The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
When I said "aids a person in obtaining classified documents" I really mean "aids Wikileaks in obtaining documents FROM Manning." Nobody thinks Assange had a hand in actually obtaining the documents from the government. But there's reason to believe he helped Manning submit the documents based on chats Manning had with the hacker who exposed him. Based on these, Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
I don't want people to think I don't support Wikileaks or agree wholeheartedly with the government. I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective based on details of the investigation released thus far and based on the law. But once again, slashtards see something they disagree with and mark it -1 Troll.
They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.
Correct, but it's also different than the role most news outlets play, which is the ignorant journalist. Assange likely knew of the documents and helped Manning submit them. That's how the government is operating in this investigation. So, like I said, we'll just have to wait for a trial to see what the courts say about it. How far can a media outlet go in obtaining classified information? The answer is likely to be "zilch, media cannot knowingly obtain classified documents."
Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.
There is reason to believe that Assange provided Manning with instructions and a means to submit the documents. He had nothing to do with actually getting them. This wasn't a case of "Here, Wikileaks, have these documents." It was more like "Wikileaks, help me submit these." The government is operating under the assumption that Manning didn't submit the documents like everyone else and wait for Wikileaks to find it. Rather, Wikileaks knew what was coming and helped Manning submit them. This is in contrast to an oft cited example, the Pentagon Papers, where Daniel Elsberg handed them documents without the journalists knowing what it was.
First they give 3 million people access to this information and then they complain at a guy that has nothing to do with it. Given the way the US threats people I am sure that the poor soldier who has been in isolation for months has gotten 'an offer he can't refuse' to sign a fake testimony against Assange.
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
Police brutality, by definition, is never warranted, regardless of context. Police exist solely to apprehend people, and the courts are used to administer punishment. And if a video is taken out of context, the courts will decide what to do. The idea that a recording might be misused as evidence in court is no reason to ban it entirely. This is likely why many police departments are starting to use surveillance devices on officers' uniforms and tasers, it protects everyone's rights involved. It only makes sense that a civilian be able to record any interaction as well.
So when you buy corporate stock, you cease to be a person deserving of rights?
Certainly not. I'm not saying being part of a corporation should deprive you of rights. However, owning stock should not grant you extra rights either over the consumers who support it.
The difference between corporations and citizens is that a for-profit corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money. In the case of ISPs, you have corporations trying to change the rules that the Internet was based solely for profit. Even the idea that Internet service should be anything but a public good is ludicrous. So no, fuck telecoms.
Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing.
This is absurd. The government should exist to serve only the needs of people. Treating a corporation like any other citizen is ridiculous, especially when you promote the interests of a corporation over those of the actual people.
As an avid fresh and saltwater angler, I can say right now that the 'microchip' in the lure is a long line of 'gimmicks' that will catch no more fish than any other 'gimmick' like that, such as the 'Laser Lure'.
You're right in some ways. I find that the primary goal of Programming 1 is to make sure students understand basic concepts, like assignment & loops. Programming 2 for object orientation and recursion. Even so, the first two classes are mostly instruction, usually for one language. "This is how you program in C++/Java"
Classes that just teach you how to program aren't really Computer Science either. It's just like learning a trade skill. The real science starts in the Data Structures and Algorithms classes, usually the 3rd class after programming 1 & 2. This is also where departments separate the men from the boys (and women from girls).
Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome."
on
Browsing the Body
·
· Score: 1
The hate is because the Chrome beta they link to doesn't work.
Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome."
on
Browsing the Body
·
· Score: 1
I should have clarified this was after I download the latest version.
"Google, of course, recommends Chrome."
on
Browsing the Body
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Which, ironically enough, cannot load the page at all for me.
The justice system is not a joke. If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia. As accurate as wikipedia is as a whole, there are still articles that are biased, incomplete, lack citations or any combination of those.
You don't even have to track users. Just display relevant ads depending on the page they're looking at. So simple. There's nothing wrong with a few banner ads. And if they add an option for users to "donate/subscribe" to get rid of the ads, then they'll have all the money they need. If people wont donate for such a wonderful, free product then just unleash ads until they start donating.
Why, why, WHY would a site think its ok to store users' passwords in the first place?
From what I've read, they didn't store the passwords, only hashes. The passwords that have been released were weak passwords that were easily brute-forced from the hashes.
I should be more specific. They should have stored salted hashes. Regular hashes are susceptible to rainbow table attacks. Especially since they used an obselete DES encryption.
If conditions were that bad, I wouldn't rule out leaving and working for one of the other companies. Sure, that doesn't help your character, but if the interest is already there...
People with companies including Aprendi Learning, Tucows.com, DirecTV, Combine Couture, OMGPOP.com, and Uptake.com all posted Twitter messages expressing interest in hiring former Yahoo employees.
Great idea! I'm sure Yahoo laid-off all their best people first.
And I'm sure Yahoo doesn't hire just anybody off the street. It takes someone skilled to get hired at a big tech company like Yahoo. Obviously these offers are indicative of others' confidence.
Were these people programmers, graphics designers, server administrators, network administrators, network technicians and others who actually produce something of value?
Or were these people involved with "marketing", "project management" and other ill-defined positions that usually just suck resources away from those getting real work done?
It's easy to dismiss those who don't have a direct impact in developing a project. You've obviously never worked with a good project manager. A good PM is vital to a development team when they do the right thing. And I wouldn't dismiss marketing people either. They might be loathed, but marketing works.
