They *tried* to get the pentagons help to redact the info.
The pentagon went instead with the old fashioned "lets sit with our thumbs up our arses".
So wikileaks went with a best effort.
Wikileaks may not be a news organisation but they've managed to break more significant news stories than any "real" newspaper in the past couple of years.
"Hi Pentagon, we're a foreign organisation who has been given copies of these documents, we have no duty to you, we could just release these in full right now but we're making an effort to remove things that aren't important but which would cause unnecessary problems for you or those you work with"
"Buh?"*continues to sit with thumb firmly in ass*
"... well... ok, we'll just do the best we can then"
NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.
Is the new york times going to be prosecuted for handling and disseminating classified documents now you think?
Small correction: Wikileaks didn't steal the documents, someone else did then sent them a copy.
Second, they're since they're not american they have as much duty to help keep american top secret info secret as you have to protect chinas top secret tank plans if someone sent you a copy.
Publishing secret documents which show embarasing info is what any half decent news agency should endeavour to do. Just because they've been labelled secret does not change that.
They new york times and the guardian were *also* handling those stolen documents yet I haven't heard anything about them being threatened to try to get them to delete all their copies of them.
indeed the guardian newspaper mirrored the documents on their own site, should the US go after them as well for helping publish US secrets?
They even asked the pentagon for help redacting the documents of info which could reveal someone indirectly.
They barn door was open, the pigs had fled and yet wikileaks turned around and offered the pentagon the chance to keep the choice cuts that weren't obviously scandalous.
does it lay some of the responsibility on the pentagon for not only first failing to keep that information secure but also turning down the chance to redact it later? absolutely!
The simple fact is that the pentagon was offered this on a platter, how often do organisations get a second chance to redact information *after* their secrecy measures have already utterly failed?
And they refused. Why? They made a choice to *not* do that, to *not* protect their sources.
Had a more traditional foreign news agency offered them the chance to redact sensitive info from a leak that had already happened they should have jumped at it.
Refusing on the basis that it would be "conceding legitimacy" is just childish bullshit.
No information could do much about the way Americans think about the war because so may of they don't care in the least.
Most are happy to utterly ignore the war and this leak wasn't about 1 big story, it didn't point to any single mass graves, just hundreds of formerly secret little fuckups and accidents where a few soldiers get jittery and shoot a load of holes in the passengers of a bus or cap a random passer by on the street.
Actually wikileaks did something which is not part of their normal MO- they redacted information voluntarily and offered a chance to the organisation which had lost the documents to redact anything they wanted that wasn't obviously scandalous.
If the new york times had the same chance do you think they would have refused to publish or even given the government the chance to remove stuff?
And yet they did, and what did they do when they had them? They could have just released everything, unredacted to the world yet they did not. They did the responsible thing(as a news agency) once they had the sensitive info.
They voluntarily redacted information themselves and even tried to do so in the most effective manner possible.
How many times when a newspaper is leaked sensitive info do they then contact the organisation the documents are from and give them a carte blanche to remove anything they want provided it wasn't obviously scandalous?
I mean this is into above and beyond territory, the pentagon were handed the chance on a platter.
wikileaks asked for help redacting sensitive data which had already leaked. The request was passed back by the new york times. They didn't have to. They're a foreign organisation with no duty to protect US interests.they are already as legitimate as any newspaper. The pentagon was offered the chance to redact info in a leak after it had happened, somethimg that normally doesn't happen yet they refused. Wikileaks did the responsible thing, they redacted as best they could and even asked for help but the pentagon wanted to stick it's head in the sand and deny what had already happened.
No I'm not in the US. There's a difference, believe it or not, between "Right to Work" and real employee rights like protection of the right to join (or not join) a union.
"A Right to Work law says most basically - you can't refuse to hire, or fire, someone because they aren't in, or won't join your union. "
And if they try to set up a union their employeers don't like?
And a point that isn't made enough: people complain that wikileaks didn't do a good enough job of redacting the info themselves yet wikileaks requested help redacting sensitive info from the pentagon(they would after all have all the knowledge required to pick out what could potentially reveal their sources in a roundabout manner after all) but they got no reply other than attempts to shut them up entirely.
In an ideal world wikileaks would not be necessary.
Who vets the reporters for the new york times or any other news agency? There's a long tradition of documents getting leaked to news agencies over the years.
As a general rule the moment state secrets reach a reporter/news agency based in another country who are citizens of another country they cease to be secrets and the system supposed to keep them safe has failed utterly in every way.
Where I live we have a much simpler and more effective way of limiting unions power and preventing that kind of shit.
It is illegal to discriminate based on membership or non membership of a union.
