you are a pinhead, with no knowledge of either history or computer science. observe - What made kevin great what this up this point most errors that were exploited were what were known as fencepost errors, tedious to find and with unpredictable behavior once exploited. Kevin was a pioneer in looking for how to leverage the functionality that made computers worthwhile against them. The man in the middle attacks that exploits a three way handshake is elegant and sophisticated because it puts the defending system in a position of lessened value (that in order to defend against it the computer would be unable to complete a three way handshake). Coupled with the ability to social engineer, this mindset is what is dangerous, this level of clanking balls and imagination. Your question is asinine. This man hacked networks and systems. You want to know if he can compromise a fucking home pc? Can a brain surgeon remove a fucking wart? Kevin didn't teach people how to hack, he taught people how to think like hackers http://www.pogostick.net/~pnh/ntpasswd/ or just go to fucking bugtraq
Another facet that wasn't mentioned in the paper is that as America attempts to legislate the internet so that the mega rich can become ultra rich, we simply remove ourselves from meaningful discussion about the problem and social view of file sharing. As a security buff i learned from experience that while the "rules" if examined presented my ideal view of the world, or let others know whats actually important to me, my logs function as a mirror, telling me how things actually looked. On behalf of the mega rich, the mega powerful are attempting to create a rule that says this transaction shouldn't happen, but the logs tell us that the general population in no way shape or form shares this view of the world. If it was viewed as say child porn, in which the vast majority of the user community sees the issue in much the same manner as the rulemakers you get a set of logs that indicate that this view is shared and a small set of transgressions presented in the logs.. this is not so in the case of file sharing, hence, a waste of time and effort, the file sharing medium will change, the methods will change, but the desire will not
We wonder why America is viewed(rightly) as falling behind other countries and then you see nonsense like this getting airplay. I wonder how many Profs in India believe evolution and global warming is bullshit? When your beliefs are so retarded that you need to pass a law stopping people from calling you a moron you know there is an issue. But on a more important level, how could not allowing a science faculty to discipline a prof who clearly ignores rational scientific thought hurt....right?
Oh great, Julien Assange gets nominated for times man of the year and politicians suggest we kill hium WikiLeaks is up for the NPP and we want to make viewing it illegal The internet is up for the NPP and (obviously) cooler than the other side of your pillow and we might royally bollocks up Nuetrality
Goddamn it, soon North Korea is going to call us and be like, wtf guys quit being such assholes. If that happens I am making an Obama loking at things blog
The problem I have with this is that I think its just noobs selling shit to boobs.The more this story develops I become more and more uncertain that HBGary had te technical know how to make working root kits, and 0-days for multiple OS's. I betcha these guys would just sit waiting for bugtraq to update and hurriedly package it, that i do believe they are capable of. Some of the things that were apparently willing to sell or selling require superior technical understanding, and if the twats at HBG had that, they wouldn't be so chock full of epic loss right now
Dumbest article ever, and if there is even a smidge of truth to it, dumbest script kiddies ever. I love the bit at the end "Mr Barr also burrowed deep enough into a US military group and a US nuclear plant that he could trick workers there to click on web links that, if they had been malicious, could have installed spying software on their computers" hahahahaha, too fucking right mr barr, you go get em! except wait.... thats complete bullshit. Quick, lets hire Aaron Barr, he is the haxorz... I think he wrote this article!
Over the last few years we have seen an acceleration of this type of nonsense. A couple years ago we were seeing it in the cellular phone world, where all of asudden every provider decided that *unlimited* plans were misnamed because uh... they had limits. Users would sign up for an unlimited talk and txt plan for 100 and the end of the month would recieve a 200$ bill. As with any oligopoly there were no real unique plans for users to choose from, it was the same doublespeak from all of the providers. As we see happening today with many data and bandwidth providers But there is hope, as we saw in the cellular world, some people heard the hue and cry and rushed to meet thier needs. Public mobile, wind mobile etc began to offer truly unlimited plans and cause the many people to switch to companies that don't subsidize your phone, but also don't lock you in to bullshit contracts. The real danger is that the FCC allows this oligopoly to block competition (as the cellular companies, of which Verizon was one, tried to do). Data plans are simply to profitable for the market not to try and fill something so many people will pay for, like an unlimited plan, the question is if it gets the chance....
He got his brand new iLiver last year and is getting an iHeart now, one organ at a time, So why do people keep modding my Jobs/Vader comparisons down?!
Ok, my bad. I wasn't terribly clear on the what I was looking for, I grasp the difference between jurisdiction and extradition, but does the US have Jurisdiction to charge him with anything? Leaving aside the Espionage act, I'm not entirely sure there is anything to charge him with. It may have to fall under some international treaty. Having though about this the 2 points I would make are. One. Alright, the whole poisoned pill scenario that Assange has know enacted in my mind means he loses the right to use the 1st Amendment as a shield, The whole blackmail bit means he isn't a reporter anymore, I know in previous posts I had said he was a journalist. Journalists don't commit blackmail, or use threats to void prosecution. Two. Even though I am willing to concede he isn't a journalist, if the US extradites him to Guantanamo, they immediately forfeit the moral high ground as well. It will be interesting to see how this ends, thats for certain.
