Slashdot Mirror

No doubt you will feel cheated if Australia doesn't receive all the benefits of Chinese attention that the United States has received.

FBI cracks down on China's elusive army of amateur spies

The FBI estimates that more than 3,000 "front companies" have been established by Chinese nationals in the US specifically to purloin military and economic secrets illegally.

Let Me Count The Ways China Is Stealing Our Secrets

China: Suspected Acquisition of U.S. Nuclear Weapon Secrets

This CRS Report discusses China’s suspected acquisition of U.S. nuclear weapon secrets, including that on the W88, the newest U.S. nuclear warhead.

China's Secret War

Of course, why worry?

China warns Australia against military pact with US
Aussies fear threat of war with China

Your wrong. You confusing "proved" reserves with known reserves. "Proved" means we have already drilled there. If you include everything the geologists know about then we have the worlds largest oil reserves. "According to the Institute for Energy Research, we have more than 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the U. S., which is enough oil to meet all our needs for the next 200 years."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40872.pdf
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20120323/OPINION02/120322010/Difference-between-proven-recoverable-oil-reserves?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm

Read the order that grants NSA their current authority here.

Executive Order 12333:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12333.htm

(If you go to a public-facing NSA briefing, this is the one they will cite.)

Because it's not funny.

I think the author is using a lot of irony in his post.

How do you know?

Just a 1 minute search in Google of "Missile Defense Systems effectiveness" gave me: Effectiveness of Proposed National Missile Defense Against ICBMs from North Korea

Unfortunately, the proposed NMD system would have essentially zero capability against the most likely emerging threat-- an ICBM from North Korea. And it would have strictly zero capability against the much more realistic and important threat from North Korea, Iran, or Iraq[...] Because the NMD interceptors are all "hit-to-kill" so that they must collide with the warhead in order to destroy it, the attacker need not conceal the existence of the warhead but only its exact location. This is readily done by the use of an enclosing balloon made of aluminum-foil coated mylar that can be put together by anyone who buys this article of commerce and spends $20 on a hand-held tool for heat sealing the plastic to make a large balloon.

Missile defense costs $10 billion a year. What do we get for that?

In 1999, former Secretary of Defense William Perry made what must have been an exhausting series of diplomatic trips to convince North Korea to stop developing and testing long-range missiles. He was remarkably successful. In fact, as news of his success reached the Pentagon, people there used to joke, "There goes the threat!" The joke showed that perhaps the easiest route in dealing with North Korea can be through creative diplomacy, not military technology. Dollar for dollar, Dr. Perry was the most cost-effective missile defense system the United States ever had, and he showed that effective diplomacy is hard to beat.

Sure, just like armor, or radar, or satellite imaging, or barricades, or moats. Yes, clearly all military technology is offensive in nature.

Yes it is. All military technology puts the other side at a disadvantage and provoke a countermeasure and is as such offensive. The USA is not a bunch of pacifists, in fact the USA is the most aggressive western country and is known for invading country after country. If the USA gets a Missile Defence System, it makes more likely that the USA will attack more countries, because they don't have to fear retaliations.

Wikileaks doesn't go after any targets. People leak stuff which wikileaks then publishes. If they haven't published anything sensitive enough for you, then that means that people haven't leaked that information to them, not that they "go after soft targets".

They don't go after soft target, eh?

. . . . In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.

Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.

In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.

On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. Last year, without permission, it published the full text of the highly regarded 2009 book about corruption in Kenya called “It’s Our Turn to Eat” by investigative reporter Michela Wrong (as first reported by Chris McGreal in The Guardian on April 9). By posting a pirated version of the book and making it freely available, WikiLeaks almost certainly disrupted sales of the book and made it harder for Ms. Wrong and other anti-corruption reporters to perform their important work and to get it published. Repeated protests and pleas from the author were required before WikiLeaks (to its credit) finally took the book offline.

