If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.
Who, exacly, is fed up with the "cloud" besides we, the average slashdotters? People are using "cloud" services more and more, like Facebook, Flickr, Gmail, etc. Companies, Universities and even public organizations are moving to Gmail and other Google services (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/three-million-businesses-have-gone.html).
Where are this people moving from the "cloud" to locally based applications and services?
Meaning... lotsa businesses. You think that those businesses (trying to save a buck by moving into the "cloud") are going to buy new ChromeOS-powered netbooks for their employees to continue working?
I'm sort-of seeing the netbooks and the "cloud for businesses" as two separated market segments (and the very definition of a market segment says that what happens with the prices/sale-volumes in one won't influence what happens in others: if not so, the market segmentation is faulty).
Is it just me, or is it all fine and dandy for so many non-Americans (be it Belgian teenagers, Australian journalists, or whomever) to support WikiLeaks, when WikiLeaks hasn't launched a smear campaign against their own nations?
I can only hope I could say it is only you - it would be good to have a single person in this world thinking nation==government. Unfortunately, with too many people of in a nation making this confusion, the risk is one may start wondering: "Is it something wrong with the people of that nation?"
A spin off directly from wikileaks doesn't exactly seem to lead to the assumption that similar sites will "keep popping up like mushrooms." Talk to me when we have a third player from outside the wikileaks lineage.
Hell... there exists at least one and existed for quite some time cryptome...
Funny thing is: even the quite a long presence, I haven't heard of them until recently, and I only heard of them because of WikiLeaks and Assange (somebody named John Young was foaming a few days ago against Assange and Wikileaks)... I find this a bit (unintendedly) ironic... but, lucky me, cryptome also do have some interesting leaks.
You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.
That's of course so self-evident is becomes redundant
What may not be so obvious: there is a distinction between the "goals of a project" ("why" you undertake it) and the project itself ("how" you do it).
In this case, I would add #3 to the distinction. The leader of the project himself,
He's also part of the "how". The point in my previous post was: there is nothing inherently wrong or right in supporting (or contesting) the leadership, neither is something inherently wrong or right in forking a project.
In this case, as long as the goals of the (forked) project remain true (make public what the powerfuls want hidden), the good or wrong of the "fork" will stay in how well the OpenLeaks guys will actually do it. There's a chance they'll be able to do more than Assange, as well as the chance of screwing the "goals" pretty bad (e.g. by a too close relationship with the already-established media outlets, causing a bad compromise and an insufficient exposure of relevant info?) Time will tell.
Anyway, the more such "projects", the better for society.
I just don't entirely buy these guy's motives. They are required to be paranoid about having all the facts. They can see through the rape case BS like anyone else. Wikileaks was already starting to make redactions, a compromise. Openleaks must want to fall in line with demands just a little more, why else split?
You atre entirely entitled to your opinion, in their respect probably I share it myself (haven;t quite made my mind yet). However this is not to say: "Don't give them any chance..." Maybe they have something in mind that I don't quite grasp? They'll live or die based on their decisions anyway.
do you really believe in the existence of a "mid-point where nobody is hurt"?
I never said anything of the kind. You did. Nice strawman though. I fully expect there were plenty of people hurt by the pentagon papers. I full support that action.
My apologies then. It wasn't intended, but I must admit it is how it turned out. My respects.
Have you seen this guy interviewed? Watched the way he carries himself? How he snubs with disdain any question that he deems too inconvenient?
The guy is arrogant.
Note that this is totally separate from the other issues surrounding the whole circus (legality, morality, etc., etc).
Budy, have you ever been under serious pressure for months/years to have something finished and really/really want to see it done properly? I can tell you, at a certain moment you have only enough resources in you to keep the focus on what you want and discard anything that's outside of it: "too bad if the others don't understand, maybe once it is finished they'll see".
Personally, I like what I'm seeing: "leaking" being accepted as necessary and good for society and worth supporting even if you step aside of the law... an act of civil disobedience if you liek. Not without risks, not without pains, maybe not without side-effects, but good and worthful.