If a trade union and an employer formed an agreement that requires membership in that union as a conditional to employment then it would be as straightforward a discrimination case as if they had formed an agreement to not hire black people or not hire women.
There's no need for shitting all over workers rights with "Right to Work" laws.
As a developer do you end up with more cash in your pocket if...
1000 people buy your uncrackable DRM'ed game and 0 people play for free
or
1001 people buy your game and 1,000,000,000 play without paying?
Just to make it easy lets exclude the high costs of the more draconian DRM systems and the possibility of losing players who get pissed off when it breaks.
I recently finished a university CS degree with first class honours and I can tell you: From looking at my classmates and myself it does not turn you into a well rounded commercial coder and it probably won't get you a job in the industry on it's own.
There are advantages in that you cover somewhat important material so dry and dull that you never would have bothered to read it on your own and material outside the cone of what you're really interested in.
Beyond that the structure is helpful- assignments + feedback + demonstrators were the biggest thing for me.
An institution which provided assignments + feedback + demonstrators along with structure and videos of some really good lectures could probably equal any traditional university degree.
What would the impacts of this be for cryptography
on
Claimed Proof That P != NP
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What would the impacts of this be for cryptography? from a theoretical point of view at least?
I was under the impression that a lot of cryptography was based upon the hope that P!=NP and while in practice this wouldn't change much about anyone acts it might have an impact on how people think about the old cryptology vs cryptanalysis race.
Main problem: Even if there was no genetic modification, even if you bred crops for this by the fully natural approach of exposing them to higher levels of toxins and selecting those which were least effected by it. Whatever genes they evolve which give them extra resistance would still cross into the wild population.
The only substantial difference I can think of is that single genes being transferred by a virus to another species is probably more likely.
Species which have been manipulated have caused problems for the enviroment in the past but I rarely see calls to fine all the worlds housecat breeders or the descendent of whoever pushed animal husbandry into the mainstream in medieval times.
Or is this just one of those "AMERICA NUMBER ONE!!! WOOO!" pieces of bullshit where you automatically assume your countries whims are more important than all others?
"Last year I heard the funniest reason to stop home schooling. Last year a home school dad told me that he enrolled his teenage son in public school because his son asked to go. The reason his son gave was that even though the school work was mind numbingly simple, that was where they keep most of the cute teenage girls during the day."
heh. Can't really argue with that one.:D Tis a pretty good reason for anything in life.
I'm a product of a public school system and I can think of perhaps 5 really excellent teachers who really knew their field down to the ground and probably taught me things or made me look at the world in ways my parents couldn't have, 1 of those was when I was in university and 1 in primary school.
At the same time I can think of 5 or 6 really awful ones. And the vast majority were merely non-notable.
As for paying for it- that's the downside of a socialized system, I pay plenty for healthcare every year and use almost none of it.
It's not that it makes it safe for him, it would merely make it safe for wikileaks sources. but wikileaks intentionally sets it up so that they cannot identify their sources even if they want to.
"According to a study commissioned by the European Patent Office on " The cost of a sample European patent", the total cost of obtaining a typical Euro-direct patent (validated in 6 countries, with 10 claims on 3 pages, 11 pages of description) was about 30,000 in 2003. In its July 2000 proposal for a Community patent, the European Commission also estimated the costs for obtaining a European patent in 8 countries at around 50,000, including estimated translation costs of 12,600, agent's fees of 17,000 and renewal fees of 16,970 (see Memo/00/41). "
"The Commission said that a European patent validated for example in 13 countries would cost as much as 20,000 euros (about 24,800 U.S. dollars), of which nearly 14,000 euros (about 17,360 dollars) arises from translations alone.
By using only three languages, the cost could be reduced to 6, 200 euros (7,688 dollars), according to the proposal."
there's a reason I said "unless you happen to be a fully qualified and practising patent laywer yourself with lots and lots of free time on your hands."
If you're fully qualified to write bulletproof patent applications that won't be rejected because of some legality and your time is worth exactly zero then filing for a patent in a single unusually cheap country might approach your claims.
If on the other hand you are a developer, not a laywer, and your time is in fact worth more than zero dollars then getting those patents is ridiculously expensive. Especially for small companies which tend to be operating on the edge anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
*tried*
They *tried* to get the pentagons help to redact the info.
The pentagon went instead with the old fashioned "lets sit with our thumbs up our arses".
So wikileaks went with a best effort.
Wikileaks may not be a news organisation but they've managed to break more significant news stories than any "real" newspaper in the past couple of years.
