With the exceptions of help in the case of a natural disaster (as if the North Koreans would accept that), we can safely assume that any large-scale military action by the US in NK would either start with covert operations or areal bombardment.
To answer the question in the summary: yes, of course, the US military would be able to perform operations in NK.
Your argument boils down to the assertion that an exploited person and/or people is responsible for its exploitation because it doesn't rebell against the exploiters. In other words you assign guilt to the victim. Fortunately, the civilized world doesn't work that way. There is an obvious cost to any rebellion: it can go wrong or sideways and many more people die or suffer than would have under the status quo.
BTW, the American colonies were split on the whole independence thing. In retrospect, it is easy to say that the revolutionaries did the right thing. But when the colonies rebelled many Americans fought on the British side.
Why are you accepting what the Guardian writers are telling you at face value? From what I've read elsewhere there was at least a misunderstanding -- the Guardian thought the password was temporary but WL meant that the download site was temporary.
Whatever the case, what was the Guardian author thinking when he published the password?! That's clearly negligent.
Information wants to be free, and I do appreciate your eagerness to propagate this information, but people will die as a result of these leaked cables.
You've said that twice now. How do you know it to be true?
NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them.
Unless anything is warrantless wiretapping by the government in the name of the war against terror -- then it will sit a year on the story, enough to make sure that the President gets reelected, just because the White House asked them to.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure I can easily create a PGP key that is time-limited, which would render the Wikileaks position bogus. At least, GPG certainly supports such keys.
Wouldn't it be possible to change the GPG code so it no longer honors the expiration date of a key?
Only that it doesn't work, or maybe I did something wrong.
I started the Keychain utility app, searched for the Diginotar certificate and set its trust setting to Never Trust. Then I opened Diginotar's test page in Safari and there was no notice whatsoever. Only after removing the certificate did I get a warning.
I'm sorry, but I see people breaking the law ALL DAY LONG. Whether it's jaywalking, speeding, drinking while under the influence, tax evasion, defrauding insurance companies, smoking pot... the list goes on and on.
Whatever you think about the laws, there's no denying that virtually everybody has broken a law in the past without consequences.
Now that I think about it, the saying can be interpreted both ways. As a criticism AND as a rationalization.
That's old news. Small amounts of cannabis for personal use have been decriminalized since the 90s. What usually happens is that the police start an investigation which is subsequently dropped by the state attorney. (The latter have leeway in what to prosecute, the former don't.) The Everything2 article is from 2003, but court decision is from 1994: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-Urteil
No, I am interested in a quote that alcohol is not consumed for intoxication. Sure, they may be other reasons (socializing, addiction), but intoxication most definitely plays a part.
How did I miss that ruling? Do you have a link? A quick google search only turned up a ruling regarding a prohibition on alcohol in Baden-Württenberg during the night and another ruling regarding the legality of alcohol testing ordered by the police.
The members of the European Parliament are directly elected by the people of the EU. It is the European institution that has the best claim to democratic legitimacy.
There's an app that lets you exchange contacts between two devices (I've only seen the iPhone version) by bumping them together.
Really? I "invented" a similar thing 6 years ago in my 2nd year studying CS with my buddies. Only that you didn't bump the devices together but simply shook hands. A sensor on your watch would discover the change in the conductivity of your skin and start to look for a compatible device via Bluetooth. Also, it was used to exchange business cards and not generic data.
NASA has developed a software for that. It scans the surrounding area for nearby objects and projects a rectangular box with your car/plane in the middle. As long as you stay inside that box you're safe.
Thinking about it, I wonder why they don't just rely on an autopilot. It's probably psychological.
The problem with the War Powers Resolution is that the executive maintains that its unconstitutional and Congress does not have the balls to challenge this view in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. It's not like they radically change the user interface every 6 weeks.
With the exceptions of help in the case of a natural disaster (as if the North Koreans would accept that), we can safely assume that any large-scale military action by the US in NK would either start with covert operations or areal bombardment.
To answer the question in the summary: yes, of course, the US military would be able to perform operations in NK.
Your argument boils down to the assertion that an exploited person and/or people is responsible for its exploitation because it doesn't rebell against the exploiters. In other words you assign guilt to the victim. Fortunately, the civilized world doesn't work that way. There is an obvious cost to any rebellion: it can go wrong or sideways and many more people die or suffer than would have under the status quo.
