Slashdot Mirror

And when you lose one of your toys that has embarrasing data on it that gets uploaded to wikileaks? Or it has malware on it that spreads from your device to our servers resulting in data loss or downtime? Or you leave the company in six months and I am facing tough questions on how you managed to take your client list, all of the data associated with them and half the company's trade secrets with you when you left?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20026946-503983.html
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/google-android-malware-surges-400-per-cent-20110513-1el5p.html

We in IT Infrastructure are in a hard position - on the one hand we are told that we have to protect the company networks and data at all costs (including from employees) and have responded by encrypting laptop hard drives and implementing DRM/DMS systems on key documents to restrict access to them and enable auditing of them. On the other hand we hear comments like these where people expect to bring their personal laptop/tablet/phone in and/or install whatever software they want on thier work computer, send key pieces of their work information downloaded to it or to their 'free' cloud service, then go off and do whatever they please with it. They act offended and annoyed when we have to tell them no - staring at me like I killed their puppy. Sorry but it isn't your job to find new and innovative ways to do your work - it is ours. Let us find you a workable and secure way to do something if it will really add value. Because it also isn't your job on the line when it all hits the fan either in the end.

The closest that we have gotten to a solution is to let people get to Citrix hosted desktops/apps from whatever/wherever they want. Then they whinge they can't copy files off or print properly from it to their $30 home printer. We just can't win...

CBS News has a video report on the subject. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/19/eveningnews/main20064470.shtml

kind of explains their solutions http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/health/main2860989.shtml ... DuckDuckGo.com

The U.S. Navy SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden Sunday in Pakistan would have taken al Qaeda's leader in alive if it was possible, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday.

"If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that," Brennan told reporters during a press conference.

Brennan told reporters that the White House thought bin Laden would likely resist capture but that taking him alive was considered a "remote" possibility.

"We were not going to put our people at risk," Brennan said. "The president put a premium on making sure that our personnel were protected, and we were not going to give bin Laden or any of his cohorts the opportunity to carry out lethal fire on our forces."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058913-503544.html

the quotes you have stem from the realizations outlined above: capture is ideal, but highly unlikely, so kill is acceptable

now, at what point do we get some intellectual honesty from you and hear you admit how im-fucking-possible it would be to capture bin laden in the situation's parameters without any risk to the SEALs involved? out with it, asshole. or is it that i'm not dealing with an intellectually honest person?

you wish to think that capturing bin laden in the situation's parameters was a possibility? you wish to bleieve that? because it's reality? or because it adheres to your political prejudices?

I think you've got it. There have been suggestions that the US had no court anywhere that ObL could have been tried. The obvious place is the ICJ/World Court in the Hague.

The US has a perfectly adequate legal system to handle the likes of Bin Laden.... right here. fact sheet

But it's not clear what the charges might have been. It's likely that the US "had nothing on the guy" for the WTC attack, other than his publicly praising the people who did it, and that's not exactly a criminal act

US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

Also, Bin Laden admitted or demonstrated his association with the 9/11 attacks on multiple occasions.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11
Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

No doubt there is plenty of other material evidence linking him to other crimes under either the Law of War or US criminal law.

The US has been openly and loudly calling this "justice". This isn't being missed by people with similar desires in the rest of the world. Since the US government has effectively announced that killing someone without any sort of trial is "justice", we can expect that many others in the world are planning to bring the US to "justice" in a similar fashion.

You've got this wrong on two points. First, I very much doubt that any group of would-be terrorists is just waiting for the US to "bend the rules" so that they feel justified in attacking. Second, the US is at war with Al Qaeda under the authority of the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11, so raids to capture or kill its members is completely legitimate. It is also quite fair seeing as Bin Laden declared war on the US in the 1990s.

what has been released that has been worth all the hub-bub?

Here's an article listing some of the revelations from 2010.

You can say they don't 'need' to steal the research, but the evidence of Chinese born espionage in the US is blatant. And if you follow corporate and government level espionage in the news you would know that you would bet China if betting your life on who did it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/spy/spies/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/national/main5708534.shtml

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3319656

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/chinese-spies-use-cyber-hacking-and-sexual-blackmail/1104

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-02-12/news/shuttlespy12_1_space-technology-military-technology-republic-of-china

http://www.haohaoreport.com/ChinaNews/Chinese-spy-gets-more-than-15-years-in-prison

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-arrests-chinese-spies-over-theft-of-military-data-781090.html .............