At which point, may I ask, Does the United States of America have juristiction over an Australian, living in the UK, whose website is hosted in Sweden?
I also do feel it important to mention that the New York Times had access to all original documents before they were ever posted anywhere at any time. The agreement is that the newspapers and the website publish together.
As you can see, 4 European newspapers and the NYT and wiki all post at the same time. I fail to see any difference that would indicate a greater or lesser degree of guilt.
The Assange bashing bit at the end is just 3rd and 4th party opinion. Its got no place in the middle of a legitimate arguement, it detracts rather than adds to the point you are trying to communicate. Assange is not a US basher, Manning worked for the US army, hence the cables deal with America, hence the lions share of the Embarrasment is ours. It is ultimately irrelevant either way, assholes abound, and being a douchebag does not preclude one from being right, or in the right ( morally, not politically)
Other than that your post is factual and well reasoned. It is important to note (as you did) that we are waiting to find out what exactly happened.
Your item 1 is beyond offensive, relying on science to solve this issue shows an underlying misunderstanding of this issue and the social ills it drags along with it. Because we can make someone thin doesn't mean we can make them healthy. Because we can regulate the storage of fat or sugar in a patients body doesn't mean we can cause an entire generation of people to care about themselves. We are talking about our bodies, we only get one, for our whole lives. The assertion that we should treat it with less than complete respect and regard is not just just damaging to bodies, but psyche's as well. Secondly, what is this, grade 6 "it depends how you define healthy" ummm. no. Healthy is defined as the absence of imperfection, disease or impairment. for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not decide what the definition is. " If you have never lived a healthy lifestyle because you find them distasteful, you have nothing to compare your current frame of reference to. Having never been healthy, you wouldn't know what you are missing, which is probably a blessing for you.
I believe I begin to see your point. I guess where we differ is that I don't see saying it as more or less offensive as doing it. Lets see what we can agree on - This is a ridiculuos policy. I think we agree on this - This policy, so poorly thought out, manages to somehow offend both the west and the (middle) east at the same time! I think we agree on that. - This policy, or a closely related cousin of it has been in effect for 30 years. I believe i have enough evidence to prove this -Presidents have no business setting the policy (no matter where it sits on the agends ) of a science and space agency
ok?
Where we disagree seems to be where you assert that this behavior is new, or more objectionable than before. I believe condescension whether behind closed doors or in the media is inappropraite for our elected officials. To me they are equally objectionable Screwing someone is wrong, whether or not you announce it to the world, no? This just makes Reagan sneaky and Obama a blowhard. Neither of which is a term i wish to use to describe the person in this position.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Its the details and historical context where I think you are not seeing the whole picture.
I always get blasted for saying this to my friends but I truly and honestly believe that the presidents are in a relay race, they just get handed a baton and keep running in the same direction. Meanwhile back at the ranch, They keep us all occupied and happy by claiming there are such things as" a left" and "a right" and these two groups take turns blaming eachother while helping divide the populace. I promise you I am not trolling right now, I truly believe that Obama is not clever enough to set policy, he just tries to take credit for the policies that are working, and needlessly complicate the ones that aren't. Building a bridge to Muslim countries using something as imaginative and innovative as space is simply...beyond him. Ergo- it was already there
Hey, great comments, you seem to be missing half my post though!
You also refer to it as the "new top priority" when i don't see that anywhere and I am looking at a transcript now. so you are just sort of making that exact phrase up because it sounds worse, and really there is no need. It is absurd at face value, there is no requirement to sensationalize it. Obama is a complete Asshat for ever suggesting this policy expand or continue, (because it really was already there). The worst part about Administrators deciding the function of scientific and engineering groups is that soon these groups no longer know who the true master is, science and progress, or some ridiculous notion of helping people who neither need nor require the help of a space agency.
Again, a buffoon is someone who provides amusement through their appearance. We have never met so you are unfamiliar with my appearance. You really need to keep a dictionary handy, at least for insults, although the rest of would appreciate it if you used it for definitions as well.
There is a difference between "the foremost" and "one of the foremost" --please reference above dictionary
Your post again fails to differentiate between how sending Prince Sultan into space to be the 1st Muslim in space while wearing religious garb and being completely unqualified for the job (They invented the role of payload specialist for him)and this policy would be the complete opposite in policy.
You also remain incorrect in your assertion that this isn't the same thing other presidents have done. I believe we already covered that , you just refuse to comment on it. I could bring up the time Bush said to all Muslims (during a televised address from Iraq) "you are a good and gifted people" Or link you to things Nixon said in his new tapes Or when Clinton said that African Americans watch the same news that regular american do. I could literally fill a book with dumb things Bush said, half of which were a thousand times worse so please, stop with the whole "couldn't be more paternalistic, dismissive, and humiliating. " nonsense. By becoming enraged on behalf of a group it is you being paternalistic. The irony is... expected
And thats condescending to Muslims how exactly Because it was Muslims he was speaking of when he said this The only third-hand issue is whether or not he's accurately passing along what Obama told him Good to see the outrage is so fact based, potentially.