The first thing that came to my mind is that it's a new site is being set up to catch whistle blowers. Leak occasional trivial documents to snare the big ones. I don't condone any of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Leaking will always be a dangerous activity. Not saying you a wrong, but pointing out that:
1. the question of "who I'll leak to" needs indeed to be taken into account by leakers anyway
2. that's the very way the "leaking outlets" will survive or die... credibility and trust
That is to say: having choices is a double edge sword: you pay it with the time/effort needed to make the choice, but don't tell me that is not a good thing to have choices.
Do you realize that you, perhaps, accidentaly stated that leaking is about to become an industry, covering a very specific and sore need of society for which demand exists? What can be wrong with that?
The fix is in the backhaul of the embassy networks.
The real fix is in changing the way you are doing the diplomacy... less lies, more standing in what you really believe as a country. Especially if your defence forces and your geo-strategy helps you in being able to keep your stance. Of course, one can only hope that such a country would stay for democracy and the right of free speach and all the good values.
If OpenLeaks publishes anything that offends the US government in the same way then the same thing will happen to them.
And what is the risk of having two (or more) outlets to receive leaks?
What, it is not good that we have Windows/Linux/OSX/etc? Or iPhone/Android?
Here is what I see beneficial in there: the need and acceptance of "leaking" seems well established now in the public consciousness and... are we seeing the dawn of the "leaking industry"? (maybe wishful thinking, but I can only hope that the information managed to find yet another way of being free).
You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.
That's of course so self-evident is becomes redundant What may not be so obvious: there is a distinction between the "goals of a project" ("why" you undertake it) and the project itself ("how" you do it).
No, these folks are unhappy with how he's gone about the whole thing and believe they can get it right. That is they will provide the same service but have a half a clue about the balance and responsibility that goes along with doing so. Frankly they are sounding like a breath of fresh air in a sh*t storm.
In the preconditions of a strongly polarized positions between the govts that won't want anything published and the need of the civic society to know, do you really believe in the existence of a "mid-point where nobody is hurt"? My hat is off for you, sir... how idealistic of you... (I'm really not being sarcastic here: one needs a heavy dose of idealism to provoke evolutionary changes in society).
I think you are affaird for nothing: WIkileaks will grab their information as an "interested party" (if not them, probably there will be somebody to come with the idea of "leaks agregator"). Happened with the "Microsoft spy kit" leaked by cryptome, asked to be taken down, copied by Wikileaks, restored on cryptome (granted, I'm still waiting for WL to restore the "files" section of/with the older leaks).
Yeah, why have journalists or media at all, they've never worked to uncover secrets or to publish the words of whistle blowers, there's obviously no reason to ever have news agencies now or ever again.
For entretainment purposes, like "public clowns"? Nothing wrong with it, as long as you can keep in mind that they are no more than that.
Ah, yes, I'd still appreciate if they can be sincere and admit it from the begining and spare my time/neurons to derive it from their behavior.
In the past, before the web, leakers had to talk to journalists because there was no alternative to reach the masses, even though journalists have never been paragons of objectivity.
How is? If somebody tells me anything else but "I'll do my best to stay objective" I'll start doubting that person immediately.
But wikileaks is still a middleman. If there was simple free software that any would-be leaker (nongeek) could use to put raw information directly and untraceably on the web, then the ideal would be one step closer.
As the ideal is far from possible and you'll always need at least one middle-man to act between you (who want to know) and those who want to withold the information (unless you really choose to take the risk of obtaining the information by yourself), there always be the questions of:
1. How much you trust the middleman?
2. are you lucid enough to pick what you can trust and what is better for you to discard as dubious
Life will never offer a black/white choice between who you can and cannot trust. This is no reason to abdicate from living it as it is: just need to add the extra effort of constantly judging what you do and evaluate the consequences.
Now, speaking for myself: being offered between WIkileaks (with large/public dissemination of the information) and "OpenLeaks" (with dissemination restricted to other jurnalists), I strongly preffer the first... even if what is leaked may be incomplete (thus having a risk of a possible bias "by selection") at least I can pick the raw undigested information and deal with the possible bias by looking for other sources of info to counter-balance before making my mind.
Anyway, the more the merrier. And I need to grant Assange the merit of making restoring the "leaking practice" as an acceptable in/by the civil society (proof: others started to help, other started to open other "leaking" outlets). I do hope to see this continued and established as way to allow the citizens control over govts' power - much better than revolutions and the "right to bear arms" and certainly much better than "casting you vote in the dark". Maybe that's what democracy needed to be better and stop being the worst... except the others...?