Seriously, just open your eyes or start paying attention. NASA has been infiltrated by Chinese spies on several occasions. This policy is rational and safe and is a better/safer choice than any potential 'crippling of research' as you put it.

But go ahead pretending this isn't real... go ahead.. I only copied the first few things I looked up, but the truth is about every 3-4 months I read about another Chinese spy in the US. Yet it takes years before I read about ANY OTHER NATION spying (or getting caught at least).

Actually, Osama never took credit for those deaths, which is why he wasn't formally wanted by FBI for the 9/11 bombings (FBI most wanted [fbi.gov]). The video which was shown on television shortly after the bombings, where he allegedly took the blame, was badly translated.

Personally, I'm not entirely sure if Osama had his hand in the 9/11 bombings, or if other people did it inspired by him

Actually, Bin Laden did take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, on more than one occasion. Here is one:
Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Here are some videos of him with some of the 9/11 attackers:
Video Shows Bin Laden, 9/11 Hijackers
Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

And maybe you should try another page:

Bin Laden was a suspect in a number of terrorist attacks around the world in addition to the 9/11 attacks.

The link you provide is apparently based solely on the federal indictments - that is, a matter of criminal law. More details here.

After the mass attacks of 9/11, Congress responded with the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Al Qaeda became a military problem. I don't know that the FBI continually updates the crimes section on the most wanted list.

Bin Laden's demands? Americans must convert to Islam, discard the Constitution, and govern with Sharia law, or Al Qaeda will keep attacking the US. Bin Laden's offier - convert or die. Some choice, eh?

For those in need: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

koff

We've already proven that amino acids + lighting = a very basic cell. It seems very likely that, at some point in the trillions of years the universe has existed, that at some point some amino acids got together and got shocked. There's a lot of universe, and a lot of time. Something had to happen eventually.

I was under the impression that Allen was seeking to recoup his investments in failed technology firms - he's invested in many that failed, leaving nothing but broken dreams and patents in their wake.

I don't think Woz was accurate in describing Allen as suing companies "because he bought all these patents'

Allen formed companies to develop products & technologies that failed - he didn't set out to become a patent troll, though he may be exhibiting that behavior now...

From the recent 60 Minutes Interview:

Allen's diverse set of interests also led him to invest in over 100 business ventures since he left Microsoft. Most of them were poorly managed or ahead of their time, so they flopped.

And he slid from being the third richest man in the world to 57th.

"Were you just too early? Or was it that you really needed a Bill Gates and didn't have that other person to push it through?" Stahl asked.

"Look in the Microsoft days, you had some great ideas and some great execution between me and Bill and many other people. You know, in technology most things fail. Most companies fail. But I had some whoppers," Allen said.

Some of his whoppers however produced numerous patents. Last year, in a move that angered Silicon Valley, Allen sued several giant companies accusing them of infringing on those old patents.

It's a long list, including AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube.

"How do you argue that you had something to do with Google? It just seems so outlandish or kind of wacky," Stahl remarked.

"Look, Microsoft and Google, all these people, have patents of their own. They all enforce patents. They all charge other companies for patents. All I'm trying to do is get back the investment that I made to create these patents," Allen said.

most people on facebook aren't thinking of themselves as criminals with things to hide

Now there might even be criminals using facebook to their own demise... Who knows...

There have been plenty of stories of petty criminals (usually teenagers or young men), being caught by police because they bragged on Facebook.
http://www.google.com/search?q=criminals+caught+using+facebook

I agree all of the disclosures are voluntary and they got what they deserved, but you can't argue that some people on Facebook wouldn't be better served by keeping their mouths shut.

Of course nobody minds much when Facebook is used to catch someone who's accused of armed robbery or assault. How about using Facebook to catch tax evaders?

The real issue is not whether people "think of themselves as criminals", but that they don't think things they post online will ever be used against them. This is kind of an old story, but it bears repeating:
Teacher fired for having Facebook photo with two glasses of alcohol

So I think your implication of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", rings a little false. Activities which used to be innocuous (having a few drinks), can now put your job in jeopardy, because we are driven to share everything online (like you say).

Fine, here's a source. And another. And another. And another.

Uh... yes.

The Bailout started under Bush, you might recall. But regardless off whose idea it was, it hasn't been the massive waste of money that you present it as. As of June last year, 75% of the money had been repaid. And the government was actually turning a profit on what it was getting back.

