Some of us old timers got to small thrill when it came out about the coding in Cyber Commands logo. The code was 32 digits within the gold ring on the logo. The 32 digit code was translated with a md5 cryptographic hash.

Whats a md5, right? lol MD5 stands for Message-Digest algorithm 5, was a hash function which simply is any well-defined procedure or mathematical function that converts a large, possibly variable-sized amount of data into a small datum. MD5 usually 32 digits and was designed in 1991 but soon after it was discovered to have major flaws and really wasn't secure enough for SSL certificates or digital signatures.

But it was a blast from the past to some of us and to those of you that haven't heard about this don't read any further spoiler alert...!!!!

The code was 9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a now if you apply the hash equation md5 the mission statement of the Cyber Command is revealed to you,

Of course it would have been more fun if they had virtual fireworks or for you men; babes in bikinis, but alas no such perks, at least we now know the mission of Cyber Control.

What I haven't told you yet oh it's simple 9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a translates to:

Now I know some are disappointed that the code was really gave itself away the very nature of the string lent itself to be recognised as a hash, but maybe there might be a redeeming quality to the simple is if their {Cyber Command} mission statement is shared with some other bizarre encrypted message that no one is looking for, thats what the rumormill is playing.

At the very least coding aside we were shown this admin has a sense of humor and do try to involve the public in fun if not challenging ways.

SO much talk about BP I wonder how many people know exactly how much of a pain in the you know what BP has been to the US & it started why before the spill. BP used to be known by a few other names one was Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 35 I believe and before then Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC).

Seems that Britain in their assistance towards Iran when it came to AIOC was less than helpful. Britain had a greater share when it came to profits and what Britain didn't get in share pay-offs it got in repayment of a debt from Iran.

Many seem to think Britain and Iran's 'shared' oil company greatly contributed to the alienation of Iran towards the West.

For about half a century APOC was the largest oil refinery in the world, and funny thing is it seems that this oil refinery was designed with Winston Churchill help to ensure oil for Britain's military ships.

At first the profit was 50% by WWI Iran's profit was 16% and even that was made even more meager that within that 16% Iran also had to repay it's debt to England.

To understand a wee bit more on this topic you got to understand that during the early 1900's Russia and Britain controlled most of Iran, including Iran's postal service and police. This only created more antagonism from Iran towards Britain, Russia & the entire western world.

Now it is looking like BP; who's not hurting in anyway financially, wants to alienate US the 'little people' with refusal to release important info in regards to the spill, pay-outs for lost income of those shamefully harmed by BP's lack of safety measures.

Most people that have tried to file claims run into a red paper brick wall, and it seems that BP is clueless how much a fisherman makes in a season. One person got paid out $5000 for their lost wages, are you kidding me?

I plan to write more in detail about this topic; BP, in general but I wanted to get this quickie out there for if we refuse to learn from the past....

Once again mass media seemed to miss this little tidbit of info. March, 1, 2010 the city Loma Linda, CA and it's Fire Department started to charge residents $300 for each 911 call. Do not fret if you are calling 911 for a police emergency or for a fire emergency there will be no fee, only the Loma Linda Fire Dept is charging, of course 75% of all 911 calls to the Loma Linda Fire Dept is for medical emergencies. 

I am sure by now everyone has heard of Kevin Smith's (Silent Bob) wonderful experience with SWA (SouthWest Airlines). What I am not sure everyone has heard of is SWA public apology to Kevin Smith. Here's a small teasers from SWA blog. First though I would like to direct your attention to the blog's title.

Not So Silent Bob
Sun, 02/14/2010 - 14:57 — Christi Day

"Many of you reached out to us via Twitter last night and today regarding a situation a Customer Twittered about that occurred on a Southwest flight. It is not our customary method of Customer Relations to be so public in how we work through these situations, but with so many people involved in the occurrence, you also should be involved in the solution. First and foremost, to Mr. Smith; we would like to echo our Tweets and again offer our heartfelt apologies to you. We are sincerely sorry for your travel experience on Southwest Airlines.

As soon as we saw the first Tweet from Mr. Smith, we contacted him personally to apologize for his experience and to address his concerns on both Twitter and with a personal phone call. Since the situation has received a lot of public attention, we'd like to take the opportunity to address a few of the specifics here as well."Complete SWA Apology

Although this is suppose to be an apology from SWA to Kevin Smith I simply do not read it as such. Let's start with SWA's choice for the blog title "Not So Silent Bob". Did SWA actually think a condescending blog headline was the best way to kick-off a public "apology"? I would think not.

Is SWA employing any public relations professionals at all who are soundly advising them. perhaps just lawyers to make sure SWA is not taking responsibility?

Since SWA said their policies on this matter is to ensure the safety of all passengers I feel the need to ask about these policies:

Do you require elderly who cannot move as fast, use a cane or require wheelchair assistance to bring along help for safety reasons so that they don't slow down the exiting process in case of emergency?

Do you charge them extra for the ability to use a wheelchair and get assistance from the airline crew?

Do you require someone who is wearing a cast on his/her leg to purchase an extra seat for the comfort and safety of others?