“Soon enough,” observed Raffi Khatchadourian in a long profile of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange in The New Yorker (June 7), “Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most–power without accountability–is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution.” . . . --- Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

just let out a couple of sonic farts at 140db should deafen the Dolphins permanently

140 dB underwater is actually pretty quiet. Sound levels underwater are based on a reference of 1 Pascal at 1 meter. Sound levels in the air were arbitrarily referenced to 20 Pascal at 1 meter to better align it with the sensitivity of the human ear. Water also has a much higher impedance than air. Consequently, to convert underwater dB to to air dB, you have to subtract 62. 140 dB underwater is equivalent to just 78 dB in air. And even whales are able to pump out 180-190 dB.

Unfortunately, PETA and some environmental groups have either failed to understand this or deliberately abused misunderstanding of it to generate hysteria among the public about the effects of underwater sonar and ship traffic on wildlife.

I am bothered by one part of this article, the idea that Science Debate 2008 was only moderately successful. True, they were unable to get the candidates to debate science topics live on television, but the organization DID succeed in getting the candidates to debate science. The organization gave the candidates a list of questions and then posted their answers online side by side for comparison (I wrote up a score card on who I thought gave the best answer to each question).

This was more than the Federation of American Scientists or Union of Concerned Scientists have accomplished in their decades of activism. This was HUGE for an organization that had just come into existence. This success is why I abandoned my memberships to these other organizations and committed my donations to Science Debate.

(Side Note: Newt Gingrich is a scumbag, but if he gets the nomination I can't wait to see him and Obama throw-down on Science... I've seen Newt destroy John Kerry on how to tackle Climate Change and I believe his nomination would bring scientific issues into the spotlight since Obama is something of a science geek himself.)

The Federation of American Scientists:

The EYE discovered four times within one .gif at:
on pages:
https://www.fas.org/eprint.htm
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/index.html

They could've used any image in the world but the EYE was chosen, hmmmm why?

As you browse through the site, picking random .htm pages in whichever subject area you choose, many, if not all of the titles include the eye, this time it's just one, not four, example:

at:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/billman.htm

Wedjat, eye of Horus:

Strange image:
at:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/

Select one of the topics from the link above

Who are they?
"About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank and registered 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based analysis and practical policy recommendations on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. Moreover, FAS is committed to educating policymakers, the public, the news media, and the next generation of scientists, engineers, and global leaders about the urgent need for creating a more secure and better world." - https://fas.org/about/index.html

The eye is found over and over and over and over on many pages on their site. This isn't any old blog site, mind you.

The Federation of American Scientists:

The EYE discovered four times within one .gif at:
on pages:
https://www.fas.org/eprint.htm
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/index.html

They could've used any image in the world but the EYE was chosen, hmmmm why?

As you browse through the site, picking random .htm pages in whichever subject area you choose, many, if not all of the titles include the eye, this time it's just one, not four, example:

at:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/billman.htm

Wedjat, eye of Horus:

Strange image:
at:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/

Select one of the topics from the link above

Who are they?
"About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank and registered 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based analysis and practical policy recommendations on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. Moreover, FAS is committed to educating policymakers, the public, the news media, and the next generation of scientists, engineers, and global leaders about the urgent need for creating a more secure and better world." - https://fas.org/about/index.html

The eye is found over and over and over and over on many pages on their site. This isn't any old blog site, mind you.

The Federation of American Scientists:

The EYE discovered four times within one .gif at:
on pages:
https://www.fas.org/eprint.htm
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/index.html

They could've used any image in the world but the EYE was chosen, hmmmm why?

As you browse through the site, picking random .htm pages in whichever subject area you choose, many, if not all of the titles include the eye, this time it's just one, not four, example:

at:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/billman.htm

Wedjat, eye of Horus:

Strange image:
at:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/

Select one of the topics from the link above

Who are they?
"About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank and registered 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based analysis and practical policy recommendations on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. Moreover, FAS is committed to educating policymakers, the public, the news media, and the next generation of scientists, engineers, and global leaders about the urgent need for creating a more secure and better world." - https://fas.org/about/index.html

The eye is found over and over and over and over on many pages on their site. This isn't any old blog site, mind you.