Opposing the Bailout is one thing; personally, I think that it sets a bad precedent to loan out that much money with no consequences. But to present it as the sole cause of the deficit and to blame it exclusively on Democrats is simply incorrect. If you want the true cause of the deficit, the fact is that the recession is to blame. But massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (which cost more than the new healthcare law) and two foreign wars, none of which were paid for certainly didn't help.

Ah. I am disappointed that even 4 digit Slashdotters fall into the sad group of people that believe Obama started the bailouts, not Bush

What about the 16 year old girl who sent a sexual nude pic of herself to her boyfriend who then went and shared the pic with the whole class getting the 16 year old girl arrested for creating and distributing child porn?

She is now a registered sex offender and can't go to school or college. Her life is destroyed because of some blind application of a law that was not intended to target her but because of overzealous DA's who want a notch on their political belt go after such easy crimes because of the emotional appeal to people like you.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/sexting-teens-makes-sex-offender-list-20110121-19zwu.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001082-504083.html


Or how about the grandmother who took pictures of her naked grandchildren (under the age of 3) in a bathtub and then took the pics to walmart to get prints? Another overzealous DA went and prosecuted her. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child-por


It is evil that children are getting exploited. The problem is, the ones getting punished by the application of the laws due to the political and emotional fervor such application engenders for those leading the crusade, are not the ones exploiting the children.

Both those who download decade old pictures, or pictures of jailbait teens who voluntarily post their own pics on the net, or of innocent grandmothers who take pictures of their infant children, these are not the people being exploited nor are they the one's exploiting others, yet they are the people being targeted by the current application of the law.


Because a DA with 10 "Child Porn convictions" under his belt has an emotional appeal to mindless cosmic space zombie followers and that emotional appeal will get him elected / re-elected.

Freedom? That's strictly up for debate!

Only if you've paid your Subversive Activities Registration Act fee to South Carolina.

Now, name any food that any class of individual is warned away from due to nuclear contamination.

You mean something like this?

Schools already remotely watch students through their webcams on school issued computers.
http://boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/earlyshow/leisure/gamesgadgetsgizmos/main6223044.shtml

As well as in school bathrooms.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/perversion-is-fine-so-long-as-youre-in-a-position-of-authority.html

Believe it or not children are protected by the constitution just like us "grown ups". Well at least by the Bill of Rights. But schools violate these natural born rights, all the time, in the name of safety a security. And nothing happens to make it stop. Good old Ben Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.".

V for Victory

Let's use synthetic skin that almost certainly doesn't fully reflect the effects on an actual human or animal!

What if that new face cream you've got turns out to be a contact poison that only effects the liver? This fancy synthetic skin come with a liver? Oh it doesn't?

Sounds to me like a cost cutting measure by the company that is going to result in less safe skin care products, and their marketing is playing off the animal rights angle so people don't question it.

I understand the desire to cut out animal testing, and I fully support that. But the human body is complex, some chemical that makes your skin smooth or clears your nostrils might also cause nerve tissue damage. We quite simply cannot match the complexity of the human body synthetically right now, it is foolish and naive to think that you can test a chemical on only one part of the body and ignore all the other parts because they're not related.

no US taxes

Fixed that for you.
Please stop being mislead by media organizations. 60 minutes actually did a good investigation into the whole 0 % tax story. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/60minutes/main20046867.shtml The real reason for all tax "loop holes" is the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world 35%. Did you know this tax rate is higher than even China and Russia, Britain .... it keeps going http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world .

Just few points of information about US corporate taxes.

• The US based companies didn't record a profit, there parent foreign owned companies did , they pay some taxes around 18-20% usually.
• There is a concept of a loss. If you house burnt down, and wouldn't is suck if Uncle Sam said pay me, and the State did too?
• The 35% tax rate encourages the companies to find loop holes or just plain move their entire operations overseas.
• Once the money gets sent overseas they can NEVER bring back the money into the US. So billions of dollars is stuck overseas, of which the companies reinvests into overseas operations. Cisco has 40 billion stuck overseas , that is billion with a B. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382703,00.asp

That is just at the Federal level, the shit states pull on corporations is horrible. Many of the states owe companies tax refunds, are NOT allowing them to carry forward to the next year as a deduction, even though the state owes a company money. "Yeah I know we owe you money here is an IOU, but you cannot deduct it from taxable income. You have to still pay us; will get you that return someday. No you cannot amend your return either to deduct it". One state that is doing this is Illinois, and the shit Texas pulled about use tax is utter bullshit. In my wifes company Texas sent them a >100k bill , even though they had NO direct sales to end user, just vendors, of which the vendor is suppose to file the "use tax" return. Yeah her company just paid it because the threshold for challenging the amount was too low, just not worth the legal fees . Don't even get her started on the 1099 mess http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/1099-repeal-passes-senate-heads-to-white-house/ .
BTW my wife is corporate tax accountant for large company here in the US. She is in charge of all the state returns for every single state, all 50 of them( more than one company.