Wow, you are a bigot, aren't you
You are misusing the word bigot, a bigot is someone who is partial to their own group. You don't know what my "group" is. Coupled with you confusing the words racist and intolerant lets me know I am dealing with someone who is more concerned with hurling an insult to make themselves feel better, then with making sure their insult is actually applicable. no president in NASA's history Obama is not the president of NASA, he is the President of the United States Of America. Bush sent his pals into space for fun... as a boondoggle so they could live out Gene Rodenberry fantasies. I actually don't know whats worse.
If Obama announced that we had to send an uneducated Muslim into space as part of an important mission and then went through with it, would you be on here defending him? Claiming you saw the wisdom in as you call it "accommodating a wealthy and important ally" I'm sure no one would object to that. I'm sure as every Muslim watched the first Muslim head into space that there was no national pride involved, (the fact that he was unqualified indeed, makes it outreach)
What may have been said "Muslim outreach is on of the top three priorities" What you wrote NASA's top priority is to work on the self esteem of a religion.
These are not the same thing, you put words in someones mouth and then crucify them for it. You Act as an apologist for Republican presidents doing the exact same thing, but refuse to tolerate it in a Dem. Thats why you are intolerant you cannot have it both ways, what if we just cater to important allies instead who happen to be Muslim we are not mounting a religious mission? (you will note Sultan refused to wear NASA garb)
Oh wait, let me get this straight, you wrote all this tripe without reading any of the links! Too rich! So I guess you never looked up Reagans speech to NASA then either. Like the one where he says it will take something as vast as space to make us come together.... Apparently the difference here, which I think only you can see, is the them and us bit. So, jeopardizing a missions safety (don't forget challenger) by Adding a Muslim is selfless act which helps, but a third hand comment you have from your post " (again, using the words that Obama's administrator said that Obama used)" means Obama is launching a different effort. I see a logical conclusion to telling NASA to make Muslims feel better about themselves as the whole prince sultan make work invent a job only he can do and send him to space thing... so I don't see the mission as being even a teeny tinsy bit different. Every president does this you are trying to - for some reason that can only be partisan- describe business as usual as something different and wrong, and it just isn't the case. Lastly, in showcasing your incredible vocabulary, you used two words (racist and intolerant) as synonyms, when they are not. I called you intolerant, not a racist. They are not the same insult. I don't know if you have the resume to be a racist, I am however, sure that you are intolerant.
You realize of course that attempting to use the space program and NASA as an outreach to the Muslim world is a policy that started with Reagan, and has continued completely unabated until now, not one sitting president has done anything differently?
Or how about when Bush put prince sultan in space? They called him a "payload specialist" and reporters were not allowed to ask him any technical questions.... http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198601/a.prince.in.space.htm he did after all, have almost 114 hours of training... I'm sure that qualifies someone.
Or how ARABSAT - 1B got into space at all.
What you are doing, in your posts is picking on the current sitting president for doing the same thing that presidents have been using NASA to do since Reagan.
Only got one part of your post right (the part about you being intolerant) so well done, it wasn't entirely composed of half truths.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!! Yes, the medium matters, observe. If I steal your car, you cannot drive, you have no access to the can in that it is no longer in your possession. I will be charged with theft. If I steal your wallet you will have no access to the things that were in your wallet, they are not in your physical control. All of the documents you are referring to are still available to the Army. nothing has gone missing. The medium we are talking about has new issues, of confidentiality and integrity, not availability which is the traditional concern with physical media. If I go to your house, take a picture and build an exact replica of your car, is it theft. I am not saying there is no crime here, I am saying it wasn't what you claim it was, or by whom you claim committed it. If we were comparing oranges to oranges then there wouldn't be PIPEDA or the DATA law, etc. They would all be covered under existing law. I challenge you to find any supporting documentation from any Legal or IT source that backs up your premise. No comment on the Pentagon papers huh... didn't think so. My prediction is that the US will never charge Assange, and the NYT (who you refuse to comment on) will never be charge with anything and your outrage will just be so many angry uninformed rants...
As always you don't fail to disappoint. You debunk my stats (even the money?), while providing nothing to debunk them with. I call bullshit on your entire post. Please provide references. While I realize that proving an opinion like your can be a daunting task for anyone, thats what the big kids do. Also, the Red cross as an agenda pushing site? You are a delight ! Those fuckers at the Red Cross!! Nobody trusts them! Historically The Red CRoss have been way more untrustworthy than the US military I would DEFINITELY believe the army's numbers over the Crosses! Here is a link to some info about the Red Cross so perhaps you may consider learning about the folks who you just trashed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross I won't even deal with you where you imply that any act covering the printing press covers the internet, its simply to ridiculous to dignify with a forml response
So, now that I have provided evidence that ALL (not some) of the people involved have said its a solid comparison... its seems as though the absence of both facts and research have in way impeded you from forming strong opinions. Well played.