R2’s DNA also could be used to improve robots currently working in manufacturing operations.
Now I understand why they name it robonaut: the Android, Nexus are some already taken trademarks, R2D2 not being humanoid... not too much of a choice range.
GM has partnered with NASA since the 1960s, when the auto giant made navigation systems for the Apollo missions. More recently, GM worked on the Lunar Roving Vehicle.
Whaa... You mean thisLunar Roving Vehicle? Yes, it... somehow... is... more recent than 1960, but hey... common... it's still during nineteen-seventy-spring-time.
Pauli exclusion principle - being a principle, it is not demonstrated, just stated as true and verified by confrontation with the experience (sort of postulated). Pretty much like the Newtonian mechanics principles.
BP stands for "Beyond Petroleum" it ceased to be British Petrolem in 2001 shortly after it meged with Amaco
;) Now, now... when they don't fuck up, they can be Beyond or what-ever-B they want. But when they fuck-up, they better stay British... d'ya hear me?;)
Getting sacked from government service takes either malice, or extreme incompetence, especially if you don't need a security clearance.
Proving that the govt employees are smart just enough not to take risks.
Would you bet the same for a MS employee? Potentialy on a H-1B visa? Or smart enough to cover the tracks and sell the information siphoned from the cloud, without the blows-and-whistles (allegedly) Manning did?
Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.
And what if it the precipitations don't increase? Or don't increase enough in areas with vegetation (like mid of the ocean)? Or if the precipitations are high enough to flood and drown the vegetation? What about precipitations during winter?
Yes, yes, yes...the simulation is sooo more precise: it predicts a value with 0.3C lower than the older models. But... errr... what about the confidence levels of the modeling? (not that the older models would have one ready).
Slashdot Mirror
If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.
Who, exacly, is fed up with the "cloud" besides we, the average slashdotters? People are using "cloud" services more and more, like Facebook, Flickr, Gmail, etc. Companies, Universities and even public organizations are moving to Gmail and other Google services (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/three-million-businesses-have-gone.html).
Where are this people moving from the "cloud" to locally based applications and services?
Meaning... lotsa businesses. You think that those businesses (trying to save a buck by moving into the "cloud") are going to buy new ChromeOS-powered netbooks for their employees to continue working?
I'm sort-of seeing the netbooks and the "cloud for businesses" as two separated market segments (and the very definition of a market segment says that what happens with the prices/sale-volumes in one won't influence what happens in others: if not so, the market segmentation is faulty).
Just asking.
The irony is that it was OpenOffice.org that ratted him out.
How's that irony? Isn't OpenOffice supposed to be... well... open?
Is it just me, or is it all fine and dandy for so many non-Americans (be it Belgian teenagers, Australian journalists, or whomever) to support WikiLeaks, when WikiLeaks hasn't launched a smear campaign against their own nations?
I can only hope I could say it is only you - it would be good to have a single person in this world thinking nation==government. Unfortunately, with too many people of in a nation making this confusion, the risk is one may start wondering: "Is it something wrong with the people of that nation?"
A spin off directly from wikileaks doesn't exactly seem to lead to the assumption that similar sites will "keep popping up like mushrooms." Talk to me when we have a third player from outside the wikileaks lineage.
Hell... there exists at least one and existed for quite some time cryptome...
Funny thing is: even the quite a long presence, I haven't heard of them until recently, and I only heard of them because of WikiLeaks and Assange (somebody named John Young was foaming a few days ago against Assange and Wikileaks)... I find this a bit (unintendedly) ironic... but, lucky me, cryptome also do have some interesting leaks.
You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.
That's of course so self-evident is becomes redundant What may not be so obvious: there is a distinction between the "goals of a project" ("why" you undertake it) and the project itself ("how" you do it).
In this case, I would add #3 to the distinction. The leader of the project himself,
He's also part of the "how". The point in my previous post was: there is nothing inherently wrong or right in supporting (or contesting) the leadership, neither is something inherently wrong or right in forking a project.