To quote her as an CPA Corporate Tax Accountant, "An absolute nightmare. "

Only good thing is she will always have a job, she is hot and she married me. I don't know why on that last one.

Send the ships to Banledesh. They're already being killed by the ships that they're currently breaking up. How much worse could it be?

I guess that's why the public schools are so pro-internet as well? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml

(CBS News) That potato-shaped lump in the picture you're looking at is science's most accurate picture to date of how gravity varies across the Earth. It turns out that our world is closer to being a sphereoid than a perfect sphere. Read More about Earth's gravitational shape Essay Writing help

living in the Washington DC area is a little more expensive than living in Wisconsin - but he still screwed up pointing it out ...

It's pretty cheap if you live in your office:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/22/eveningnews/main7272636.shtml

Also, having to maintain two houses is living outside your means. Congress members usually have to maintain their home in-state, and also find a place to live inside DC when Congress is in session.

Last I heard, Duffy was living in his office:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/22/eveningnews/main7272636.shtml

As I recall, there was a survey asking about gays and lesbians in the Military, without the H word, and only 25-30% said that its immoral. It's all in the wording. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6198284-503544.html

Work is lying to you. ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company. Any price increase after a year or so ago is just plain profiteering. This is why we need healthcare reform in this country not the weak watered down insurance reform bill.

gp needs to quit listening to Beck, Palin and other nut jobs and learn how to read.

Really. That's it? So if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company", why does it cost over a trillion dollars? And if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company.", why is it over 2000 pages long? You just wrote the whole thing in one sentence.

So, either you are incredibly gullible, woefully ignorant, or the government is much more inefficient that I could possibly imagine. Actually, I think someone is lying their ass off to this guy, but it's not his work.

Maybe you should listen to Beck and Palin more because whoever you are listening to has steered you horribly wrong. You actually believe that it costs a trillion dollars and over 2000 pages to pass a law that "does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company" and then you call Beck and Palin "nutjobs"? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!

I think you are mistaken. It's operation Kunduz Kandy you're probably thinking of.

I expected someone who would listen to the people instead of the will of large corps. I was wrong.

88% to 95% of voters feel better after a recall. No corporation needed. Now that's a mandate!

The military (surely with some help from CIA and NSA) has their own reusable unmanned space plane. They aren't entirely reliant on NASA, though they do need to use them for the launch vehicle.

They did just complete a 228 day mission, according to the article. Who needs a satellite when you can just keep an orbiter up there for the better part of a year and then retask it on occasion to take snapshots of your favorite terrorist camp or what that country is doing with their nuclear research that they swear has no military application.

Hello! What is this?! I responded to "whistleblower defense isn't going to fly [in court]" with something OBAMA'S OWN ADMINISTRATION speaker had concerns with: Bradley Manning's treatment now would affect the court case later [if he's ever able to stand trial].

I called it torture, and I'm not alone. Even the UN is investigating the government's treatment of Bradley Manning. Likewise, several journalists have taken Manning's treatment to task and called it 'torture' (Will Bunch, Daniel Ellsberg... the numbers are building). And [finally!] a congressman likened Manning's treatment to Abu Ghraib.

As for Manning's ability to stand trial, after being in solitary confinement for 8 mos+, and stripped naked at night most recently (ostensibly because he's a 'suicide threat' but doesn't qualify for a mental evaluation), Manning's reportedly catatonic — not fit for trial. That's FLAMEBAIT?! Hell no — at worst, it's "Off topic", but then again, so is this whole part of the thread.

As an example, the two most vulnerable fission plants in the US are built for 7.0.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/14/earlyshow/main20042815.shtml

They're also near a large fault, and potentially subject to larger quakes.