Both the State, and the individual have obligations in this matter. Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view
I hope these citations help/ Now please. Who has been charged? DId an act written in 1917 and never updated cover the internet do you think? How is this any different from the pentagon papers? Why are you not outraged about the NYT? Maybe because they would love to go beat the Feds in court again so they are trying to pick a fight they might be able to win. I also still await the reference to you claiming some nonsense about me thinking secrets are never needed. You certainly cherry pick when it comes to responses!
I think the part where we betrayed our allies was when we stole from them, (Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza rice asking to steal our allies credit card numbers) and back stabbed them, you seem to think its when they found out. Nothing quaint about loyalty, that shit is timeless, too bad for America our officials don't subscribe to that. You don't get it. Everyones outraged that they got caught!They make a case that "everyone else" does it and they should be able to do it, and lie about it with impunity. Wikileaks exposed betrayal, of allies and of trust, but those betrayals had already occurred.
As for the first amendment: it isn't a magic sheild against espionage. You're welcome to report on the fact that something was stolen, and even to characterize the nature of the theft. That's reporting. Completely protected. Providing the content of classified documents to hostiles who'd love to have them? Working with the person who steals them in order to arrange for storage of those documents and the means to convey them? Not protected.
-- Looks like you still haven't read the 1st Amendment. And I was kind enough to post a link and everything, well... you can lead a horse to water... I am just aglow with your interpretation of the 1st amendment, lets find one from a Supreme court justice to juxtapose against it Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. Justice Black, discussing how he voted in the Pentagon paper case. It seems as though, as before, an unrestrained press exposing government deceit. Assange is telling the people the Emperor has no clothes on, and they always hate it when you do that.
"Dealing" with hostile foreign states, diplomatically, is not the same as helping someone in posession of stolen government documents find a way to best spin their publication. You know the difference, and you're trolling on this subject. The only dealing with Assange on this topic is going to be as it relates to prosecutorial wheeling and dealing.
I will refer you to all of the Mob informants that we have allowed to commit murder, actual 1st degree murder who we "cut a deal" with and then provide a life of leisure for in the WPP. The fact, however, that you actually seem to believe that the gov't chose moral high ground instead of trying to save the lives of Americans who they previously claimed were in imminent danger. It seems a little harsh to those Americans doesn't it? "We were going to help you but we needed to prove a point on the internet"
"Assange stole" etc.
You've obviously missed my immmediate follow up where I said that was a c/p typo, and corrected to the word "published." Though, indeed, we may find that Assange's arrangements with Manning make him quite the accomplice, in the traditional sense.
- I concede this point
Could you also please provide concrete details of persons harmed
Can you please name the persons harmed when a drunk driver races down the highway at 100mph? Or is it totally cool to commit that crime, and only uncool if you actually run into somebody? Regardless, Assange - in only the first 220 documents out of 250,000 - has deliberately identified an Iranian ex-pat industrialist, with sympathies towards and support for the opposition inside Iran (where his family lives), as the source of intel about Iran's international industrial sources. I'm sure you think that the Mullahs would never allow harm to come to anyone who opposes their regime (other than the occasional family arrests, shootings, hangings, and that sort of thing, on political grounds), but that sort of reckless divulging of sensitive info - just so that Assange can keep milkiing that press coverage he so hungers for - is complete asshattery.
I wondered if you would trot out section 793 of the Espionage Act, an overly broad statute from 1917! I can see why you sympathize with the govt, you have something in common, neither of you can be bothered to read the constitution, observe. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=1011_SCT_tracker Here is a link to cases involving the 1st amendment I would like to specifically direct you to the United States vs The New York Times (403 U.S. 713) Oh, and I'm sorry, I clearly asked for several items from you in my previous post. Did you need more time? I will await your no doubt brilliant reply. I must ask though, how exactly does it feel to be on the side of lying. Of sophistry, of half truths and innuendo? I am not being glib, what on earth could possess a man to defend a govt lying to its people. THEY are supposed to work for US, not the other way around. Having read everything that wikileaks has published, the real crime is that they keep lying about how the war is going, the material and physical cost. Do you know what the greatest deterrent to war is? The fact thats its so terrible..... but we don't get that do we?
Slashdot Mirror
you are a pinhead, with no knowledge of either history or computer science. observe
- What made kevin great what this up this point most errors that were exploited were what were known as fencepost errors, tedious to find and with unpredictable behavior once exploited. Kevin was a pioneer in looking for how to leverage the functionality that made computers worthwhile against them. The man in the middle attacks that exploits a three way handshake is elegant and sophisticated because it puts the defending system in a position of lessened value (that in order to defend against it the computer would be unable to complete a three way handshake). Coupled with the ability to social engineer, this mindset is what is dangerous, this level of clanking balls and imagination.
Your question is asinine. This man hacked networks and systems. You want to know if he can compromise a fucking home pc?
Can a brain surgeon remove a fucking wart? Kevin didn't teach people how to hack, he taught people how to think like hackers
http://www.pogostick.net/~pnh/ntpasswd/
or just go to fucking bugtraq
Another facet that wasn't mentioned in the paper is that as America attempts to legislate the internet so that the mega rich can become ultra rich, we simply remove ourselves from meaningful discussion about the problem and social view of file sharing.