"Hi Pentagon, we're a foreign organisation who has been given copies of these documents, we have no duty to you, we could just release these in full right now but we're making an effort to remove things that aren't important but which would cause unnecessary problems for you or those you work with"
"Buh?"*continues to sit with thumb firmly in ass*
"... well... ok, we'll just do the best we can then"
So you think the new york times wouldn't publish the actual documents?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/26warlogs.html#report/15A27543-B022-4736-AC31-71006B18794E
From the top of the page
NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.
Is the new york times going to be prosecuted for handling and disseminating classified documents now you think?
Small correction: Wikileaks didn't steal the documents, someone else did then sent them a copy.
Second, they're since they're not american they have as much duty to help keep american top secret info secret as you have to protect chinas top secret tank plans if someone sent you a copy.
Publishing secret documents which show embarasing info is what any half decent news agency should endeavour to do.
Just because they've been labelled secret does not change that.
They new york times and the guardian were *also* handling those stolen documents yet I haven't heard anything about them being threatened to try to get them to delete all their copies of them.
indeed the guardian newspaper mirrored the documents on their own site, should the US go after them as well for helping publish US secrets?
On a related note is anyone else getting a cert error for https://mirror.wikileaks.info/ ?
mirror.wikileaks.info uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed.
The certificate is only valid for vibe.devries.ch.
(Error code: sec_error_ca_cert_invalid)
Who are vibe.devries.ch????
They *did* redact documents as best they could.
They even asked the pentagon for help redacting the documents of info which could reveal someone indirectly.
They barn door was open, the pigs had fled and yet wikileaks turned around and offered the pentagon the chance to keep the choice cuts that weren't obviously scandalous.
The pentagon ignored the offer.
Any responsibility?
No.
Some? absolutely!
does it lay some of the responsibility on the pentagon for not only first failing to keep that information secure but also turning down the chance to redact it later? absolutely!
The simple fact is that the pentagon was offered this on a platter, how often do organisations get a second chance to redact information *after* their secrecy measures have already utterly failed?
And they refused. Why? They made a choice to *not* do that, to *not* protect their sources.
"conceding legitimacy"??
Is wikileaks not a real site now?
Had a more traditional foreign news agency offered them the chance to redact sensitive info from a leak that had already happened they should have jumped at it.
Refusing on the basis that it would be "conceding legitimacy" is just childish bullshit.
No information could do much about the way Americans think about the war because so may of they don't care in the least.
Most are happy to utterly ignore the war and this leak wasn't about 1 big story, it didn't point to any single mass graves, just hundreds of formerly secret little fuckups and accidents where a few soldiers get jittery and shoot a load of holes in the passengers of a bus or cap a random passer by on the street.
they actually did redact info, they did a best effort redacting of names and info that could give away informants etc.
Actually wikileaks did something which is not part of their normal MO- they redacted information voluntarily and offered a chance to the organisation which had lost the documents to redact anything they wanted that wasn't obviously scandalous.
If the new york times had the same chance do you think they would have refused to publish or even given the government the chance to remove stuff?
And yet they did, and what did they do when they had them?
They could have just released everything, unredacted to the world yet they did not.
They did the responsible thing(as a news agency) once they had the sensitive info.
They voluntarily redacted information themselves and even tried to do so in the most effective manner possible.
How many times when a newspaper is leaked sensitive info do they then contact the organisation the documents are from and give them a carte blanche to remove anything they want provided it wasn't obviously scandalous?
I mean this is into above and beyond territory, the pentagon were handed the chance on a platter.
Yet they they reacted like petulant children.
wikileaks asked for help redacting sensitive data which had already leaked. The request was passed back by the new york times. They didn't have to. They're a foreign organisation with no duty to protect US interests.they are already as legitimate as any newspaper. The pentagon was offered the chance to redact info in a leak after it had happened, somethimg that normally doesn't happen yet they refused. Wikileaks did the responsible thing, they redacted as best they could and even asked for help but the pentagon wanted to stick it's head in the sand and deny what had already happened.
No I'm not in the US.
There's a difference, believe it or not, between "Right to Work" and real employee rights like protection of the right to join (or not join) a union.
"A Right to Work law says most basically - you can't refuse to hire, or fire, someone because they aren't in, or won't join your union. "
And if they try to set up a union their employeers don't like?
And a point that isn't made enough: people complain that wikileaks didn't do a good enough job of redacting the info themselves yet wikileaks requested help redacting sensitive info from the pentagon(they would after all have all the knowledge required to pick out what could potentially reveal their sources in a roundabout manner after all) but they got no reply other than attempts to shut them up entirely.
In an ideal world wikileaks would not be necessary.
Who vets the reporters for the new york times or any other news agency?
There's a long tradition of documents getting leaked to news agencies over the years.