Fortunately, we decided that we could do without fripperies like the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042264-503544.html

saving $126 million, fully .01% of this year's deficit. Now all we need to do is find 10,000 other equally useful programs to cut.

From the article you cite:

The budget, which proposed about $60 billion in budget cuts, would slash funding for the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That would potentially cripple the effectiveness of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii, which issued a series of warnings over the past several days regarding the situation in Japan, where an 8.9 magnitude earthquake triggered a massive tsunami along the nation's east coast.

For PTWC to be killed because of a decrease in budget for NWS/NOAA is like saying a decrease in the NASA budget will guarantee all NASA related projects to be terminated.

You know your point is weak when you resort to sensational journalism to make it.

Fortunately, we decided that we could do without fripperies like the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042264-503544.html

saving $126 million, fully .01% of this year's deficit. Now all we need to do is find 10,000 other equally useful programs to cut.

Nuclear sounds good in theory but in practice there are problems, long-term residual ones. NIMBY is a term that can be an excuse to not take responsibility, it can also be used to dismiss real concerns. Just ask those who have actually, not theoretically, mined it. For example: the damage to humans and groundwater from nuclear mining in New Mexico

As opposed to damage to humans and groundwater from drilling for "clean" natural gas.
Or from mountaintop removal for "safer" coal mining.
Or the risks associated with more traditional coal mining.
And finally there's the somewhat controversial issue of carbon dioxide emissions from coal and oil.

Ultimately, any form of energy production will have its inherent risks and we as a society have to choose if the benefits outweigh the risks. The risks are of oil are varied and diverse and coal is not much better and in some ways worse. The risks of solar, wind, and even nuclear energy pale by comparison. We won't solve our problems by picking winners and losers but by investing in a wide variety of alternatives rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket.

I personally like the promise of Thorium nuclear power but I'm skeptical of its lofty promises. I doubt if we'll know for sure how practical it is until billions of dollars have been poured into it and dozens of plants are in operation. That's just the nature of our energy hungry culture.

Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran

You sure about that?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm

http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/

And of course the US has made similar threats against Iran:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml

But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.

Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.

Dude, you are smearing yourself. If you can't tell the difference between Indonesia and Kenya - a country Obama never saw before his 25th birthday - you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

It's a group application of a similar strategy to the one that was used on Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad

Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background. Funny how he now thinks McCain and Palin used him for their own purposes. Surprised it took him so long to figure it out.

Just because you see conspiracy doesn't mean there is one, chances are the problem is you just don't have enough information.

I can't find the original link I had posted (although I doubt it's the one you're referring to), but here's one that contains a picture of the bomber that looks vaguely like one of the ones I came across:

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers.

Hope that helps.

To answer Nadaka a ways up the reply chain: Yes, there has been an incident where someone has attempted to blow up a sensitive target by stuffing themselves with explosives.

I wonder if it can also be used to prevent teenagers from using the PC. Ref: "Mosquito Repels Youths" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/05/earlyshow/living/main1095665.shtml

It won't be the PRC government that prevents them from getting money, it will be the USA government that stops them. The hostages held by Iran for 444 days tried to sue (there were substantial Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen and could be used to pay damages), but they lost their lawsuit not because of any defence put on by Iran but rather by the US government.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/01/national/main561274.shtml

If the USA government does that to protect a state which it considers an enemy (Iran), imagine what they will do to protect the PRC to which they owe a trillion dollars or so.

Those hostages are alive and free today because of an agreement known as the Algiers Accords (wikipedia). Part of the aggreement that freed them stated that they could not sue Iran. If we reneged after making the accord we would forever lose the option to recover hostages through such an aggreement. This type of action is down to protect US interests and its citizens abroad.

It won't be the PRC government that prevents them from getting money, it will be the USA government that stops them. The hostages held by Iran for 444 days tried to sue (there were substantial Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen and could be used to pay damages), but they lost their lawsuit not because of any defence put on by Iran but rather by the US government.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/01/national/main561274.shtml

If the USA government does that to protect a state which it considers an enemy (Iran), imagine what they will do to protect the PRC to which they owe a trillion dollars or so.

The anti-chinese xenophobia on this site has been obvious for years, but it just follow general western media trend.
Take a look at this 'minor' item from wikileak that only got half a page of text:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20027157-503543.html
If the spy ranking is changed, do you think it will not show up in front pages on all media?

The Supreme Court has long held (since the 1800s) that searches at international borders don't require a warrant.