As a security buff i learned from experience that while the "rules" if examined presented my ideal view of the world, or let others know whats actually important to me, my logs function as a mirror, telling me how things actually looked.
On behalf of the mega rich, the mega powerful are attempting to create a rule that says this transaction shouldn't happen, but the logs tell us that the general population in no way shape or form shares this view of the world.
If it was viewed as say child porn, in which the vast majority of the user community sees the issue in much the same manner as the rulemakers you get a set of logs that indicate that this view is shared and a small set of transgressions presented in the logs..
this is not so in the case of file sharing, hence, a waste of time and effort, the file sharing medium will change, the methods will change, but the desire will not
We wonder why America is viewed(rightly) as falling behind other countries and then you see nonsense like this getting airplay. I wonder how many Profs in India believe evolution and global warming is bullshit? When your beliefs are so retarded that you need to pass a law stopping people from calling you a moron you know there is an issue. But on a more important level, how could not allowing a science faculty to discipline a prof who clearly ignores rational scientific thought hurt....right?
Oh great,
Julien Assange gets nominated for times man of the year and politicians suggest we kill hium
WikiLeaks is up for the NPP and we want to make viewing it illegal
The internet is up for the NPP and (obviously) cooler than the other side of your pillow and we might royally bollocks up Nuetrality
Goddamn it, soon North Korea is going to call us and be like, wtf guys quit being such assholes. If that happens I am making an Obama loking at things blog
The problem I have with this is that I think its just noobs selling shit to boobs.The more this story develops I become more and more uncertain that HBGary had te technical know how to make working root kits, and 0-days for multiple OS's. I betcha these guys would just sit waiting for bugtraq to update and hurriedly package it, that i do believe they are capable of. Some of the things that were apparently willing to sell or selling require superior technical understanding, and if the twats at HBG had that, they wouldn't be so chock full of epic loss right now
Dumbest article ever, and if there is even a smidge of truth to it, dumbest script kiddies ever. I love the bit at the end
"Mr Barr also burrowed deep enough into a US military group and a US nuclear plant that he could trick workers there to click on web links that, if they had been malicious, could have installed spying software on their computers"
hahahahaha, too fucking right mr barr, you go get em! except wait.... thats complete bullshit.
Quick, lets hire Aaron Barr, he is the haxorz... I think he wrote this article!
Over the last few years we have seen an acceleration of this type of nonsense. A couple years ago we were seeing it in the cellular phone world, where all of asudden every provider decided that *unlimited* plans were misnamed because uh... they had limits. Users would sign up for an unlimited talk and txt plan for 100 and the end of the month would recieve a 200$ bill.
As with any oligopoly there were no real unique plans for users to choose from, it was the same doublespeak from all of the providers.
As we see happening today with many data and bandwidth providers
But there is hope, as we saw in the cellular world, some people heard the hue and cry and rushed to meet thier needs. Public mobile, wind mobile etc began to offer truly unlimited plans and cause the many people to switch to companies that don't subsidize your phone, but also don't lock you in to bullshit contracts.
The real danger is that the FCC allows this oligopoly to block competition (as the cellular companies, of which Verizon was one, tried to do).
Data plans are simply to profitable for the market not to try and fill something so many people will pay for, like an unlimited plan, the question is if it gets the chance....
George bush should be played by Danny Devito
Assange should be played by jon Heder
that as far as i have gotten
Ideas?
Well, it looks like someone finds my lack of faith disturbing.
He got his brand new iLiver last year and is getting an iHeart now, one organ at a time, So why do people keep modding my Jobs/Vader comparisons down?!
Ok, my bad. I wasn't terribly clear on the what I was looking for, I grasp the difference between jurisdiction and extradition, but does the US have Jurisdiction to charge him with anything? Leaving aside the Espionage act, I'm not entirely sure there is anything to charge him with. It may have to fall under some international treaty. Having though about this the 2 points I would make are.
One. Alright, the whole poisoned pill scenario that Assange has know enacted in my mind means he loses the right to use the 1st Amendment as a shield, The whole blackmail bit means he isn't a reporter anymore, I know in previous posts I had said he was a journalist. Journalists don't commit blackmail, or use threats to void prosecution.
Two. Even though I am willing to concede he isn't a journalist, if the US extradites him to Guantanamo, they immediately forfeit the moral high ground as well.
It will be interesting to see how this ends, thats for certain.
"Because ... we don't have jurisdiction in China"
At which point, may I ask, Does the United States of America have juristiction over an Australian, living in the UK, whose website is hosted in Sweden?
I also do feel it important to mention that the New York Times had access to all original documents before they were ever posted anywhere at any time. The agreement is that the newspapers and the website publish together.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101128/ts_yblog_thecutline/nyt-worked-several-weeks-on-leaked-cables-wikileaks-wasnt-direct-source-for-docs
As you can see, 4 European newspapers and the NYT and wiki all post at the same time. I fail to see any difference that would indicate a greater or lesser degree of guilt.
