This does not affect the users directly, but it is a major pain for integrators/porters. OO.o has a terrible habit of bundling all of the 3rd-party software packages, that it uses, into its own source tree. I'm talking about (probably missed some):
If they could, I'm certain, they would've bundled Java too, but — fortunately — Sun's license prohibits that... Now I realize, that this is done to offer "a single package" to those, who build it on their own, but nobody does. Everybody gets these from their OS' integrators. And the pain for us is enormous, because to force OO.o build to stop its silly ways is a serious undertaking. For some of the above packages there is --with-system-foo configure-flag, but not for all, and the default is to always use the bundled one, so support for the external ones bitrots quickly...
Most of the local builds don't bother and so end up wasting disk space and CPU-time rebuilding packages, which are external to OO.o. The end results are also bloated, duplicating stuff, that's already installed on the users' systems and without bug-fixes, which have already gone into each of the respective package since its most recent "bundling" into OO.o tarballs.
Download a source tarball and see for yourself... Something like: tar tjf OOo_OOG680_m9_source.tar.bz2 | grep 'z$'. No other software project does this on this scale and for good reasons — it is Just Wrong[TM]. OO.o better clean up their act in this respect...
My point was not against the killing — it was against kill -9. Regular kill is just as effective in most cases, but gives the process a chance to clean-up — inside a signal-handler. Using -9 gives no such chances — the process never knows, what hit it. This is the common source of left-over temporary files, of orphaned shared-memory segments and other ill-effects...
Only if a process refuses to die for seconds after a regular kill, is trying the -9 justified...
most likely it would be implemented by requiring people to punch in an "Internet license number" for access to websites
No, you completely misread my proposal. I don't know, how to express it any clearer, so I'll just try again, with emphasis:
anybody, who wishes to maintain an Internet-reachable computer, needs to be licensed (or hire someone, who is).
There. Accessing web-sites is Ok. But if you want your ISP to allow any connection initiated from the outside to reach your computer, a person licensed in Internet security (yourself or someone you hired) needs to vouch for your computer's health.
This will not stop malware distributed by e-mail, but it will cut down on the compromised web-sites — the subject of TFA.
A successful hack into your system ought also to make you financially liable to those, who your system was used against. Insurance may be available for that, with their rates being a reflection of your preparedness and history.
Very similar to how driving is handled, actually...
Applying -9 to an innocently running process is a sign of extreme amateurishness in a sys-admin. Presuming, sudo is even installed is another — one does not need it for the most common usages on an OS (such as *BSD), where only a 0-group (wheel) member can become root, and where the regular su is happy to read commands from stdin:
echo kill 84676 | su
That is, if I ever wanted to become a regular Slashdotter again in the first place — by parting with my significant other over the amount of memory her web-browsing is consuming on my system... Sorry, it is not you, it is me: I just can't stand the amount of browser-tabs you are opening, dear!
I'd tend to agree, actually. But, I think, it is inconsistent to require licensing for driving a car and not require it for Internet connection. There will soon be time, when a hacker will be responsible for a death — if it has not happened already...
A botnet targeting a 911 server or a utility company, or a swatting gone really wrong...
In many cases, the hackers are using other people's PCs without their knowledge — a clueless person making their PC reachable from the Internet is about as dangerous as an unlicensed driver on the highway...
Just this weekend, a new poll released by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University proves that exactly the opposite is true.
Uhm, exactly the opposite would be: "Americans do care about domestic spying". Is that what the supposed counter-argument asserts? No, it is not:
That poll shows that the percentage of Americans who believe the Federal Government is "very secretive" has doubled in the last two years alone (to to 44%)
Believing, that the government is secretive, does not equate to being bothered by it — plenty of people think, the government should be more secretive in its fight against our enemies (whether they are right is besides the point).
And 44% — 22% a year ago? — is still less than a half...
How about this plan: anybody, who wishes to maintain an Internet-reachable computer, needs to be licensed (or hire someone, who is). I mean, we require licenses and/or permits to alter plumbing in a house or to add a porch — aren't botnets more threatening to the country, than an improperly placed pipe here and there?