In addition, the courts have repeated ruled that national security warrantless wiretaps are legal, such as this recent ruling:

Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping
The judges ...concluded that the government's protections and restrictions included in the 2007 procedures were appropriate. "Our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts," Selya wrote in the 29-page opinion.

He added that requiring a warrant in such cases would probably "hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake."

And here are just a few recent examples of why they might need to do so:

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians that could easily spill across the border: Converts Who Kill

You're being pedantic. The example in my original post indicates that I consider "properly scrubbed" to mean "having all sensitive details altered or hidden".

There are easy ways to sanitize documents. Wikileaks has not done so. The State Department has criticized them for it.

It's the social programs (primarily Medicare/Medicaid) which are ballooning out of control [cbo.gov] and busting the budget. Those are the sacred cows we need to sacrifice (or at least pass some common sense reforms) if we want to get the budget under control.

Such as? Giving all the money to Wall Street? (which is what the Republicans really want) Cutting benefits? That'd be kind of like instituting the "death panels" that dimwit Sarah Palin et. al. were accusing Obama of wanting. Yes, we really have those now at least in that great bastion of liberalism, Arizona..

See, Medicare and Medicaid are funded from a separate payroll tax, from premiums paid by some, and from money taken from Social Security payouts. Social Security funds come from a separate payroll tax. Neither has anything to do with the regular federal budget funded by other kinds of taxes, though conservatives love to pretend that they do. Social Security actually has a deliberate surplus right now. It had always been a pay as you go system before. That's because back in the 80s, when (I can't believe I'm saying this) we had Republicans who were actually interested in governing, it was noted that with all the baby boomers retiring it would be necessary for there to be extra money in the system for some period of time. So Reagan signed off on a large tax increase (yes, an increase) on workers' pay to create this surplus. It is going down now, not because Social Security is going broke, but because it's supposed to go down. That was the idea all along. When the baby boomers are no longer with us, the surplus fund will not be needed because of demographic changes. In other words, for all the immortal idiots out there who like to bitch about paying for anything they don't personally use RIGHT NOW, your grandparents paid not only for their parents' retirement, but for their own as well. Social Security has always been about the working generation paying for the non-working generations' retirement. Why? Well, inflation and currency valuation changes for one. It just makes more sense that way.

Now, I suspect that among the "common sense" reforms you want to implement there's one that's missing: remove FICA earnings cap. People with salaries over $106,800 in 2011 only pay FICA taxes up to that amount. Everything else is not taxed. If you simply remove that cap, any imagined budget problems related to Social Security and Medicare are solved AND you actually have enough left to increase benefits. The only reason the cap exists in the first place is that, back when these programs were started, conservatives of the day were absolutely in a fit over the notion that rich people might have to contribute something that would actually benefit people who weren't rich. So, as a compromise, these programs were made mostly worker-funded. That worked when you had a strong middle class and actual upward mobility in American society, but now that corporate-bought government policies have rendered both of those things false, it's time to change that.

The national security wiretaps are legal, and not an abuse of human rights.

They do them because people either in the US, or who come to the US, keep trying to conduct attacks. Just a few recent examples (there are many more):

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

You forgot "Think of the Children."

Well, that's maybe where we differ. I think we need to be adults and think of everybody, especially if Al Qaeda is successful in getting nuclear weapons, which they already have permission to use.

But, if it will make you more comfortable, for the moment lets forget about the children, and see where we stand. We can recap, and maybe you could point out what is actually wrong instead of in essence saying "I don't like it".

I pointed out that the courts have ruled against your assertion that the government's national security wiretapping is illegal, and a human rights violation: Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping

Even the page you linked to noted the EFF defeat on the legal question:

EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case
Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review
San Francisco - A federal judge has dismissed Jewel v. NSA, a case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers challenging the National Security Agency's mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails.

I also pointed out just a handful of the many active terrorism investigations and court cases going on inside the US. This points to a genuine, current, dangerous threat of people being killed by militant Muslim extremists. I assume you don't debate that they are genuine.

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

I then pointed out that this current turmoil started with Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, and that according to Bin Laden, he won't stop trying to a

All the actions of our government over the last few years are those of a governement afraid it's own people will rise against it, not one worried about our safety from terrorists, should be clear to almost anyone by now.