The Assange bashing bit at the end is just 3rd and 4th party opinion. Its got no place in the middle of a legitimate arguement, it detracts rather than adds to the point you are trying to communicate. Assange is not a US basher, Manning worked for the US army, hence the cables deal with America, hence the lions share of the Embarrasment is ours. It is ultimately irrelevant either way, assholes abound, and being a douchebag does not preclude one from being right, or in the right ( morally, not politically)
Other than that your post is factual and well reasoned. It is important to note (as you did) that we are waiting to find out what exactly happened.
Your item 1 is beyond offensive, relying on science to solve this issue shows an underlying misunderstanding of this issue and the social ills it drags along with it.
Because we can make someone thin doesn't mean we can make them healthy. Because we can regulate the storage of fat or sugar in a patients body doesn't mean we can cause an entire generation of people to care about themselves. We are talking about our bodies, we only get one, for our whole lives. The assertion that we should treat it with less than complete respect and regard is not just just damaging to bodies, but psyche's as well.
Secondly, what is this, grade 6 "it depends how you define healthy" ummm. no.
Healthy is defined as the absence of imperfection, disease or impairment. for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not decide what the definition is. "
If you have never lived a healthy lifestyle because you find them distasteful, you have nothing to compare your current frame of reference to. Having never been healthy, you wouldn't know what you are missing, which is probably a blessing for you.
I believe I begin to see your point. I guess where we differ is that I don't see saying it as more or less offensive as doing it.
Lets see what we can agree on
- This is a ridiculuos policy. I think we agree on this
- This policy, so poorly thought out, manages to somehow offend both the west and the (middle) east at the same time! I think we agree on that.
- This policy, or a closely related cousin of it has been in effect for 30 years. I believe i have enough evidence to prove this
-Presidents have no business setting the policy (no matter where it sits on the agends ) of a science and space agency
ok?
Where we disagree seems to be where you assert that this behavior is new, or more objectionable than before. I believe condescension whether behind closed doors or in the media is inappropraite for our elected officials. To me they are equally objectionable Screwing someone is wrong, whether or not you announce it to the world, no? This just makes Reagan sneaky and Obama a blowhard. Neither of which is a term i wish to use to describe the person in this position.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Its the details and historical context where I think you are not seeing the whole picture.
I always get blasted for saying this to my friends but I truly and honestly believe that the presidents are in a relay race, they just get handed a baton and keep running in the same direction.
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
They keep us all occupied and happy by claiming there are such things as" a left" and "a right" and these two groups take turns blaming eachother while helping divide the populace. I promise you I am not trolling right now, I truly believe that Obama is not clever enough to set policy, he just tries to take credit for the policies that are working, and needlessly complicate the ones that aren't. Building a bridge to Muslim countries using something as imaginative and innovative as space is simply...beyond him. Ergo- it was already there
Hey, great comments, you seem to be missing half my post though!
You also refer to it as the "new top priority" when i don't see that anywhere and I am looking at a transcript now. so you are just sort of making that exact phrase up because it sounds worse, and really there is no need. It is absurd at face value, there is no requirement to sensationalize it. Obama is a complete Asshat for ever suggesting this policy expand or continue, (because it really was already there).
The worst part about Administrators deciding the function of scientific and engineering groups is that soon these groups no longer know who the true master is, science and progress, or some ridiculous notion of helping people who neither need nor require the help of a space agency.
Again, a buffoon is someone who provides amusement through their appearance. We have never met so you are unfamiliar with my appearance. You really need to keep a dictionary handy, at least for insults, although the rest of would appreciate it if you used it for definitions as well.
There is a difference between "the foremost" and "one of the foremost" --please reference above dictionary
Your post again fails to differentiate between how sending Prince Sultan into space to be the 1st Muslim in space while wearing religious garb and being completely unqualified for the job (They invented the role of payload specialist for him)and this policy would be the complete opposite in policy.
You also remain incorrect in your assertion that this isn't the same thing other presidents have done. I believe we already covered that , you just refuse to comment on it. I could bring up the time Bush said to all Muslims (during a televised address from Iraq) "you are a good and gifted people"
Or link you to things Nixon said in his new tapes
Or when Clinton said that African Americans watch the same news that regular american do.
I could literally fill a book with dumb things Bush said, half of which were a thousand times worse so please, stop with the whole "couldn't be more paternalistic, dismissive, and humiliating. "
nonsense. By becoming enraged on behalf of a group it is you being paternalistic. The irony is... expected
And thats condescending to Muslims how exactly
Because it was Muslims he was speaking of when he said this
The only third-hand issue is whether or not he's accurately passing along what Obama told him
Good to see the outrage is so fact based, potentially.
Wow, you are a bigot, aren't you
You are misusing the word bigot, a bigot is someone who is partial to their own group. You don't know what my "group" is. Coupled with you confusing the words racist and intolerant lets me know I am dealing with someone who is more concerned with hurling an insult to make themselves feel better, then with making sure their insult is actually applicable.
no president in NASA's history
Obama is not the president of NASA, he is the President of the United States Of America. Bush sent his pals into space for fun... as a boondoggle so they could live out Gene Rodenberry fantasies. I actually don't know whats worse.
