient HTTP error
10/27/2015 9:33:42 AM | climateprediction.net | Backing off 03:43:10 on upload of hadam3p_afr_e1uy_2011_1_010355437_0_3.zip
10/27/2015 9:33:43 AM | | Internet access OK - project servers may be temporarily down.
10/27/2015 9:38:13 AM | climateprediction.net | Temporarily failed upload of hadam3p_eu_f4b0_1996_1_010197472_1_9.zip: transient HTTP error
10/27/2015 9:38:13 AM | climateprediction.net | Backing off 04:21:34 on upload of hadam3p_eu_f4b0_1996_1_010197472_1_9.zip
10/27/2015 9:38:14 AM | | Project communication failed: attempting access to reference site
10/27/2015 9:38:18 AM | | Internet access OK - project servers may be temporarily down.
20) Message boards : Projects : News on Project Outages (Message 65085)
Posted 26 Oct 2015 by Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Post:
Just to confirm your reporting, yes I am getting the same.


Next 20

Copyright © 2018 University of California. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.