BTW, the American colonies were split on the whole independence thing. In retrospect, it is easy to say that the revolutionaries did the right thing. But when the colonies rebelled many Americans fought on the British side.
Care to post a link? AFAICT every page currently redirects to http.
Why are you accepting what the Guardian writers are telling you at face value? From what I've read elsewhere there was at least a misunderstanding -- the Guardian thought the password was temporary but WL meant that the download site was temporary.
Whatever the case, what was the Guardian author thinking when he published the password?! That's clearly negligent.
Information wants to be free, and I do appreciate your eagerness to propagate this information, but people will die as a result of these leaked cables.
You've said that twice now. How do you know it to be true?
It's true because it's in bold.
NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them.
Unless anything is warrantless wiretapping by the government in the name of the war against terror -- then it will sit a year on the story, enough to make sure that the President gets reelected, just because the White House asked them to.
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
What the Times knew, and when it knew it
I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure I can easily create a PGP key that is time-limited, which would render the Wikileaks position bogus. At least, GPG certainly supports such keys.
Wouldn't it be possible to change the GPG code so it no longer honors the expiration date of a key?
Unless, of course, you actually grow and process all of your own food.
Unless you modify the soil to insert backdoor genes into the seeds if it detects a certain plant...
Wait, wrong analogy.
Thanks!
I've been a Vim user for 15 years but discovered orgmode (http://orgmode.org) a year ago and absolutely love it.
But I've hit the point now where configuring it to match my needs requires me to write some code.
Only that it doesn't work, or maybe I did something wrong.
I started the Keychain utility app, searched for the Diginotar certificate and set its trust setting to Never Trust. Then I opened Diginotar's test page in Safari and there was no notice whatsoever. Only after removing the certificate did I get a warning.
So that's why Google keeps nagging me to add my phone number to my account. As if!
I know that and I've argued the same on Slashdot many times. I also don't see what it has to do with the saying.
Impossible in my jurisdiction.
I'm sorry, but I see people breaking the law ALL DAY LONG. Whether it's jaywalking, speeding, drinking while under the influence, tax evasion, defrauding insurance companies, smoking pot ... the list goes on and on.
Whatever you think about the laws, there's no denying that virtually everybody has broken a law in the past without consequences.
Now that I think about it, the saying can be interpreted both ways. As a criticism AND as a rationalization.
"it's only illegal if you get caught" is a google suggestion. That alone suggests it's pretty pervasive.
We have the exact same saying in Germany. I'd say it's pretty much the norm in Western societies.
That's old news. Small amounts of cannabis for personal use have been decriminalized since the 90s. What usually happens is that the police start an investigation which is subsequently dropped by the state attorney. (The latter have leeway in what to prosecute, the former don't.) The Everything2 article is from 2003, but court decision is from 1994: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis-Urteil
No, I am interested in a quote that alcohol is not consumed for intoxication. Sure, they may be other reasons (socializing, addiction), but intoxication most definitely plays a part.
How did I miss that ruling? Do you have a link? A quick google search only turned up a ruling regarding a prohibition on alcohol in Baden-Württenberg during the night and another ruling regarding the legality of alcohol testing ordered by the police.
(Ponies.)
The members of the European Parliament are directly elected by the people of the EU. It is the European institution that has the best claim to democratic legitimacy.
There's an app that lets you exchange contacts between two devices (I've only seen the iPhone version) by bumping them together.
Really? I "invented" a similar thing 6 years ago in my 2nd year studying CS with my buddies. Only that you didn't bump the devices together but simply shook hands. A sensor on your watch would discover the change in the conductivity of your skin and start to look for a compatible device via Bluetooth. Also, it was used to exchange business cards and not generic data.
NASA has developed a software for that. It scans the surrounding area for nearby objects and projects a rectangular box with your car/plane in the middle. As long as you stay inside that box you're safe.
Thinking about it, I wonder why they don't just rely on an autopilot. It's probably psychological.
You can put the Photoshop toolboxes on a separate monitor. That feature has been available since forever.
The problem with the War Powers Resolution is that the executive maintains that its unconstitutional and Congress does not have the balls to challenge this view in court.