If Obama announced that we had to send an uneducated Muslim into space as part of an important mission and then went through with it, would you be on here defending him? Claiming you saw the wisdom in as you call it "accommodating a wealthy and important ally" I'm sure no one would object to that. I'm sure as every Muslim watched the first Muslim head into space that there was no national pride involved, (the fact that he was unqualified indeed, makes it outreach)
What may have been said
"Muslim outreach is on of the top three priorities"
What you wrote
NASA's top priority is to work on the self esteem of a religion.
These are not the same thing, you put words in someones mouth and then crucify them for it. You Act as an apologist for Republican presidents doing the exact same thing, but refuse to tolerate it in a Dem. Thats why you are intolerant
you cannot have it both ways, what if we just cater to important allies instead who happen to be Muslim we are not mounting a religious mission? (you will note Sultan refused to wear NASA garb)
Oh wait, let me get this straight, you wrote all this tripe without reading any of the links! Too rich!
So I guess you never looked up Reagans speech to NASA then either. Like the one where he says it will take something as vast as space to make us come together.... Apparently the difference here, which I think only you can see, is the them and us bit. So, jeopardizing a missions safety (don't forget challenger) by Adding a Muslim is selfless act which helps, but a third hand comment you have
from your post " (again, using the words that Obama's administrator said that Obama used)" means Obama is launching a different effort. I see a logical conclusion to telling NASA to make Muslims feel better about themselves as the whole prince sultan make work invent a job only he can do and send him to space thing... so I don't see the mission as being even a teeny tinsy bit different.
Every president does this you are trying to - for some reason that can only be partisan- describe business as usual as something different and wrong, and it just isn't the case.
Lastly, in showcasing your incredible vocabulary, you used two words (racist and intolerant) as synonyms, when they are not. I called you intolerant, not a racist. They are not the same insult. I don't know if you have the resume to be a racist, I am however, sure that you are intolerant.
You realize of course that attempting to use the space program and NASA as an outreach to the Muslim world is a policy that started with Reagan, and has continued completely unabated until now, not one sitting president has done anything differently?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/24268/sadly-obama-
not-1st-to-use-nasa-for-islamo-outreach-reagan-bush-were/
or
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/obamas-new-priority-for-nasa-muslim-outreach/
or
Or how about when Bush put prince sultan in space?
They called him a "payload specialist" and reporters were not allowed to ask him any technical questions....
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198601/a.prince.in.space.htm
he did after all, have almost 114 hours of training... I'm sure that qualifies someone.
Or how ARABSAT - 1B got into space at all.
What you are doing, in your posts is picking on the current sitting president for doing the same thing that presidents have been using NASA to do since Reagan.
Only got one part of your post right (the part about you being intolerant) so well done, it wasn't entirely composed of half truths.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!!
Yes, the medium matters, observe.
If I steal your car, you cannot drive, you have no access to the can in that it is no longer in your possession. I will be charged with theft. If I steal your wallet you will have no access to the things that were in your wallet, they are not in your physical control.
All of the documents you are referring to are still available to the Army. nothing has gone missing. The medium we are talking about has new issues, of confidentiality and integrity, not availability which is the traditional concern with physical media. If I go to your house, take a picture and build an exact replica of your car, is it theft.
I am not saying there is no crime here, I am saying it wasn't what you claim it was, or by whom you claim committed it.
If we were comparing oranges to oranges then there wouldn't be PIPEDA or the DATA law, etc. They would all be covered under existing law. I challenge you to find any supporting documentation from any Legal or IT source that backs up your premise.
No comment on the Pentagon papers huh... didn't think so. My prediction is that the US will never charge Assange, and the NYT (who you refuse to comment on) will never be charge with anything and your outrage will just be so many angry uninformed rants...
As always you don't fail to disappoint. You debunk my stats (even the money?), while providing nothing to debunk them with. I call bullshit on your entire post. Please provide references. While I realize that proving an opinion like your can be a daunting task for anyone, thats what the big kids do. Also, the Red cross as an agenda pushing site? You are a delight ! Those fuckers at the Red Cross!! Nobody trusts them! Historically The Red CRoss have been way more untrustworthy than the US military I would DEFINITELY believe the army's numbers over the Crosses!
Here is a link to some info about the Red Cross so perhaps you may consider learning about the folks who you just trashed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross
I won't even deal with you where you imply that any act covering the printing press covers the internet, its simply to ridiculous to dignify with a forml response
3 people have been charged, not just Manning.
Lsstly. here is a lik to where Daniel Ellsberg compares the penatgon papers to wikileaks
http://www.ellsberg.net/
Here is a link to where the NYT compares the pentagon papers to Wikileaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24london.html
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625023
Here is a transcript of an interview with the attoney general in which... you guessed it!
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131687812/wikileaks-a-reminder-of-the-pentagon-papers
And In case you didn't know the AG is kinda a high ranking civil servant.
So, now that I have provided evidence that ALL (not some) of the people involved have said its a solid comparison... its seems as though the absence of both facts and research have in way impeded you from forming strong opinions. Well played.