No, it's terrorists - that's pretty clear given the limited actions they've taken domestically along with the fact that we continue to change our government with elections, have a free press, free speech, 2nd Amendment rights, are free to work and travel largely as we please (even if there is the nuisance of security checks prior to flights). I'd love to see your version of how this somehow isn't the case.

To the extent they've stopped even a single credible terrorist plot (I haven't noticed they have prevented a single one) all they've managed is to deny me some good clean fun on moving target practice -- it's a total lose-lose.

Not hard to find... really....it's not. I'm guessing you've never looked.

(Just a sample - there are many, many more.)
Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009

The US is the only one allowed to use this tech to abuse human rights, and it really doesn't want to risk losing its lead in technology used for spying on citizens.

You are completely wrong. First off, it's legal, and not an abuse of human rights. (And no, this isn't the first time a court has made a similar finding.)

Second, it's necessary because some American citizens, immigrants, and visitors don't want to live in peace, but have taken up the cause of extremists. (Just a sample - there are many, many more.)
Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

And how did this get started? September 11 attacks

If you bother to read bin Laden's 'letter to America', you will see that in order for him to call off his minions, Americans will have to convert to his flavor of Islam, give up the constitution, implement Sharia law (which will mean cutting off hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, no more alcohol (prohibition again), drugs, porn, executing homosexuals, etc., etc., etc.), and many other odious demands.

Ultimately this is about various factions of Islam trying to extend their power by force. It won't go away soon. I suggest you get used to it.

Dreaming of Al-Andalus

By the way - the Muslim Brotherhood is not helping.

1) What did berg do? What trust has he violated ... where is said proof?
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote fully. I said "I am sure they had some sort of process to gauge people's reliability and willingness to be part of WikiLeaks before they "hired" anyone to be part of the organization." The sentence, itself, doesn't say I have any proof. But when you are joining an organization like WikiLeaks, which itself needs it's secrets to survive (which Assange freely admits in his interview with 60 Minutes) and continue pouring out the information without being hindered by stupid people revealing their internal processes and drumming up a media circus, it kinda goes without saying, no? But never did I claim to have proof. In fact, most of my comment was prefaced with "I's" which inherently makes it an opinion piece, does it not? Perhaps getting some grammar and language skills should be in your near future...

2) ... I'm sorry ... have you been living under a fucking rock? Assange LIVES to make a name for himself. He's the fucking definition of an attention/media whore. If he cared about the leaks and not attention we wouldn't know his name.
Really? I'm sure that he started this leak organization, from which he was very behind the scenes for many years, just to feed his ego and get accused of rape falsely and get threatened by almost every major governmental power on the face of the planet. Yea. I'm sure that was his goal. LOL. And you say I'm under a rock? You must be SMOKING rock. It was only after the Collateral Murder video that he was forcibly thrust into the limelight because of all the media attention it gathered. That is when you started seeing him out and about because the media and the people demanded it. He was/is the spokesperson for WikiLeaks. But when there isn't much media attention, that of course means that he isn't in the media! How can you call him a media whore when the only reason he has become this "media whore" as you and others call him was BECAUSE the media and others started attacking wikileaks and he had to DO HIS JOB, which was the field the media response and be the public figure head? If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. If he DIDN'T care about the leaks, he never would have started or persisted with WIkiLeaks. There are many other ways to get in the media spotlight.

3) So a bunch of people see the way somethings work and don't like it ... so they go start their own ... and their the assholes?
Actually...yes! The fact is, beyond Bradley Manning (who got himself caught on his own by disclosing what he was doing to Adrian Lamo) no WikiLeaks sources have been revealed. They have been air tight. Their data has been kept under lock and key with nobody cracking the released, encrypted "Big Leak" file distributed on BitTorrent, nor any of their actual data servers or information stores compromised. Then along comes Daniel and OpenLeaks. Bam. Instantly fucks up their track record. Who knows what else he brought with him? Also, it is well known that when a high-profile person leaves a corporation and then tries to go start or work for another company that does essentially the same thing using information from the previous, more often than not the first company will have some kind of guidelines and agreement so that they basically can't use anything they did/got from their previous job. While this certainly isn't the exact same situation, it is frowned upon. When Danial essentially did was get "Fired" from his first job (WikiLeaks), stole information and internal documents, and started a new company doing the exact same thing using stolen information, while writing books and being just as much of a "media whore" as Assange in order to do it. If this were a real, paying job he would be in court right now.

4) ... okay, so you do live under a rock. Its reall