As a general rule the moment state secrets reach a reporter/news agency based in another country who are citizens of another country they cease to be secrets and the system supposed to keep them safe has failed utterly in every way.
Where I live we have a much simpler and more effective way of limiting unions power and preventing that kind of shit.
It is illegal to discriminate based on membership or non membership of a union.
If a trade union and an employer formed an agreement that requires membership in that union as a conditional to employment then it would be as straightforward a discrimination case as if they had formed an agreement to not hire black people or not hire women.
There's no need for shitting all over workers rights with "Right to Work" laws.
As a developer do you end up with more cash in your pocket if...
1000 people buy your uncrackable DRM'ed game and 0 people play for free
or
1001 people buy your game and 1,000,000,000 play without paying?
Just to make it easy lets exclude the high costs of the more draconian DRM systems and the possibility of losing players who get pissed off when it breaks.
I recently finished a university CS degree with first class honours and I can tell you:
From looking at my classmates and myself it does not turn you into a well rounded commercial coder and it probably won't get you a job in the industry on it's own.
There are advantages in that you cover somewhat important material so dry and dull that you never would have bothered to read it on your own and material outside the cone of what you're really interested in.
Beyond that the structure is helpful- assignments + feedback + demonstrators were the biggest thing for me.
An institution which provided assignments + feedback + demonstrators along with structure and videos of some really good lectures could probably equal any traditional university degree.
What would the impacts of this be for cryptography?
from a theoretical point of view at least?
I was under the impression that a lot of cryptography was based upon the hope that P!=NP and while in practice this wouldn't change much about anyone acts it might have an impact on how people think about the old cryptology vs cryptanalysis race.
Main problem: Even if there was no genetic modification, even if you bred crops for this by the fully natural approach of exposing them to higher levels of toxins and selecting those which were least effected by it.
Whatever genes they evolve which give them extra resistance would still cross into the wild population.
The only substantial difference I can think of is that single genes being transferred by a virus to another species is probably more likely.
Species which have been manipulated have caused problems for the enviroment in the past but I rarely see calls to fine all the worlds housecat breeders or the descendent of whoever pushed animal husbandry into the mainstream in medieval times.
Why should the US get dibs on him?
ATM's in many countries were involved.
Do they have any less right to prosecute him?
Or is this just one of those "AMERICA NUMBER ONE!!! WOOO!" pieces of bullshit where you automatically assume your countries whims are more important than all others?
"Last year I heard the funniest reason to stop home schooling. Last year a home school dad told me that he enrolled his teenage son in public school because his son asked to go. The reason his son gave was that even though the school work was mind numbingly simple, that was where they keep most of the cute teenage girls during the day."
heh. :D
Can't really argue with that one.
Tis a pretty good reason for anything in life.
I'm a product of a public school system and I can think of perhaps 5 really excellent teachers who really knew their field down to the ground and probably taught me things or made me look at the world in ways my parents couldn't have, 1 of those was when I was in university and 1 in primary school.
At the same time I can think of 5 or 6 really awful ones.
And the vast majority were merely non-notable.
As for paying for it- that's the downside of a socialized system, I pay plenty for healthcare every year and use almost none of it.
It's not that it makes it safe for him, it would merely make it safe for wikileaks sources.
but wikileaks intentionally sets it up so that they cannot identify their sources even if they want to.
"According to a study commissioned by the European Patent Office on " The cost of a sample European patent", the total cost of obtaining a typical Euro-direct patent (validated in 6 countries, with 10 claims on 3 pages, 11 pages of description) was about 30,000 in 2003. In its July 2000 proposal for a Community patent, the European Commission also estimated the costs for obtaining a European patent in 8 countries at around 50,000, including estimated translation costs of 12,600, agent's fees of 17,000 and renewal fees of 16,970 (see Memo/00/41). "
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/documents/HowMuchPatent_0000003793_00.xml.html
"The Commission said that a European patent validated for example in 13 countries would cost as much as 20,000 euros (about 24,800 U.S. dollars), of which nearly 14,000 euros (about 17,360 dollars) arises from translations alone.
By using only three languages, the cost could be reduced to 6, 200 euros (7,688 dollars), according to the proposal."
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/7049592.html
there's a reason I said
"unless you happen to be a fully qualified and practising patent laywer yourself with lots and lots of free time on your hands."
If you're fully qualified to write bulletproof patent applications that won't be rejected because of some legality and your time is worth exactly zero then filing for a patent in a single unusually cheap country might approach your claims.
If on the other hand you are a developer, not a laywer, and your time is in fact worth more than zero dollars then getting those patents is ridiculously expensive. Especially for small companies which tend to be operating on the edge anyway.
So I repeat.
Bullshit!