I await your responses to my previous questions
As always, the absence of facts has certainly not stopped you from forming a strong opinion.
http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/03/23835_823_en.pdf
Both the State, and the individual have obligations in this matter.
Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view
cat must have your tongue...
Or you switched to something where your beliefs wouldn't be challenged
Sigh.... as always you have focused on the minutae in order to feel better about your cognative dissonance regarding the whole.
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf
A million afgan deaths and rising
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Add another 100 000 and rising for Iraq.
divide by 3000 (deaths in 9/11)
yah, wait, i just did the math, I was wrong in my previous post. Now you do the math and figure out by how much
http://costofwar.com/
We also spend our childrens future while doing this.Well over 5 million dollars per enemy combatant death.
The red cross estimates that we kill 10 civilans for every combatant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
The last time Israel went to war they killed 30 combatants for every civilian....
I hope these citations help/ Now please. Who has been charged? DId an act written in 1917 and never updated cover the internet do you think? How is this any different from the pentagon papers? Why are you not outraged about the NYT? Maybe because they would love to go beat the Feds in court again so they are trying to pick a fight they might be able to win. I also still await the reference to you claiming some nonsense about me thinking secrets are never needed. You certainly cherry pick when it comes to responses!
I think the part where we betrayed our allies was when we stole from them, (Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza rice asking to steal our allies credit card numbers) and back stabbed them, you seem to think its when they found out. Nothing quaint about loyalty, that shit is timeless, too bad for America our officials don't subscribe to that. You don't get it. Everyones outraged that they got caught!They make a case that "everyone else" does it and they should be able to do it, and lie about it with impunity. Wikileaks exposed betrayal, of allies and of trust, but those betrayals had already occurred.
As for the first amendment: it isn't a magic sheild against espionage. You're welcome to report on the fact that something was stolen, and even to characterize the nature of the theft. That's reporting. Completely protected. Providing the content of classified documents to hostiles who'd love to have them? Working with the person who steals them in order to arrange for storage of those documents and the means to convey them? Not protected.
-- Looks like you still haven't read the 1st Amendment. And I was kind enough to post a link and everything, well... you can lead a horse to water...
I am just aglow with your interpretation of the 1st amendment, lets find one from a Supreme court justice to juxtapose against it
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
Justice Black, discussing how he voted in the Pentagon paper case.
It seems as though, as before, an unrestrained press exposing government deceit. Assange is telling the people the Emperor has no clothes on, and they always hate it when you do that.
"Dealing" with hostile foreign states, diplomatically, is not the same as helping someone in posession of stolen government documents find a way to best spin their publication. You know the difference, and you're trolling on this subject. The only dealing with Assange on this topic is going to be as it relates to prosecutorial wheeling and dealing.
I will refer you to all of the Mob informants that we have allowed to commit murder, actual 1st degree murder who we "cut a deal" with and then provide a life of leisure for in the WPP. The fact, however, that you actually seem to believe that the gov't chose moral high ground instead of trying to save the lives of Americans who they previously claimed were in imminent danger. It seems a little harsh to those Americans doesn't it? "We were going to help you but we needed to prove a point on the internet"
"Assange stole" etc.
You've obviously missed my immmediate follow up where I said that was a c/p typo, and corrected to the word "published." Though, indeed, we may find that Assange's arrangements with Manning make him quite the accomplice, in the traditional sense.
- I concede this point
Could you also please provide concrete details of persons harmed
Can you please name the persons harmed when a drunk driver races down the highway at 100mph? Or is it totally cool to commit that crime, and only uncool if you actually run into somebody? Regardless, Assange - in only the first 220 documents out of 250,000 - has deliberately identified an Iranian ex-pat industrialist, with sympathies towards and support for the opposition inside Iran (where his family lives), as the source of intel about Iran's international industrial sources. I'm sure you think that the Mullahs would never allow harm to come to anyone who opposes their regime (other than the occasional family arrests, shootings, hangings, and that sort of thing, on political grounds), but that sort of reckless divulging of sensitive info - just so that Assange can keep milkiing that press coverage he so hungers for - is complete asshattery.
-This last bit bravely shows a misun
I wondered if you would trot out section 793 of the Espionage Act, an overly broad statute from 1917!
I can see why you sympathize with the govt, you have something in common, neither of you can be bothered to read the constitution, observe.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=1011_SCT_tracker
Here is a link to cases involving the 1st amendment I would like to specifically direct you to the United States vs The New York Times (403 U.S. 713)
Oh, and I'm sorry, I clearly asked for several items from you in my previous post. Did you need more time? I will await your no doubt brilliant reply.
I must ask though, how exactly does it feel to be on the side of lying. Of sophistry, of half truths and innuendo? I am not being glib, what on earth could possess a man to defend a govt lying to its people. THEY are supposed to work for US, not the other way around. Having read everything that wikileaks has published, the real crime is that they keep lying about how the war is going, the material and physical cost. Do you know what the greatest deterrent to war is? The fact thats its so terrible..... but we don't get that do we?