Slashdot Mirror
The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
When I said "aids a person in obtaining classified documents" I really mean "aids Wikileaks in obtaining documents FROM Manning." Nobody thinks Assange had a hand in actually obtaining the documents from the government. But there's reason to believe he helped Manning submit the documents based on chats Manning had with the hacker who exposed him. Based on these, Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
I don't want people to think I don't support Wikileaks or agree wholeheartedly with the government. I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective based on details of the investigation released thus far and based on the law. But once again, slashtards see something they disagree with and mark it -1 Troll.
They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.
Correct, but it's also different than the role most news outlets play, which is the ignorant journalist. Assange likely knew of the documents and helped Manning submit them. That's how the government is operating in this investigation. So, like I said, we'll just have to wait for a trial to see what the courts say about it. How far can a media outlet go in obtaining classified information? The answer is likely to be "zilch, media cannot knowingly obtain classified documents."
Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.
There is reason to believe that Assange provided Manning with instructions and a means to submit the documents. He had nothing to do with actually getting them. This wasn't a case of "Here, Wikileaks, have these documents." It was more like "Wikileaks, help me submit these." The government is operating under the assumption that Manning didn't submit the documents like everyone else and wait for Wikileaks to find it. Rather, Wikileaks knew what was coming and helped Manning submit them. This is in contrast to an oft cited example, the Pentagon Papers, where Daniel Elsberg handed them documents without the journalists knowing what it was.
First they give 3 million people access to this information and then they complain at a guy that has nothing to do with it. Given the way the US threats people I am sure that the poor soldier who has been in isolation for months has gotten 'an offer he can't refuse' to sign a fake testimony against Assange.
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.
This really shouldn't surprise anybody. An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents and the CIA investigates? Preposterous!
Police brutality, by definition, is never warranted, regardless of context. Police exist solely to apprehend people, and the courts are used to administer punishment. And if a video is taken out of context, the courts will decide what to do. The idea that a recording might be misused as evidence in court is no reason to ban it entirely. This is likely why many police departments are starting to use surveillance devices on officers' uniforms and tasers, it protects everyone's rights involved. It only makes sense that a civilian be able to record any interaction as well.
So when you buy corporate stock, you cease to be a person deserving of rights?
Certainly not. I'm not saying being part of a corporation should deprive you of rights. However, owning stock should not grant you extra rights either over the consumers who support it.
The difference between corporations and citizens is that a for-profit corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money. In the case of ISPs, you have corporations trying to change the rules that the Internet was based solely for profit. Even the idea that Internet service should be anything but a public good is ludicrous. So no, fuck telecoms.
Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing.
This is absurd. The government should exist to serve only the needs of people. Treating a corporation like any other citizen is ridiculous, especially when you promote the interests of a corporation over those of the actual people.
As an avid fresh and saltwater angler, I can say right now that the 'microchip' in the lure is a long line of 'gimmicks' that will catch no more fish than any other 'gimmick' like that, such as the 'Laser Lure'.
Well duh. Did you not see the company's name?
Pro-Troll puts a chip in its fish lures...
you'd think a good cs program would encourage students to implement principles using many tools.
The good cs programs do teach in multiple languages, IDEs, OSes... at least mine did.
You're right in some ways. I find that the primary goal of Programming 1 is to make sure students understand basic concepts, like assignment & loops. Programming 2 for object orientation and recursion. Even so, the first two classes are mostly instruction, usually for one language. "This is how you program in C++/Java"
Classes that just teach you how to program aren't really Computer Science either. It's just like learning a trade skill. The real science starts in the Data Structures and Algorithms classes, usually the 3rd class after programming 1 & 2. This is also where departments separate the men from the boys (and women from girls).
The hate is because the Chrome beta they link to doesn't work.
I should have clarified this was after I download the latest version.
Which, ironically enough, cannot load the page at all for me.
So only an ignorant Jury is a fair one?
The justice system is not a joke. If I was on trial I sure as hell wouldn't want the jury looking things up on wikipedia. As accurate as wikipedia is as a whole, there are still articles that are biased, incomplete, lack citations or any combination of those.
You don't even have to track users. Just display relevant ads depending on the page they're looking at. So simple. There's nothing wrong with a few banner ads. And if they add an option for users to "donate/subscribe" to get rid of the ads, then they'll have all the money they need. If people wont donate for such a wonderful, free product then just unleash ads until they start donating.
Why, why, WHY would a site think its ok to store users' passwords in the first place?
From what I've read, they didn't store the passwords, only hashes. The passwords that have been released were weak passwords that were easily brute-forced from the hashes.
I should be more specific. They should have stored salted hashes. Regular hashes are susceptible to rainbow table attacks. Especially since they used an obselete DES encryption.
Why, why, WHY would a site think its ok to store users' passwords in the first place?
If conditions were that bad, I wouldn't rule out leaving and working for one of the other companies. Sure, that doesn't help your character, but if the interest is already there...
Great idea! I'm sure Yahoo laid-off all their best people first.
And I'm sure Yahoo doesn't hire just anybody off the street. It takes someone skilled to get hired at a big tech company like Yahoo. Obviously these offers are indicative of others' confidence.
What sorts of jobs were lost?
Were these people programmers, graphics designers, server administrators, network administrators, network technicians and others who actually produce something of value?
Or were these people involved with "marketing", "project management" and other ill-defined positions that usually just suck resources away from those getting real work done?
It's easy to dismiss those who don't have a direct impact in developing a project. You've obviously never worked with a good project manager. A good PM is vital to a development team when they do the right thing. And I wouldn't dismiss marketing people either. They might be loathed, but marketing works.
Who would ever guess that the password for admin is "!admin" or "not admin?" Secure beyond belief!
The other solution they use is to build more routes.