amandaonwriting:

1. articulate - able to express your thoughts, arguments, and ideas clearly and effectively; writing or speech is clear and easy to understand
2. chatty - a chatty writing style is friendly and informal
3. circuitous - taking a long time to say what you really mean when you are talking or writing about something
4. clean - clean language or humour does not offend people, especially because it does not involve sex
5. conversational - a conversational style of writing or speaking is informal, like a private conversation
6. crisp - crisp speech or writing is clear and effective
7. declamatory - expressing feelings or opinions with great force
8. diffuse - using too many words and not easy to understand
9. discursive - including information that is not relevant to the main subject
10. economical - an economical way of speaking or writing does not use more words than are necessary
11. elliptical - suggesting what you mean rather than saying or writing it clearly
12. eloquent - expressing what you mean using clear and effective language
13. emphatic - making your meaning very clear because you have very strong feelings about a situation or subject
14. emphatically - very firmly and clearly
15. epigrammatic - expressing something such as a feeling or idea in a short and clever or funny way
16. epistolary - relating to the writing of letters
17. euphemistic - euphemistic expressions are used for talking about unpleasant or embarrassing subjects without mentioning the things themselves
18. flowery - flowery language or writing uses many complicated words that are intended to make it more attractive
19. fluent - expressing yourself in a clear and confident way, without seeming to make an effort
20. formal - correct or conservative in style, and suitable for official or serious situations or occasions
21. gossipy - a gossipy letter is lively and full of news about the writer of the letter and about other people
22. grandiloquent - expressed in extremely formal language in order to impress people, and often sounding silly because of this
23. idiomatic - expressing things in a way that sounds natural
24. inarticulate - not able to express clearly what you want to say; not spoken or pronounced clearly
25. incoherent - unable to express yourself clearly
26. informal - used about language or behaviour that is suitable for using with friends but not in formal situations
27. journalistic - similar in style to journalism
28. learned - a learned piece of writing shows great knowledge about a subject, especially an academic subject
29. literary - involving books or the activity of writing, reading, or studying books; relating to the kind of words that are used only in stories or poems, and not in normal writing or speech
30. lyric - using words to express feelings in the way that a song would
31. lyrical - having the qualities of music
32. ornate - using unusual words and complicated sentences
33. orotund - containing extremely formal and complicated language intended to impress people
34. parenthetical - not directly connected with what you are saying or writing
35. pejorative - a pejorative word, phrase etc expresses criticism or a bad opinion of someone or something
36. picturesque - picturesque language is unusual and interesting
37. pithy - a pithy statement or piece of writing is short and very effective
38. poetic - expressing ideas in a very sensitive way and with great beauty or imagination
39. polemical - using or supported by strong arguments
40. ponderous - ponderous writing or speech is serious and boring
41. portentous - trying to seem very serious and important, in order to impress people
42. prolix - using too many words and therefore boring
43. punchy - a punchy piece of writing such as a speech, report, or slogan is one that has a strong effect because it uses clear simple language and not many words
44. rambling - a rambling speech or piece of writing is long and confusing
45. readable - writing that is readable is clear and able to be read
46. rhetorical - relating to a style of speaking or writing that is effective or intended to influence people; written or spoken in a way that is impressive but is not honest
47. rhetorically - in a way that expects or wants no answer; using or relating to rhetoric
48. rough - a rough drawing or piece of writing is not completely finished
49. roundly- in a strong and clear way
50. sententious - expressing opinions about right and wrong behaviour in a way that is intended to impress people
51. sesquipedalian - using a lot of long words that most people do not understand
52. Shakespearean - using words in the way that is typical of Shakespeare’s writing
53. stylistic - relating to ways of creating effects, especially in language and literature
54. succinct - expressed in a very short but clear way
55. turgid - using language in a way that is complicated and difficult to understand
56. unprintable - used for describing writing or words that you think are offensive
57. vague - someone who is vague does not clearly or fully explain something
58. verbose - using more words than necessary, and therefore long and boring
59. well-turned - a well-turned phrase is one that is expressed well
60. wordy - using more words than are necessary, especially long or formal words

(via somethingwilde)

• I probably don't have enough followers for this to work, but I'm looking for some good music to meditate and fall asleep too. I need something thats really tranquil sounding and I wanted to know if anyone knew any good artists. I'm talking about some real deep zen shit too, i don't want any definable words or catchy melodies, I wanna go deep. Any help would be appreciated.
• Namaste

Journalist Michael Hastings died in a car crash in Los Angeles early Tuesday at the age of 33, according to a statement from his employer, BuzzFeed. Hastings, who was also a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, was perhaps best known for his candid Rolling Stone interview with General Stanley McChrystal, then the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, that eventually led to McChrystal being relieved of his command.

(Source: fearandwar)

#Turkey police deliberately targeted medical workers & protesters in their care. @HRW presses police for restraint. http://trib.al/vCexXrt

(Source: anonopsmob, via anoncentral)

When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand easier ways for the world’s largest Internet companies to turn over user data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit.

Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some cases, they changed their computer systems to do so.

The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at the center of people’s personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look to their vast trove of information — e-mails, videos, online chats, photos and search queries — for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their behind-the-scenes transactions.

The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence.

In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said.

… Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers.

The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers.

“The U.S. government does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers,” Google’s chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. “We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.”

Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction.

But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said.

The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.

Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company.