The Federation of American Scientists:

The EYE discovered four times within one .gif at:
on pages:
https://www.fas.org/eprint.htm
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/index.html

They could've used any image in the world but the EYE was chosen, hmmmm why?

As you browse through the site, picking random .htm pages in whichever subject area you choose, many, if not all of the titles include the eye, this time it's just one, not four, example:

at:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/billman.htm

Wedjat, eye of Horus:

Strange image:
at:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/

Select one of the topics from the link above

Who are they?
"About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank and registered 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based analysis and practical policy recommendations on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. Moreover, FAS is committed to educating policymakers, the public, the news media, and the next generation of scientists, engineers, and global leaders about the urgent need for creating a more secure and better world." - https://fas.org/about/index.html

The eye is found over and over and over and over on many pages on their site. This isn't any old blog site, mind you.

The Federation of American Scientists:

The EYE discovered four times within one .gif at:
on pages:
https://www.fas.org/eprint.htm
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/index.html

They could've used any image in the world but the EYE was chosen, hmmmm why?

As you browse through the site, picking random .htm pages in whichever subject area you choose, many, if not all of the titles include the eye, this time it's just one, not four, example:

at:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/billman.htm

Wedjat, eye of Horus:

Strange image:
at:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/

Select one of the topics from the link above

Who are they?
"About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank and registered 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based analysis and practical policy recommendations on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. Moreover, FAS is committed to educating policymakers, the public, the news media, and the next generation of scientists, engineers, and global leaders about the urgent need for creating a more secure and better world." - https://fas.org/about/index.html

The eye is found over and over and over and over on many pages on their site. This isn't any old blog site, mind you.

Learn some fucking facts. Seriously.

The US debt is a little over 15T(Trillion). China holds 1.134T. That's 7.5%

China holds a meager 7.5% SEVEN POINT FIVE PERCENT of the US debt. That's it.

Current annual percentage rate on 10 year Treasury Notes: ~2%

Annual return on 1.134T at 2%: ~22B

Annual operating costs of a conventionally powered aircraft carrier: ~200 M

China's cash left over after running their aircraft carrier: 22B - 200M = 21.8B

Are these the fucking facts I'm supposed to seriously learn?

New ships are named by the secretary of the navy. It's a tradition to name ships after presidents.

CIA spying on Toyota to give trade secrets to Ford? I'd call that unlikely

Then you should take some time to read about ECHELON being used for industrial espionage (see section on industrial espionage):

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/rapport_echelon_en.pdf

Actually fuck it here you go.

What about all the junk and debris that might result?

You know, flicked cigarettes, empty soda cans, charred human remains...

Not to mention that satellites can be regarded as munitions. What if the Iranians want to let their citizens participate in recreational orbital flights?

India is working on a space program and planning moon exploration, they have a nuclear weapons program. They send foreign aid to Africa. If you consider the state of their infrastructure and levels of poverty throughout the country - go figure. Welcome to government spending - its not just for the US anymore.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106876605
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pm-announces-five-billion-dollars-aid-for-africa/1/139212.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/

I agree with a lot of what you said. I have no information about some other stuff. But I take issue with the following:

2) Reformed Health Care to allow 30 million Americans access to it
You mean the "no insurance company left behind" act? Touting the public option while cutting a deal with the insurance lobby?

It is called a fallback plan. His — and my — preference was for the public option, but that didn't fly. Would you rather he give up entirely if he could not get it perfect?

Remember, "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

7) Ended don't ask/don't tell (Important because 140ish? translators fired under that program could have prevented or mitigated 9/11. The backlog in translations led to the orders to execute 9/11 being translated 2 days after the attacks)
After fighting for the policy for years, but OK.

That does not lessen the achievement. He gave the military time to finish their studies and get used to the idea, which is how he got them on board.

10) Ordered U.S. troops to prevent a Libyan genocide at that hands of Ghaddafi (who claimed he would make the streets run red with blood) without loosing a single American life
Oh, you mean engaged in a war without even invoking the weak ass requirements of the war powers act further pushing us down the road to a Napoleonic presidency where the president all on his own can declare and fight wars all in violation of the separation of powers established in the US Constitution?