Since most attacks originate from abroad, we could relax the rule by applying it only to those, who wish to be reachable from outside US (rather than be automatically firewalled by their ISP)...
Licensing requirements would include familiarity with firewalls, computers and network security...
To be sure, I'd hate having to go through this, but having to deal with a botnet-running extortionist is, likely, even worse... Or not? What do you think?
Yea, the British should have done that to George Washington all those years ago.
They tried. Really hard...
He was a traitorous guerrilla warfare fighting asshole, right?
First, he was not a guerrilla — he headed a national militia/army of the United States. He and his soldiers fought in uniform and had allegiance to a state.
Second, the list of grievances, that caused him and others to revolt, is well documented. Are you aware of the legitimated grievances of the guerrillas we are facing (al-Qaeda, Taleban)?
[...] but the total power output still isn't even close to that of a fluorescent bulb.
Where would one get one of those, BTW? I heard, stores are loath to carry them, because a careless user can really hurt themselves by prolonged exposure.. I'd like to be able to keep it turned on in the bathroom during the day, when we are at work...
First of all, how does "use a house" solve the fundamental problem: sneaking the uranium into the country without being noticed?
All I was saying was, somebody, who has built the Fat Man somehow, does not need to transport it anywhere (such as to Holland Tunnel). Blowing it up right where they built it would do.
Whether or not it is easy/possible to build it in the first place, was outside of my posting's scope as well as that of the person I was responding to.
Had he been formally brought up on charges, and been dismissed... would have turned into an absolute circus...
You seem to be making up your mind as you type... Would you rather he had gone through "the circus"?
However, politicians frequently get away with much, much worse.
Yeah, you try that line in court for yourself. Especially, when Spitzer is in the prosecutor's box...
Immediately giving in to the mob is a very, very dangerous thing to do.
Well, it was not exactly "the mob(ility)", but rather elected law-makers (nobility), who asked him to resign, or else they'll initiate a proper impeachment procedure. Impeachment over violations of both the State and the Federal laws... During the impeachment, he would have had to — as you point out — drop everything else and concentrate on defending himself. And then he would've lost anyway, because evidence against him is quite irrefutable... Up to 12 months in jail (although as a "first time" offender, he'll likely end up with merely a fine) and whatever the federal charge of "transporting women across state borders for sex" is carrying.
No, his admission of guilt, apology, and fast resignation are the only good things about the situation. One could only ask for him to disembowel himself with a sword, but we aren't in the place/time where/when that's practiced.
He may be able to recover in a few years, but, hopefully, as a law-maker only — not an executive. Standards are (ought to be) higher for people, who have the power to immediately affect — steamroll — our lives on their own fiat...
I however do not agree applying your argument to legal acts applied to Bill Clinton under his desk. Although he lied about doing it, he shouldn't have been put in a position to lie about it in the first place.
He was put in that position by a law suit brought up by a woman, who (rather credibly) claimed, he sexually harassed her... Unless you declare all such suits without merit, they have to be heard and the parties — no matter how small or important — have to testify honestly, when under oath. Clinton's rap-sheet included several charges of perjury and obstructing justice (receiving oral sex is not, indeed, illegal and was not listed) — and he was impeached by Congress for these crimes/misdemeanors, even if Senate did not find them sufficiently "high" to ratify the impeachment.
That's law. Back to morality — what would you say of any other executive banging an intern? In any American business that's a major scandal, and grounds for a serious law-suit against the company by the intern and/her family, for example... The board would fire such a boss immediately — and you will approve. In fact, something like this just happened to Paul Wolfowitz — much to the rejoicement of his enemies, even though his relationship with a staff-member (herself hardly a young naivetés) was well-known before... Why look for excuses for Clinton, then?
Ok, the two things, one could conceive as "trolls" were the request to define "is" and the bit about "arabic-looking" people.
