Slashdot Mirror
Student Uncovers US Military Secrets
karthik_r085 writes "According to The Register, An Irish graduate student has uncovered words blacked-out of declassified US military documents using nothing more than a dictionary and text analysis software. Claire Whelan, a computer science student at Dublin City University was given the problems by her PhD supervisor as a diversion. David Naccache, a cryptographer with Gemplus, challenged her to discover the words missing from two documents: one was a memo to George Bush, and another concerned military modifications to civilian helicopters."
Let's keep posts on topic and avoid any comments others might find offensive.
Thanks.
we oughta bomb them back to the fucking stone age!
Yeah, but the memos are pointless anyway - diversionary tactics designd to keep crims at bay.
Also, the Irish are gay.
Must... Uncover... Words!
-Imidazole2
> Damn! I was hoping for downloads.
You can download the blackspace from the usual goatse site.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No, more like:
Lets attack Iraq under the false presumption of removing an "evil tyrant". Do lots of damage with the idea of select contracts for rebuilding going to companies owned by friends. Install puppet government to ensure oil contracts only go to friends. Toy with getting christianity into country just to give our conservative bible thumping base of voters something to cheer about. Let G.I.s drive around in unarmored vechiles with idea that destroyed vechiles will need replaced by company that is friendly. Blame democrats for not giving enough funding to buy better vechiles. Claim "resolve" and other stupid terms that Rove digs out of his bible in every speech.
you must be french. only a frenchie could be that anal about the french language, ie something so stupid. arrogant prick.
Please oh please somone MOD ZOGGER'S COMMENT UP!!! I can't believe how many people are unaware of PNACs goals, let alone their call for the "Pearl Harbor" like attack on American soil, which IIRC was written in their first public document. I've shown their site to I don't know how many people, most of which dismiss it as a hoax (even the true Bush-haters). Believe me, IT IS NOT A HOAX. They very clearly spelled out their plans in 1997 (even earlier if you look into Wolfowitz's documents from the first Bush administration). All they needed was a puppet whose ass they could all shove their hands up, and boom - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Seriously, please look into it, read it, digest it, and think about it when it comes time to vote again...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
No body secure any more. CIA is wating to declasifay us all. Mean time, we can stand an wait. Trust me.
Al Quida has already proven it will behead people just for what they know, without criminal charge, without provocation, without family access, without legal representation, without regard for international criticism, without regard for international laws and norms, without safeguards for personal safety, without justification or oversight by the courts.
Big difference, beheading and detaining. but then War is hell. Best to hope the next missile doesn't fly up your ass or perhaps you would best fight the war with tea and more BS.
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Twang twang, and all. (Spanish guitar, OTOH -> :)
:)
;-)
I have entirely too many hobbies.
Including brewing very good beer
My feeling is that there won't be any of the "william" dark left after tonite; regardless of my ten hour day tomorrow, I feel the need...and it's so GOOD - proud of my mix, yay, verily forsooth, etc. I just hope I can find the notes on what I put into it. Been a while.
t_m_p; Photoshop *is* a hobby. After all, it's fun, you enjoy it, and you don't get paid for it, neh?
That makes it a hobby in my book. Hobbies are supposed to be FUN!
Cheers!
SB
(PS - Yeah, I'm weird. It gets worse when you get older, assuming you don't get assimilated. I tend to think of it as cultural divergence for individuals. Perhaps we need a support group
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The US having bases under treaty there does not equate whatsoever to us occupying the oilfields. None of those countries would agree with nor acquiese to us occupying their energy production facilities.
I'm not saying that we *couldn't* occupy the oilfields - I'm saying that we *don't* and that the cost to do so would be enormous (and we probably wouldn't be able to supply those troops sufficiently to guarantee ownership, either, given where those oilfields are and the logistics of supply delivery.) Do you think we have endless resources?
There's a huge difference between having military forces in a country on delineated bases, and having them occupy strategic and defended resources in that country; which you don't seem to understand at all. We may have the best military in the world, but that doesn't mean that all our opponents would roll over as easily as Iraq's military did.
Quit quoting google at me and tell me what basis your speculation in the original post has some basis. Just how much more overseas deployment do you think the public would stand for before even the GW administration had to bow before that pressure? Good Lord.
Good night. I'm not going to post till tomorrow night due to work, so think your response over.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
"The government has already proven it will detain people just for what they know"
True. One of the three classes of foreigners for whom Bush suspended habeus corpus after 9/11 were those who were believed to have knowledge of terrorits attacks though they were not themselves guilty. The stated motive was to prevent flight of potential witnesses. (The other two classes were suspected terrorists and illegal aliens). It is legitimate to oppose this policy but please give your reasons for why you believe its ok to allow those with knowledge of terrorist activity to flee the country. At least reveal why you feel that is more important to allow witnesses the right to flee than to gather from them evidence used to capture terrorists.
"without criminal charge"
Considered to be civilized treatment of enemy combatants and prisoners of war. What if in WWII Germany had tried for murder captured American pilots who had bombed Berlin ? What if Britain had tried and executed German prisoners of war, some of whom certainly would have been found guitly of murder ? To detain the enemy without trial has always been considered humane. You seem to disagree with what is considered to be humane and civilized treatment of enemy prisoners caputerd in times of war.
"without provocation,"
Most Americans consider a terrorist attack on the United States to be a provaocation. You, apparently, do not.
"without family access"
Normal practice for prisoners of war and enemy combatants. The Bush government is acting according to well established norms.
"without legal representation,"
False. Legal representatives for prisoners are now pleading their cases to the Supreme Court.
"without regard for international criticism,"
Within the power of any soverign nation. That is what soverignty means.
"without regard for international laws"
The treatment of prisoners of war is governed by the Geneva accords, which clearly state their own applicability to only soldiers. Beyond a doubt they do not apply to terrorists. The detention of enemy terrorists is simply not governed by any existing international law, therefore that detention is necessarily without regard for international law. It is impossible for the United States to comply with international law when their exists now applicable international law. International terrorism did not exist at the time the laws were written. Wars between nation states were the concern of the day.
" and norms,"
True to the extnat that there exist no norms. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were unprecedented. We are the first nation in the history of the world to go to war with an an internation terrorist organization. See the previous point: there exists no international law governing the treatment of captured terrorists in times of war, therefore the United States necessarialy acts outside of international law.
To the extent that their exist norms, such as not trying enemies caputured in war, the U.S. is abides by those norms. One crucial point to note is that we are not executing detainees. That is a norm.
"without safeguards for personal safety,"
False. The Red Cross has inspected Guantanamo and certified that prisoners have been treated humanely.
"without justification"
We are not justified in detaining those suspected of engaging in terrorism ?
" or oversight by the courts."
False. Suspension of Habeus Corpus by the executive branch is always subject to judicial review on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers representing detainees are now arguing before the Supreme Court.
The Court is deciding the narrow issue of who decides, and on what basis, detainees are classified as prisoners of war and enemy combatants. The Bush Administratiion is not viloting existing laws or norms. There are none which apply. Hence the court is pondering the issue of what new rules to invent. The court is not deciding wether those classified as p
Ceci n'est pas une signature.