Look, there are wars, and there are authorizations to use force. In an actual war, an entire nation is facing off against another, and the President can dictate factory production and all sorts of stuff. He did not wage war in Libya, not a proper war.

But he did exceed his authority under the War Powers Act. Every president has considered that act to be unconstitutional, and Obama is no different. For some reason, the Supreme Court has stayed out of that debate.

But the truth is, Congress is fundamentally okay with his actions. If they weren't, they could have cut funding. They did not, ergo he had tacit, if not official, approval.

Congress's research bureau prepared a good paper on this whole subject: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

11) Ordered the capture/elimination of Osama bin Laden (successfully)
OK, but there are issues regarding Pakistani sovereignty that will likely bite us in the ass for a person who had become ineffectual.

We gave them a long time to get their shit together. We knew he was there, somewhere. At this point, it is safe to say that parts of the government of Pakistan are and have been abetting terrorists.

However, it is their right to do so. I do not think we are morally correct to act in another country without their say-so. If we could not get Pakistan's co-operation, we should have just sucked it up and officially shifted our stance towards Pakistan accordingly.

I personally care about this article as Canada is a major importer of food (both processed and raw ingredients) from China.
If you live in the US you should be even more concerned, as China is now the third largest source of U.S. agricultural and seafood imports. Have a look at this article from the Federation of American Scientists

Don't be fooled; China's food problems are OUR problems until we refuse to accept their food imports.

I'll call your citation and raise you some numbers right here.

And here's the Grimmett Report which breaks it down even further by indicating where those arms are going.

Not sure this is most up-to-date, but see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf which seems to indicate a 5 year limitation for "theft".
"Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been completed." This appears to apply to alleged theft.
"The federal courts have long held that a statute of limitations may be enlarged retroactively as long as the previously applicable period of limitation has not expired." But this was not done in this case, so far as I have heard.

So I don't know what the judge is referring to in saying there is no applicable federal statute of limitations.

But someone in NASA should have looked at this proposed lawsuit and told the lawyer who wanted to bring charges that he's an ass to involve NASA's reputation in something so relatively trivial. If their goal is to get back at Mitchell for flouting their 'authoritae', they could have simply issued a press release stating that either the camera is not authentic, or Mitchell must have stolen it, as it was supposed to have been left on the LEM and they have no record of giving him permission to take it.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/demag.php

We're quite likely to see systems that kill anybody who is shooting at friendly troops. The U.S. Army has had artillery radar systems for years which detect incoming shells and accurately return fire. There have been attempts to scale that down to man-portable size, but so far the systems have been too heavy.

Sooner or later, probably sooner, someone will put something like that on a combat robot.

You seem to not know that Pakistan already has nukes, several of them.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

Pakistan's and America's relationship is faltering. The fact is, that pakistan is harboring terrorists PURPOSELY.

To be honest, part of the issues belong to us. W/neo-cons gave India access to 'civil' nuke tech, but not to pakistan.
Once we opened that up, we basically told pakistan that we did not trust them. Of course, that was true. We don't.
And we are helping what they consider their mortal enemy (even though it is also their 'brother').

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

Pakistan nuke weapons history

Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972. ...

On May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests. The Pakistani Atomic Energy Commission reported that the five nuclear tests conducted on May 28 generated a seismic signal of 5.0 on the Richter scale, with a total yield of up to 40 KT (equivalent TNT). Dr. A.Q. Khan claimed that one device was a boosted fission device and that the other four were sub-kiloton nuclear devices.

On May 30, 1998 Pakistan tested one more nuclear warhead with a reported yield of 12 kilotons. The tests were conducted at Balochistan, bringing the total number of claimed tests to six. It has also been claimed by Pakistani sources that at least one additional device, initially planned for detonation on 30 May 1998, remained emplaced underground ready for detonation. ...

According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.

Let me guess: you don't have the balls to post who was President of the US in the majority of the 1990s, and particularly when Pakistan detonated its first nuclear weapons.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, "BLAME BOOOOSH!" makes you sound like Obama on the "Barackalypse Now!" the US ecnomy is suffering.