The first was a ridicule of your request to define "enemy". It was supposed to be funny, because "define sex" was an (in)famous bit of Bill Clinton saga: "I did not have sex with that woman." When it transpired, that he did, in fact, have sex with Monica, he attempted to dodge the charges of perjury by claiming, that "oral sex is not sex"... Jokes were made back then, that next he'll ask his opponents to define "is"... Maybe, it is lost on a non-American.
The second was a retaliation for your attempt to portray me as a racist, who would suspect "arabic-looking" people of terrorism just because of their appearance.
The rest was quite sincere: US is the leader of the free world, the world should be rooting for us over North Koreans even if we do plan to torture some of them (we don't), and anybody's (CEOs included) private thoughts and notes are private, until a valid search-warrant is obtained by showing probable cause to a judge.
Oh, yes, and it is wrong to tip off criminals, that "the pigs" (although we tend to respect our police a tad more) are closing in on them.
Germany... 1939... Imagine a Chinese guy posted a plan by China to invade Taiwan. And it led to taiwan being saved, you would say 'yay'.
Yes, because Germany of the 1939 and the contemporary China were/are evil regimes and anybody fighting them was/is a hero. United States, on contrast, is the leader of the free world and the hope and inspiration of freedom-minded people everywhere — despite our enemies' propaganda efforts.
If you start on the line of not giving out info that might help 'the enemy' firstly, who's enemy?
Define "is"...
what if those invasion plans for Iran show that the US plans to bomb civilian hospitals and torture people.
Yeah, what if? Assume, for a second, we do have plans to do, what we've never done before ("waterboarding" does not count, as there is not lasting bodily injury)? Will you prefer North Korea to win — and take over the South, if we planned to torture "high-value" captives?
Is it criminals? all criminals? pirates? suspected criminals? scallywags? does that guy look a bit arabic?
Please, convince me, I'm not arguing with an asshole, who considers all "arabic-looking" people to be "criminals, pirates, suspected criminals, or scallywags" (whatever the latter means)... I heard, there are European countries with such sentiment, but here in the US such view are frowned upon...
What if that CEO's diary tells about hte kids he raped?
Well, well... Apparently, we value privacy much more in America, than you do in wherever you are posting from. One needs a warrant, obtained after showing probable cause to a judge, in order to search a suspect's property. Simply thinking "what if he is a child-rapist" is not enough...
You seem to advocate, WikiLeaks to become a judge: "whom to prosecute or embarrass, and whom not to". Here in this country, this is a law-enforcement's domain... Your cooperation is appreciated.
and warning people the pigs are coming is not obstructing justice.
Even if not legally, then certainly morally it would be — if the "people" are mafiosi, even you will agree...
You are arguing for selective enforcement — a form of tyranny and, when the law-enforcer is himself a criminal, of hypocrisy. As prosecutor Spitzer hunted down "prostitution rings" (instead of advocating the legalization of the practice, for example) and — as Governor — just recently signed the law extending incarceration of "johns" from 3 to 12 months.
Although many politicians have, indeed, committed crimes, those who were caught have gone through major troubles. That Spitzer had to resign, unlike another infamous "star" of Democratic Party, is the sign, that he was not doing his job that well, i.e. "I'm a fucking steamroller, and I'll roll over you," — is not how a governor is supposed to speak/act...
By all accounts, he actually was doing a fairly decent job governing the state compared to his predecessors. His own personal life had very little bearing on his actions while in office (ditto to Bill Clinton).
No, that's not true — his tenure as a governor is just too short to judge. Many consider him a hero of public service for "going after" the financial firms as the State's chief prosecutor. But what those people don't realize, is that he has not won a single trial — only settlements. And those of his targets, who chose not to settle, have all won in court...
If such was the case of, say, anti-terrorism prosecutions, you would, I think, claim, the entire "terrorism" thing was drummed by the gubermint in order to put your favorite government evil here...
You seem to agree, he should've been thrown out, yet you come up with silly excuses and "yeah-buts". There aren't any — not in this case.