Do you allow people with mental disabilities who might be confused in an emergency situation to fly on your airline?

Do you allow unaccompanied minors who cannot be expected to act in the same manor as an adult in an emergency situation to fly your airline?

Furthermore, do you wait until these people have boarded and then publicly-humiliate them for their differences?

Basically, SWA's response says they discriminate against people who are overweight, not people who may pose a safety risk for the other passengers in an emergency situation.

And SWA's comment "Most, if not all, carriers have similar policies" reminds me of grade school tauntings.

I know some will agree with SWA on this topic, but the very policies of TWA defines that if one cannot get both armrests down and if needs a belt extender they might need to buy two seats. According to Kevin Smith he could put down both armrests and did not need a belt extender.

So is this really a case of safety first because as I recall, SWA also recently arbitrarily didn't allow a young woman to board a flight because SWA found her clothing to be too provocative (a very subjective term).

I know people's opinions will vary greatly on this topic but honesty after reading SWA's own words I come away feeling that there was nothing intelligent, redeeming or apologetic about SWA very ill-conceived response. What's your opinion?

Is Europe becoming consumed with religious dogmatism? First IImar Reepalu blames Israel government's treatment of the Palestinians instead of finding the true cause and an solution to the unrelenting attacks upon the Jewish population. Then you have in Britain a UK government worker telling a pagan to put her religious items away because of how they could effect her son.

Is this another story of UK's religious discrimination or is it simply miscommunication?

The headline of this story UK Gov't worker to Pagan: 'Take down your idols'" seems very clear and if there was any doubt left the opening sentence says it all “A follower of paganism claims a health visitor told her she should put her religious items away because of the effect they could be having on her son.” or does it?

I guess it all depends on how you read it according to the family it was religious bigotry

"But on one of these visits, Mrs Hawkins says the health visitor told her she should remove pagan images and accessories from her living room because of her concerns for her 10-year-old son David … She said: ‘The lady was commenting on my bits and bobs and she said I ought to take them down because she thought it was detrimental to my son’s wellbeing … ‘I was really angry because Wicca is a recognized religion. You wouldn’t go into a Muslim’s home and ask them to take down their religious items would you?’”

Yet, NHS has a different view:

“Hampshire Partnership NHS Trust Jamie Stevenson said the health visitor had been referring to some collectible dolls not connected to religious beliefs, known as Living Dead dolls, which Mrs Hawkins had on display.”

Is this a case of a slow news day and a reporter trying to create a story spinning the Pagan angle to get noticed or is it Europe is becoming religiously illiberal?

A few weeks ago same sex marriage was a hot button topic and it made me think is marriage a right or privilege. As you can will imagine that question started a heated debate. Those that are against same sex marriages all seem to debate that marriage was a privilege, while those that are for same sex marriages debated marriage was in fact a right.

Of course is marriage a right or privilege, really has nothing to do with legalities of same sex marriages, even if same sex marriages haven't made it to Supreme Court(s) yet. Maybe I should explain why it really doesn't apply.

First thing is to define what is a right and what is a privilege via the U.S. Constitution and/or Supreme Justice(s).

RIGHT - This word is used in various senses: 1. Sometimes it signifies a law, as when we say that natural right requires us to keep our promises, or that it commands restitution, or that it forbids murder. In our language it is seldom used in this sense. 2. It sometimes means that quality in our actions by which they are denominated just ones. This is usually denominated rectitude. 3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself.

Rights are perfect and imperfect. When the things which we have a right to possess or the actions we have a right to do, are or may be fixed and determinate, the right is a perfect one; but when the thing or the actions are vague and indeterminate, the right is an imperfect one. If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.

But if a poor man ask relief from those from whom he has reason to expect it, the right, which supports his petition, is an imperfect one; because the relief which he expects, is a vague indeterminate, thing.

Rights might with propriety be also divided into natural and civil rights but as all the rights which man has received from nature have been modified and acquired anew from the civil law, it is more proper, when considering their object, to divide them into political and civil rights.

Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or management of government. These political rights are fixed by the constitution. Every citizen has the right of voting for public officers, and of being elected; these are the political rights which the humblest citizen possesses.

Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for a non-citizen, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.

The Ninth Amendment basically declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people

And I won't even go into the 14th Amendment that does in fact support that marriage is in a fact a right (more on this in a minute)

The definition of privilege is as follows:

Benefit, immunity, etc., granted under certain conditions, the advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, esp to the disadvantage of others one of the obstacles to social harmony is privilege.( Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of a country by its constitution.

I agree not very enlightening so here's an example of a privilege, take driving. In the US driving is a privilege and everyone to legally drive must meet certain requirements such as age, ability, etc.. But the Civil Rights protects all people from discrimination, therefore no privilege's requirement can be un-constitutional. Civil Rights guarantees protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, national origin, age, immigrant status, etc.

Rather marriage is a right or privilege truly doesn't come into play with same gender marriages, no matter how you look at it since no privilege can go against Civil Rights.

Remember I said I would go back to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment was used in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal. Via Wikipedia:

“The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

As I have said many times the US Constitution is a wise and living document and in it's wisdom, the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of ALL people.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”