Nope, no balls. You won't say who was President, will you?

>Rich folks consume more, they pay more. easy math.

Sales taxes are regressive. They always have been. Don't just ask me, ask any economist.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

If I was rich, I'd be in favor of a sales tax. But I'm not. I've dealt with combined GST and PST in Ontario and it seems like highway robbery when you have "mere mortal" wages, especially when "high sales tax" for me is 7 percent while in the States.

>Undocumented laborers and their families consume, they pay. easy math.

A lot of undocumented workers /have been/ paying taxes in the hopes of establishing proof of residency in case immigration reform comes around. IRS doesn't care if you're here illegally.

>Buy something from out of the country - double the sales tax on importation to the country.

BUT BUT PROTECTIONISM!!! ASLDKFQTQ!!!

I agree that we should have tariffs to stop dumping and the general race to the bottom the American worker has to do in order to compete with 35 cent an hour wages in Bangladesh.

>Online shoppers that don't currently pay state sales tax - you'll still pay national sales tax.

It already exists. You're already supposed to be paying this. It's called Use Tax. Businesses keep track of this. Most consumers don't.

An income tax has been the most equitable way to "spread the pain" over the years.

We had a damn good economy in the 1950s with the income tax rates they had back then. We built interstates, schools, and hospitals with it. Now we have an infrastructure crumbling around our ears and wars we aren't paying for.

As of March 2011

Total War Funding by Operation
Assuming an annual level of the current Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 44/P.L. 112-4) and
based on DOD, State Department/USAID, and Department of Veterans Administration budget
submissions, the cumulative total appropriated from the 9/11 for those war operations, diplomatic
operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans is $1.283 trillion including:
â $806 billion for Iraq;
â $444 billion for Afghanistan;
â $29 billion for enhanced security; and
â $6 billion unallocated (see Table 1).

And instead of raising taxes to fund such shenanigans, Bush insisted on cutting taxes, and the "Fiscal Responsibility" whackos still insist on doing the same.

Because, you know, none of that war shit costs anything, obviously.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

--
BMO

The specific prosecutors were not rebuked, however the judge did have some very hash words for the executive branch.

I'd suggest reading the entire transcript of the court's decision, and drawing your own conclusions. By comparison, that article in the post is far less interesting to read.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/drake/071511-transcript.pdf

One very important point that the Judge made: he blames the government (executive branch) as a whole, not the specific prosecutors who handled the case in the latter stages:
-------
THE COURT: I have one more matter to address,
and Mr. Welch, I know I asked some tough questions of you,
I've had some tough comments for the executive branch of
government today, but I want the record to reflect that both
you and Mr. Pearson have conducted yourself with the height
of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you
weren't known to the court before you arrived and I'm not
sure if you'll be back in this court because you're from
other jury jurisdiction, but I want to commend you for your
level of professionalism in all matters before the court,
both in public matters and some of the classified hearings
and I commend you for your professionalism. Sometimes it's
tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to
answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting
anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the
executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your
professionalism in this case.of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you
Sometimes it's
tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to
answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting
anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the
executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your
professionalism in this case.
--------------

That is a direct quote from the transcript, pages 47-48

Further, China buys US treasuries to keep their currency valuation down so that they can continue to be the low-cost contract manufacturer to the world. Without keeping their currency low, the strength of their economy would push their currency higher, making them uncompetitive as exporters and pretty much derailing the vast majority of their economy.

They also buy bonds to stabilize our economy so we'll keep buying.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf

The current global financial crisis has raised considerable concern in the United States over the willingness of foreigners, including China, to continue to invest in U.S. securities, particularly Treasury securities, which will be used to help finance U.S. spending programs intended to promote economic recovery.

It looks like the Ford and Carter bans on nuclear waste reprocessing were overturned by Reagan. The Wikipedia page on nuclear reprocessing has an overview of the current situation, and a link to a more in-depth summary of US reprocessing policy here (pdf).