Do we want a President/Governor who steals candy from convenience stores? No. However, if he's doing an apt job of managing foreign affairs and the economy, it might do considerably less damage to ignore it, and turn your head the other way.
You know, you could've used this argument to, say, defend Michael Jackson: "should we not look the other way, if a great artist molested a few boys for inspiration," — or something like that. "His contribution to culture may outweigh the harm done to these kids." I would not necessarily agree, but that could be a valid opinion — if not regarding the actual molestation, than certainly regarding drug abuse, for example...
Yet in case of a politician, hypocrisy and absence of integrity are immediately disqualifying — a politician simply can not be deemed to be "doing a decent job", if he violates the law(s) he is there to uphold. Ditto Bill Clinton.
New nuke design: If you have the resources to make it, getting a design for free is just a little bonus, so who cares.
There is no "little" clause in the "aiding and abetting the enemy" law...
Plans to invade Iran/Korea: The US has plans when it invades places?
Of course it does! As well as Canada and Italy, etc. Militaries world-wide develop this plans and keep them up-to-date so that, should the government decide to do it, they can execute quickly. They also must be able to report to the government, how long such an invasion would take, what the casualties would be, and what it would cost. Leaking such plans is treasonous in any country...
seriously tho if the US invades Iran or North Korea, that would be bad and wrong, I hope any plans are exposed, the US shouldn't do it.
Well, and I think, we should — if we can. But see, we can debate this as civilians, and vote accordingly. Should our civilian government decide to do it — in accordance with the Constitutional and/or voter-approved procedures — a peacenik revealing the plans to the enemy jeopardizes thousands...
Defense of Taiwan plans: lets be brualy honest, the plan is: fuck 'em, let the chinks take it.
The Chinese military would love to know this for sure, but they don't. A high-level revelation would help them suppress Taiwan's liberty.
What would you prefer:
Scallywag gives Tiawan defence plans to wikileaks, controversy ensues, generals get kicked in the balls for poor security, plans are rewritten, security tightened. US happy.
OR
Traitor gives Tiawan defence plan to Chinese, US doesn't know, wallows in self satisfaction, US gets pwned.
I would prefer WikiLeaks to forward such information — along with the information about the leak — to the FBI and/or CIA. Then disclose the fact, that it has it without disclosing details. Newspapers and other media have dealt with such questions for decades and centuries...
Personal secrets, now theres a lamo one. Do you think this stuff wouldn't be published by newspapers? If the government is going to stick thier noses into our lives they should expect the same. Don't want it to get out out you banged your secretary? shouldn't have banged her then. Personally, I like to hear about it when politicians fuck underage kids, or if they have a secret diary full of racist comments. I think its generally a good thing to know if the people who make our laws are liars, or racists or paedophiles.
So, you don't think, a CEO has a right to privacy? What about those of small businesses — like myself and millions of Americans? Of course, you'll agree, that we deserve it — you wouldn't be saying, it is only for file-sharing, would you? So, somewhere between a small business and a large corporation, the person at the helm loses the right to privacy — in your opinion, that is... I'd like to know, where exactly do you draw the line... At a certain number of employers? At a certain level of annual revenue?..
Also, may I add, one final note, warning someone the pigs are after them is not obstructing justice.
Of course it is. You just happen to think, drugs should not be illegal and that the police should not, therefore, prosecute the dealers. What if I asked about an anti-mafia raid? Grow the fook up, in other words...
But what we can't agree on is which information, and often why. The principle of state secrets is one which is usually only truly upheld by those who believe government can and should be trusted.
And everybody else is forced to uphold them by either not knowing the secret to begin with, or by fear of being tried for treason. Another good reason can be, that exposing the secret is even worse than letting the government keep it.
In America, it should be damn near treasonous to believe that, given the principles on which we are founded.
No, that's non-sense. Not trusting the King to conduct a fair hearing and appoint governors in a timely manner is quite different from not trusting elected officials to the job, they were elected to do. If you deny this, you may as well deny any form of government — do you?
But it's far more useful for us to live in reality. I don't think we've ever become a weaker nation for our transparency.