In this case, as long as the goals of the (forked) project remain true (make public what the powerfuls want hidden), the good or wrong of the "fork" will stay in how well the OpenLeaks guys will actually do it. There's a chance they'll be able to do more than Assange, as well as the chance of screwing the "goals" pretty bad (e.g. by a too close relationship with the already-established media outlets, causing a bad compromise and an insufficient exposure of relevant info?) Time will tell.
Anyway, the more such "projects", the better for society.
I just don't entirely buy these guy's motives. They are required to be paranoid about having all the facts. They can see through the rape case BS like anyone else. Wikileaks was already starting to make redactions, a compromise. Openleaks must want to fall in line with demands just a little more, why else split?
You atre entirely entitled to your opinion, in their respect probably I share it myself (haven;t quite made my mind yet). However this is not to say: "Don't give them any chance..." Maybe they have something in mind that I don't quite grasp? They'll live or die based on their decisions anyway.
do you really believe in the existence of a "mid-point where nobody is hurt"?
I never said anything of the kind. You did. Nice strawman though. I fully expect there were plenty of people hurt by the pentagon papers. I full support that action.
My apologies then. It wasn't intended, but I must admit it is how it turned out.
My respects.
Okay, probably a troll, but I'll bite.
Have you seen this guy interviewed? Watched the way he carries himself? How he snubs with disdain any question that he deems too inconvenient?
The guy is arrogant.
Note that this is totally separate from the other issues surrounding the whole circus (legality, morality, etc., etc).
Budy, have you ever been under serious pressure for months/years to have something finished and really/really want to see it done properly? I can tell you, at a certain moment you have only enough resources in you to keep the focus on what you want and discard anything that's outside of it: "too bad if the others don't understand, maybe once it is finished they'll see".
Personally, I like what I'm seeing: "leaking" being accepted as necessary and good for society and worth supporting even if you step aside of the law... an act of civil disobedience if you liek. Not without risks, not without pains, maybe not without side-effects, but good and worthful.
The first thing that came to my mind is that it's a new site is being set up to catch whistle blowers. Leak occasional trivial documents to snare the big ones. I don't condone any of this but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Leaking will always be a dangerous activity. Not saying you a wrong, but pointing out that:
1. the question of "who I'll leak to" needs indeed to be taken into account by leakers anyway
2. that's the very way the "leaking outlets" will survive or die... credibility and trust
That is to say: having choices is a double edge sword: you pay it with the time/effort needed to make the choice, but don't tell me that is not a good thing to have choices.
Do you realize that you, perhaps, accidentaly stated that leaking is about to become an industry, covering a very specific and sore need of society for which demand exists? What can be wrong with that?
The fix is in the backhaul of the embassy networks.
The real fix is in changing the way you are doing the diplomacy... less lies, more standing in what you really believe as a country. Especially if your defence forces and your geo-strategy helps you in being able to keep your stance. Of course, one can only hope that such a country would stay for democracy and the right of free speach and all the good values.
If OpenLeaks publishes anything that offends the US government in the same way then the same thing will happen to them.
And what is the risk of having two (or more) outlets to receive leaks?
What, it is not good that we have Windows/Linux/OSX/etc? Or iPhone/Android?
Here is what I see beneficial in there: the need and acceptance of "leaking" seems well established now in the public consciousness and... are we seeing the dawn of the "leaking industry"? (maybe wishful thinking, but I can only hope that the information managed to find yet another way of being free).
You don't support the leadership of a project by forking it.
That's of course so self-evident is becomes redundant
What may not be so obvious: there is a distinction between the "goals of a project" ("why" you undertake it) and the project itself ("how" you do it).
No, these folks are unhappy with how he's gone about the whole thing and believe they can get it right. That is they will provide the same service but have a half a clue about the balance and responsibility that goes along with doing so. Frankly they are sounding like a breath of fresh air in a sh*t storm.
In the preconditions of a strongly polarized positions between the govts that won't want anything published and the need of the civic society to know, do you really believe in the existence of a "mid-point where nobody is hurt"? My hat is off for you, sir... how idealistic of you... (I'm really not being sarcastic here: one needs a heavy dose of idealism to provoke evolutionary changes in society).
And ten more shall take his place
You say whack-a-mole.
I say fragmentation and infighting.