Based on a quick read, it looks like one of the big hold-ups is that while the US isn't banning fuel reprocessing, it isn't subsidising it either; but that's just from a quick read and I encourage you to do your own analysis.

Further, reading over the Wikipedia page, it looks like there have been some substantial improvements in the reprocessing chemistry that go a long way to mitigating the proliferation risks that were a concern in the 1970's.

The U.S. has separate wires too, known as the SIPRNet.

[...]Its complete architecture will be achieved by constructing a new worldwide backbone router system.[...]

the military space budget is at least the size of NASA's

As usual, a lot more than NASA's budget. $22.5 Billion as of 2006 (compared to NASA's $15.125 Billion), and increasing every year.

Why is it that the US always places killing people above all other goals? It's really wearing on my nerves and is about to drive me out of this violence-hungry shithole.

(Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget , http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/space/RL33601.pdf )

Lying to Congress is not a crime if you are not under oath. Typically, witnesses do not give oral testimony under oath except in confirmation hearings and investigations. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-392.pdf

The assertion about 9/11 is completely wrong.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

AQ's reasons for the Jihad
1. There are Americans, Christians and "Zionists" in Saudi Arabia
2. Those groups fought a war against Iraq from Saudi Arabia
3. There are Christians, Jews and "Zionists" in lands that are "Muslim" like Jerusalem

You mean, he hasn't complied with WPA? Because the fraud part is extensively documented.

I still wish you had linked to those stories.

But you are correct, my memory was not serving me well. What I was unknowing referring to was the Drake Case, in which the government's bungled attempts to keep information secret nevertheless would have served to bias the jury against the defendant.

Somehow, I got that confused with another case in which the judge told the government (pre-trial) that they could use the established secrecy procedures to withhold confidential information from the public, but not from the judge and jury. However, the latter case was merely a pre-trial decision by the judge, I don't think it has the force of an actual trial decision. But I could be wrong. I still haven't found that story to check.

Sadly, the Drake case was settled on a misdemeanor charge, leaving the government open to try its redaction BS on the next hapless victim. We'll have to see how it turns out in the long run.

Another source of anti-polygraph info. 60 Minutes did an anecdotally interesting test. In addition, let's look at this from a (politically motivated?) prosecutor's perspective. We can presume the prosecutor is politically motivated, not truth or justice inclined, because of the insistence on using a scientifically unreliable instrument. Say the accused is:

• Innocent: polygrapher says innocent, accused is released or plea bargains to lesser charge, convictions stay the same
• Innocent: polygrapher says guilty, plea bargain agreement, convictions go up
• Guilty: polygrapher says innocent, plea bargain still likely*, convictions stay the same
• Guilty: polygrapher says guilty, plea bargain agreement, convictions go up

*Since the prosecutor will now take the position that polygraphs are unreliable and use other evidence to convict.

because you can't.

there is no law banning the 'leaking' of classified information.

there are several different laws that ban specific types of information, some of it classified, in certain situations, by certain people.

the truth is that the vast majority of the documents that Manning released do not fall under any law simply becasue they are classified.

read his charge sheet, then look up the actual laws and read them. the civilian laws that he broke do not use the word 'classified'. at all. the Espionage Act (he has about 5 or so charges on this) is regarding 'national defense information'.

please tell me how information about Gadhafi's "hot nurses" are information vital to the national defense.

congress has been unwilling or unable to pass any law making a blanket ban on passing classified information.
or the Collateral Murder video. how does that rise to the level of the Espionage Act?

why is there no blanket anti-classified leaking law? because congress itself leaks classified information all the time, in order to fight political battles in the media. thats where all the 'senior officials who did not wish to be named' comments come from in news stories.
you can read about Ollie North's experience in the 80s, the whitehouse leaked, congress leaked, everyone leaked. it was part of their media strategy.

There is a great paper from the 1973 Columbia Law Journal by Schmidt and Edgar about this, you can read it online at

http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/index.html

Essentially, the American nation has put more faith in open debate and discussion than in government secrecy and its associated blatant lying and corruption (see Reynolds v. United States for a classic example).

this principle is slowly being chipped away by various underhanded tactics over the years, but the spirit of openness is like an unquenchable flame or some kind of endemic weed... the human condition is to ask questions and demand accounability from authority.