The effects of a disclosure, along with the fact that you know about it to begin with, are often times a secret in itself. You don't want the enemy to know, what you know...
But here is a handy example that destroys your point completely. It is even on-topic... Had this pair of Commies not committed the treason in 1944-45, of which they were finally convicted in 1953, the USSR would likely have gotten a nuclear weapon years later. Ours having a major deterrent, and the USSR not having it would've kept ruskies at bay for a while... Quite possibly, this would've led to an entirely different Cold War or avoided one altogether: we could've prevailed over North Koreans (or, rather, the Chinese on their side, whom we could not nuke for fear of Soviet retaliation), and the Vietnamese Commies; the Khmer Rouge would not have risen at all, nor would Castro/Guevara; and otherwise the world could've been a far better place today:
I consider your crime worse than murder...I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-Bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country. No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack.
Thus spoke the judge sentencing the traitors to death...
I doubt it. 20 kilotons is not that large a yield. While everything with several kilometers of ground zero may be destroyed or badly damaged
Neither the Hudson between Manhattan and Jersey City, nor East River between Manhattan and Brooklyn, are wider than "several kilometers". A Fat Man going off in either will destroy Manhattan...
The main problem would be supplying medical, fire and rescue services to the survivors.
Yes, that and the panic and the (justified) concerns for other big cities, and the inevitable further crack-down on privacy, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This does not affect the users directly, but it is a major pain for integrators/porters. OO.o has a terrible habit of bundling all of the 3rd-party software packages, that it uses, into its own source tree. I'm talking about (probably missed some):
If they could, I'm certain, they would've bundled Java too, but — fortunately — Sun's license prohibits that... Now I realize, that this is done to offer "a single package" to those, who build it on their own, but nobody does. Everybody gets these from their OS' integrators. And the pain for us is enormous, because to force OO.o build to stop its silly ways is a serious undertaking. For some of the above packages there is --with-system-foo configure-flag, but not for all, and the default is to always use the bundled one, so support for the external ones bitrots quickly...
Most of the local builds don't bother and so end up wasting disk space and CPU-time rebuilding packages, which are external to OO.o. The end results are also bloated, duplicating stuff, that's already installed on the users' systems and without bug-fixes, which have already gone into each of the respective package since its most recent "bundling" into OO.o tarballs.
Download a source tarball and see for yourself... Something like: tar tjf OOo_OOG680_m9_source.tar.bz2 | grep 'z$'. No other software project does this on this scale and for good reasons — it is Just Wrong[TM]. OO.o better clean up their act in this respect...
They tend to be based abroad, and the CIA's drones can only blast so many per month...
Yeah, it really sucks, that regular people can not drive their own cars any more, and are forced to take big corporation-owned buses, does not it?
My point was not against the killing — it was against kill -9 . Regular kill is just as effective in most cases, but gives the process a chance to clean-up — inside a signal-handler. Using -9 gives no such chances — the process never knows, what hit it. This is the common source of left-over temporary files, of orphaned shared-memory segments and other ill-effects...
Only if a process refuses to die for seconds after a regular kill, is trying the -9 justified...
But will you ever be even-handed?
Have you ever considered becoming an economist?
No, you completely misread my proposal. I don't know, how to express it any clearer, so I'll just try again, with emphasis:
There. Accessing web-sites is Ok. But if you want your ISP to allow any connection initiated from the outside to reach your computer, a person licensed in Internet security (yourself or someone you hired) needs to vouch for your computer's health.
This will not stop malware distributed by e-mail, but it will cut down on the compromised web-sites — the subject of TFA.
A successful hack into your system ought also to make you financially liable to those, who your system was used against. Insurance may be available for that, with their rates being a reflection of your preparedness and history.
Very similar to how driving is handled, actually...