I think you are affaird for nothing: WIkileaks will grab their information as an "interested party" (if not them, probably there will be somebody to come with the idea of "leaks agregator").
Happened with the "Microsoft spy kit" leaked by cryptome, asked to be taken down, copied by Wikileaks, restored on cryptome (granted, I'm still waiting for WL to restore the "files" section of/with the older leaks).
Yeah, why have journalists or media at all, they've never worked to uncover secrets or to publish the words of whistle blowers, there's obviously no reason to ever have news agencies now or ever again.
For entretainment purposes, like "public clowns"? Nothing wrong with it, as long as you can keep in mind that they are no more than that.
Ah, yes, I'd still appreciate if they can be sincere and admit it from the begining and spare my time/neurons to derive it from their behavior.
In the past, before the web, leakers had to talk to journalists because there was no alternative to reach the masses, even though journalists have never been paragons of objectivity.
How is? If somebody tells me anything else but "I'll do my best to stay objective" I'll start doubting that person immediately.
But wikileaks is still a middleman. If there was simple free software that any would-be leaker (nongeek) could use to put raw information directly and untraceably on the web, then the ideal would be one step closer.
As the ideal is far from possible and you'll always need at least one middle-man to act between you (who want to know) and those who want to withold the information (unless you really choose to take the risk of obtaining the information by yourself), there always be the questions of:
1. How much you trust the middleman?
2. are you lucid enough to pick what you can trust and what is better for you to discard as dubious
Life will never offer a black/white choice between who you can and cannot trust. This is no reason to abdicate from living it as it is: just need to add the extra effort of constantly judging what you do and evaluate the consequences.
Now, speaking for myself: being offered between WIkileaks (with large/public dissemination of the information) and "OpenLeaks" (with dissemination restricted to other jurnalists), I strongly preffer the first... even if what is leaked may be incomplete (thus having a risk of a possible bias "by selection") at least I can pick the raw undigested information and deal with the possible bias by looking for other sources of info to counter-balance before making my mind.
Anyway, the more the merrier. And I need to grant Assange the merit of making restoring the "leaking practice" as an acceptable in/by the civil society (proof: others started to help, other started to open other "leaking" outlets). I do hope to see this continued and established as way to allow the citizens control over govts' power - much better than revolutions and the "right to bear arms" and certainly much better than "casting you vote in the dark". Maybe that's what democracy needed to be better and stop being the worst... except the others...?
R2’s DNA also could be used to improve robots currently working in manufacturing operations.
Now I understand why they name it robonaut: the Android, Nexus are some already taken trademarks, R2D2 not being humanoid... not too much of a choice range.
GM has partnered with NASA since the 1960s, when the auto giant made navigation systems for the Apollo missions. More recently, GM worked on the Lunar Roving Vehicle.
Whaa... You mean this Lunar Roving Vehicle? Yes, it ... somehow... is... more recent than 1960, but hey... common... it's still during nineteen-seventy-spring-time.
Pauli exclusion principle - being a principle, it is not demonstrated, just stated as true and verified by confrontation with the experience (sort of postulated). Pretty much like the Newtonian mechanics principles.
BP stands for "Beyond Petroleum" it ceased to be British Petrolem in 2001 shortly after it meged with Amaco
;) Now, now... when they don't fuck up, they can be Beyond or what-ever-B they want. But when they fuck-up, they better stay British... d'ya hear me? ;)
LOL
Getting sacked from government service takes either malice, or extreme incompetence, especially if you don't need a security clearance.
Proving that the govt employees are smart just enough not to take risks.
Would you bet the same for a MS employee? Potentialy on a H-1B visa? Or smart enough to cover the tracks and sell the information siphoned from the cloud, without the blows-and-whistles (allegedly) Manning did?
The U.S. government is planning to build a giant machine to block the sun, their last and greatest enemy.
You mean... to block the oracle... now that sun is no longer?
Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.
And what if it the precipitations don't increase? Or don't increase enough in areas with vegetation (like mid of the ocean)? Or if the precipitations are high enough to flood and drown the vegetation? What about precipitations during winter?
Yes, yes, yes...the simulation is sooo more precise: it predicts a value with 0.3C lower than the older models. But... errr... what about the confidence levels of the modeling? (not that the older models would have one ready).