The US isn't as coy about its cyber warfare as you are - the Navy has a designation titled "Information Warfare," the Air Force Information Warfare Center lists "offensive and defensive counter information and information operations" as its main goal, and the US Cyber Command hopes to "recruit, train and retain highly qualified cyber-warfare combatants"

http://www.navy.com/careers/information-and-technology/information-warfare.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/aia/cyberspokesman/97aug/afiwc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command

Glad you asked for a citation, but you did not say which part... Taking them one at a time:

Murder of all jews: Hamas charter Article 7, last paragraph and following Hadith.

Blames them for being behind wars and revolutions: Hamas charter Article 22 (which explicitly blames "the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there" on the Jews, as well as World War I and World War II).

Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Hamas charter article 32, which says: Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

You can get the full text of the Hamas charter at several of the References on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter but here are two of those just for your convenience:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Or were you talking about some other charter? There are several different charters around in Gaza and the West Bank; the Hamas one is the one for the group that had a plurality (though not majority) of the votes in the one election held so far and the group that is the government of Gaza at the moment.

They demanded evidence...The US refused.. The taliban said, 'fuck you.. no ticky, no washy'..

The Taliban were stalling, and trying to save face. The US and the Taliban had been down this road before with Bin Laden after the African Embassy bombings. There was no way that the Taliban were going to hand over Bin Laden then, since their government would fall, and Bin Laden's power only continued to grow in Afghanistan after that. Al Qaeda formed a state within a state.

As you may recall, the United States indicted Bin Laden for the African embassy attacks.

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

  It didn't help.

U.S., Taliban bargained over bin Laden, documents show

..., the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, Alan Eastham Jr., met with Wakil Ahmed, a close aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, in November and December 1998. That was just months after the August al Qaeda attacks that killed more than 200 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"It is unbelievable that this small man did this to you," Ahmed said during their meeting on December 19, 1998, according to the documents.

Ahmed told Eastham that he spoke with Omar about bin Laden and that the Taliban still considered the Saudi exile "innocent."

During a meeting between Ahmed and Eastham on November 28, 1998, just days after the Taliban's supreme court cleared bin Laden of terrorist activities, Ahmed said one possibility "would be for the U.S. to kill him or arrange for bin Laden to be assassinated."

Ahmed "said that the U.S., if it chose to do so, could arrange to have bin Laden killed by cruise missiles or other means, and there would be little the Taliban could do to prevent it," according to the documents.

Another alternative, Ahmed said, would be for the United States to provide the Taliban with cruise missiles to have "the situation resolved in this way." Ahmed also noted that expelling bin Laden likely would result in the Taliban regime being overthrown, according to the documents.

Al Qaeda wasn't going anywhere in Afghanistan as long as the Taliban governed, hence the outcome.

As far as the rest of your post, I suppose you can keep posting that nonsense under the stopped clock theory (it's still right twice per day), but it doesn't really apply to the war in Afghanistan. The US was attacked, after all.

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.

There is no need to become argumentative.

Heh. Well, I thought my posted response was more measured than my initial "WTF?" response based on the apparent lack of understanding of the natural ballistic arc of the bullet's trajectory. Attempting to force a bullet to fly a straight line via some MEMS-based airfoil (even if it were feasible) would rob the bullet of kinetic energy by slowing it down. Bullets' efficacy is directly proportional to the kinetic energy deposited into the target (and the correct amount of penetration [not over or under]), so this would be a deleterious effect.

Power is clearly required for actuators

What is your proposed power source? Whatever it is must be highly stable (being able to last for years in storage without degrading) and must also be highly reliable after that that time in extreme conditions of pressure, temperature, and acceleration (naturally, we can ignore terminal deceleration, heh). The entire cartridge system must be very tolerant of the rigors and abuse that would be encountered in combat (shock, dirt/sand/dust, moisture, etc).

I thought that would be obvious enough.

I didn't assume anything after I read "light speed limitation becomes non-trivial at the time frames considered", when it clearly is a non-issue.