Applying -9 to an innocently running process is a sign of extreme amateurishness in a sys-admin. Presuming, sudo is even installed is another — one does not need it for the most common usages on an OS (such as *BSD), where only a 0-group (wheel) member can become root, and where the regular su is happy to read commands from stdin:
That is, if I ever wanted to become a regular Slashdotter again in the first place — by parting with my significant other over the amount of memory her web-browsing is consuming on my system... Sorry, it is not you, it is me: I just can't stand the amount of browser-tabs you are opening, dear!
I'd tend to agree, actually. But, I think, it is inconsistent to require licensing for driving a car and not require it for Internet connection. There will soon be time, when a hacker will be responsible for a death — if it has not happened already...
A botnet targeting a 911 server or a utility company, or a swatting gone really wrong...
In many cases, the hackers are using other people's PCs without their knowledge — a clueless person making their PC reachable from the Internet is about as dangerous as an unlicensed driver on the highway...
No, it would be people, who would be licensed, not the operating systems (which are hard to define anyway: Linux vs. Ubuntu?)
Much like plumbers and electricians...
Uhm, exactly the opposite would be: "Americans do care about domestic spying". Is that what the supposed counter-argument asserts? No, it is not:
Believing, that the government is secretive, does not equate to being bothered by it — plenty of people think, the government should be more secretive in its fight against our enemies (whether they are right is besides the point).
And 44% — 22% a year ago? — is still less than a half...
My (very) significant other keeps 5-10 windows open with 4-12 tabs in each... No kidding...
Here is the top(1) entry of her firefox-session (running linux-firefox-2 on FreeBSD/amd64):
My own (native) session uses 2.5 times less... In other words — "common practice" is a very loose standard :)
How about this plan: anybody, who wishes to maintain an Internet-reachable computer, needs to be licensed (or hire someone, who is). I mean, we require licenses and/or permits to alter plumbing in a house or to add a porch — aren't botnets more threatening to the country, than an improperly placed pipe here and there?
Since most attacks originate from abroad, we could relax the rule by applying it only to those, who wish to be reachable from outside US (rather than be automatically firewalled by their ISP)...
Licensing requirements would include familiarity with firewalls, computers and network security...
To be sure, I'd hate having to go through this, but having to deal with a botnet-running extortionist is, likely, even worse... Or not? What do you think?
They tried. Really hard...
First, he was not a guerrilla — he headed a national militia/army of the United States. He and his soldiers fought in uniform and had allegiance to a state.
Second, the list of grievances, that caused him and others to revolt, is well documented. Are you aware of the legitimated grievances of the guerrillas we are facing (al-Qaeda, Taleban)?
Where would one get one of those, BTW? I heard, stores are loath to carry them, because a careless user can really hurt themselves by prolonged exposure.. I'd like to be able to keep it turned on in the bathroom during the day, when we are at work...
Thanks!
Love you too, dude.
All I was saying was, somebody, who has built the Fat Man somehow, does not need to transport it anywhere (such as to Holland Tunnel). Blowing it up right where they built it would do.
Whether or not it is easy/possible to build it in the first place, was outside of my posting's scope as well as that of the person I was responding to.
Could this ultra-violet LEDs be used to kill the mold and bacteria in the bathroom and kitchen, while nobody is there?
Or are the rays too weak?
You seem to be making up your mind as you type... Would you rather he had gone through "the circus"?
Yeah, you try that line in court for yourself. Especially, when Spitzer is in the prosecutor's box...
Well, it was not exactly "the mob(ility)", but rather elected law-makers (nobility), who asked him to resign, or else they'll initiate a proper impeachment procedure. Impeachment over violations of both the State and the Federal laws... During the impeachment, he would have had to — as you point out — drop everything else and concentrate on defending himself. And then he would've lost anyway, because evidence against him is quite irrefutable... Up to 12 months in jail (although as a "first time" offender, he'll likely end up with merely a fine) and whatever the federal charge of "transporting women across state borders for sex" is carrying.
No, his admission of guilt, apology, and fast resignation are the only good things about the situation. One could only ask for him to disembowel himself with a sword, but we aren't in the place/time where/when that's practiced.
He may be able to recover in a few years, but, hopefully, as a law-maker only — not an executive. Standards are (ought to be) higher for people, who have the power to immediately affect — steamroll — our lives on their own fiat...
He was put in that position by a law suit brought up by a woman, who (rather credibly) claimed, he sexually harassed her... Unless you declare all such suits without merit, they have to be heard and the parties — no matter how small or important — have to testify honestly, when under oath. Clinton's rap-sheet included several charges of perjury and obstructing justice (receiving oral sex is not, indeed, illegal and was not listed) — and he was impeached by Congress for these crimes/misdemeanors, even if Senate did not find them sufficiently "high" to ratify the impeachment.
That's law. Back to morality — what would you say of any other executive banging an intern? In any American business that's a major scandal, and grounds for a serious law-suit against the company by the intern and/her family, for example... The board would fire such a boss immediately — and you will approve. In fact, something like this just happened to Paul Wolfowitz — much to the rejoicement of his enemies, even though his relationship with a staff-member (herself hardly a young naivetés) was well-known before... Why look for excuses for Clinton, then?
Ok, the two things, one could conceive as "trolls" were the request to define "is" and the bit about "arabic-looking" people.
The first was a ridicule of your request to define "enemy". It was supposed to be funny, because "define sex" was an (in)famous bit of Bill Clinton saga: "I did not have sex with that woman." When it transpired, that he did, in fact, have sex with Monica, he attempted to dodge the charges of perjury by claiming, that "oral sex is not sex"... Jokes were made back then, that next he'll ask his opponents to define "is"... Maybe, it is lost on a non-American.
The second was a retaliation for your attempt to portray me as a racist, who would suspect "arabic-looking" people of terrorism just because of their appearance.
The rest was quite sincere: US is the leader of the free world, the world should be rooting for us over North Koreans even if we do plan to torture some of them (we don't), and anybody's (CEOs included) private thoughts and notes are private, until a valid search-warrant is obtained by showing probable cause to a judge.
Oh, yes, and it is wrong to tip off criminals, that "the pigs" (although we tend to respect our police a tad more) are closing in on them.
Yes, because Germany of the 1939 and the contemporary China were/are evil regimes and anybody fighting them was/is a hero. United States, on contrast, is the leader of the free world and the hope and inspiration of freedom-minded people everywhere — despite our enemies' propaganda efforts.
Define "is"...
Yeah, what if? Assume, for a second, we do have plans to do, what we've never done before ("waterboarding" does not count, as there is not lasting bodily injury)? Will you prefer North Korea to win — and take over the South, if we planned to torture "high-value" captives?
Please, convince me, I'm not arguing with an asshole, who considers all "arabic-looking" people to be "criminals, pirates, suspected criminals, or scallywags" (whatever the latter means)... I heard, there are European countries with such sentiment, but here in the US such view are frowned upon...
Well, well... Apparently, we value privacy much more in America, than you do in wherever you are posting from. One needs a warrant, obtained after showing probable cause to a judge, in order to search a suspect's property. Simply thinking "what if he is a child-rapist" is not enough...
You seem to advocate, WikiLeaks to become a judge: "whom to prosecute or embarrass, and whom not to". Here in this country, this is a law-enforcement's domain... Your cooperation is appreciated.
Even if not legally, then certainly morally it would be — if the "people" are mafiosi, even you will agree...
You are arguing for selective enforcement — a form of tyranny and, when the law-enforcer is himself a criminal, of hypocrisy. As prosecutor Spitzer hunted down "prostitution rings" (instead of advocating the legalization of the practice, for example) and — as Governor — just recently signed the law extending incarceration of "johns" from 3 to 12 months.
Although many politicians have, indeed, committed crimes, those who were caught have gone through major troubles. That Spitzer had to resign, unlike another infamous "star" of Democratic Party, is the sign, that he was not doing his job that well, i.e. "I'm a fucking steamroller, and I'll roll over you," — is not how a governor is supposed to speak/act...