As for remote guidance, what is important is the time difference between two consecutive corrections, which is longer than 333ns since we have to account for processing & sensing latency at either end.

Sure, but that's not what you said. Had you said something about that kind of latency it would have been more plausible. Furthermore, let's agree that the ~0.1 second flight time of the bullet to 100m is a relative eternity when it comes to simple signal communication and processing. I was much more concerned about the ability of the proposed MEMS deformations/relaxations to be able to effect the desired outcome given the >300 KHz rate required for the rifled bullet (and the power demands thereof), even if the materials science were available for this.

Please note that gyroscopic stabilization does not require that the *entire* projectile rotate as a unit.

That is correct, but are you familiar with how a rifle barrel works to impart the gyroscopic stabilization of the bullet? If you are suggesting eliminating the gyroscopic stabilization, your proposed projectile will have more trouble maintaining course with crosswinds and will suffer in its terminal ballistic performance (eg. tumbling/fragmentation).

All the stuff you are proposing to pack into the bullet is changing its composition. Center of mass is important, because rifle bullets already tend to flip and fly "end first" after they traverse longer distances (overturning moment [cool site, btw]). This is Bad and renders the bullet significantly less effective. Note that this effect would be significantly worse in the absence of spin stabilization and in that case the bullet would tend to tumble right after it emerged from the (smooth bore) barrel, again seriously diminishing its efficacy.

Again, cool idea, but I doubt it would work beyond serving as a plot element in a Stargate fanfic or something. Cheers!

PS. Fun, if unrelated fact: the M1 Abrams tank 120 mm main gun is smooth bore. Stabilization is imparted to APFSDS rounds via passive fins on the kinetic penetrator dart. The aerodynamics of an arrow-like dart (and the use cases for APFSDS rounds) is, of course, completely different than any kind of regular bullet.

Sounds like any perfectly legit multinational corporation with too much marketshare just keeping "the competetive egde". Does this make anyone else remember Major General Smedley Butler, USMC's words?

This is way beyond sad. The last thing IT world needs are extraditions, even if the guy was quilty of the charges. If it takes 10 months to gather (make up) evidence, that makes me think he is innocent. I wonder how they are going to get anything posted as valid evidence, or are the separate laws for evidence against US nationals and foreigners? Thankfully the canadians seem to behave rationally most of the time, from what I've read.

Eh, liberties taken for dramatic effect. However, the Federation of American Scientists estimates that the US has slightly more operational weapons than Russia, despite having a significantly lower total inventory. Notably, the US/Russia both have an order of magnitude more weapons than the other nuclear powers on the list.

The US still has stock piles of chemical weapons as well... But they will get around to destroying them.. One day.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

One day? I guess you're at least consistent.

US gains momentum destroying chemical weapon stockpiles

The U.S. Army has destroyed more than 70-percent of its stockpiles of chemical weapons -- some dating as far back as to the World War I era -- as part of an elaborate, decades-long process slated to be largely completed by 2012, service officials said.

"As of 26 January, 2010, the U.S. has destroyed a 22,322 tons of the original 31,500 tons," said Greg Mahall, chief of Public Affairs for the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA).

The U.S. arsenal -- which used to include 31,500 tons of chemical weapons such as Sarin, VX and Mustard agents-- is systematically being destroyed at an increased pace, Mahall said.

The anti-nuke brigade is apparently in full force, since the scenario I described was actually predicted by scientists (and debunked by those with a better understanding of nuclear physics).

The US still has stock piles of chemical weapons as well... But they will get around to destroying them.. One day.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

Which 9/11 are we talking about exactly? I mean, if we're looking for 'old stories'..

They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.[/url]

When was that? Israel has always been a major recipient of US aid and was the largest recipient of US aid (something like a third of total foreign aid) for about 30 years.

You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right?

An incredible military certainly, but a population barely larger than Hong Kong and an economy smaller than Ireland or Egypt. In comparison the UAE alone has a bigger economy and a bigger population.

There is no way Israel could have sustained its military without massive outside assistance.