No, that's not true — his tenure as a governor is just too short to judge. Many consider him a hero of public service for "going after" the financial firms as the State's chief prosecutor. But what those people don't realize, is that he has not won a single trial — only settlements. And those of his targets, who chose not to settle, have all won in court...
If such was the case of, say, anti-terrorism prosecutions, you would, I think, claim, the entire "terrorism" thing was drummed by the gubermint in order to put your favorite government evil here...
You seem to agree, he should've been thrown out, yet you come up with silly excuses and "yeah-buts". There aren't any — not in this case.
You know, you could've used this argument to, say, defend Michael Jackson: "should we not look the other way, if a great artist molested a few boys for inspiration," — or something like that. "His contribution to culture may outweigh the harm done to these kids." I would not necessarily agree, but that could be a valid opinion — if not regarding the actual molestation, than certainly regarding drug abuse, for example...
Yet in case of a politician, hypocrisy and absence of integrity are immediately disqualifying — a politician simply can not be deemed to be "doing a decent job", if he violates the law(s) he is there to uphold. Ditto Bill Clinton.
There is no "little" clause in the "aiding and abetting the enemy" law...
Of course it does! As well as Canada and Italy, etc. Militaries world-wide develop this plans and keep them up-to-date so that, should the government decide to do it, they can execute quickly. They also must be able to report to the government, how long such an invasion would take, what the casualties would be, and what it would cost. Leaking such plans is treasonous in any country...
Well, and I think, we should — if we can. But see, we can debate this as civilians, and vote accordingly. Should our civilian government decide to do it — in accordance with the Constitutional and/or voter-approved procedures — a peacenik revealing the plans to the enemy jeopardizes thousands...
The Chinese military would love to know this for sure, but they don't. A high-level revelation would help them suppress Taiwan's liberty.
I would prefer WikiLeaks to forward such information — along with the information about the leak — to the FBI and/or CIA. Then disclose the fact, that it has it without disclosing details. Newspapers and other media have dealt with such questions for decades and centuries...
So, you don't think, a CEO has a right to privacy? What about those of small businesses — like myself and millions of Americans? Of course, you'll agree, that we deserve it — you wouldn't be saying, it is only for file-sharing, would you? So, somewhere between a small business and a large corporation, the person at the helm loses the right to privacy — in your opinion, that is... I'd like to know, where exactly do you draw the line... At a certain number of employers? At a certain level of annual revenue?..
Of course it is. You just happen to think, drugs should not be illegal and that the police should not, therefore, prosecute the dealers. What if I asked about an anti-mafia raid? Grow the fook up, in other words...
And everybody else is forced to uphold them by either not knowing the secret to begin with, or by fear of being tried for treason. Another good reason can be, that exposing the secret is even worse than letting the government keep it.
No, that's non-sense. Not trusting the King to conduct a fair hearing and appoint governors in a timely manner is quite different from not trusting elected officials to the job, they were elected to do. If you deny this, you may as well deny any form of government — do you?
The effects of a disclosure, along with the fact that you know about it to begin with, are often times a secret in itself. You don't want the enemy to know, what you know...
But here is a handy example that destroys your point completely. It is even on-topic... Had this pair of Commies not committed the treason in 1944-45, of which they were finally convicted in 1953, the USSR would likely have gotten a nuclear weapon years later. Ours having a major deterrent, and the USSR not having it would've kept ruskies at bay for a while... Quite possibly, this would've led to an entirely different Cold War or avoided one altogether: we could've prevailed over North Koreans (or, rather, the Chinese on their side, whom we could not nuke for fear of Soviet retaliation), and the Vietnamese Commies; the Khmer Rouge would not have risen at all, nor would Castro/Guevara; and otherwise the world could've been a far better place today:
Thus spoke the judge sentencing the traitors to death...
Neither the Hudson between Manhattan and Jersey City, nor East River between Manhattan and Brooklyn, are wider than "several kilometers". A Fat Man going off in either will destroy Manhattan...
Yes, that and the panic and the (justified) concerns for other big cities, and the inevitable further crack-down on privacy, etc.
Well, his case is an argument for transparency, rather than against it...