You don't consider that funny? FBI talking about this huge russian hack of our election, an unprecedented act of war, but they don't deem it necessary to analyze the DNC servers?
That's because these things are incremental. You start with the extreme cases to introduce the principle. Then it's just an implementation detail to expand to any form of activism or voice of opponents/oppressed/disenfranchised. So when more pressure is applied to Reddit,Twitter,Facebook and so on they won't have much trouble complying.
It certainly raises the tension if you have nukes and that's part of the consideration. It may have the advantage of forcing the US to the negotiation table. North Korea already has a target on its forehead. They have been completely destroyed by the US in the fifties and have a lot of reason to think the US at least wants to overthrow them again. AFAIK they first started to work on nukes when the US invaded Grenada by surprise. They also consider how Iraq and Libya gave up a nuke program and then got overthrown by the West.
There are those in the US who also like to raise the tension: it's good for business and it signals to Japan and South Korea that they need the US and shouldn't be tempted to cuddle up to China. Simultaneously it puts pressure on China to reduce the tension (purportedly by pressuring North Korea).
I agree that the nuclear strike capability of North Korea for striking US is still close to non existing. That will change at some point to a real capability to at least hit one city.
But is it really? I don't think we have enough data to say that.
I agree but it was a measured statement: it is reasonable to think nukes help your deterrence.It may be wrong but it does not make you an unreasonable party. It does not make your position 'below par' on the international stage. It might also depend on the specific situation a country is in. There is one clear case to me of a state that doesn't believe nukes help their defense and it's Iran, though everybody seems to believe otherwise. I follow Gareth Porter and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett in their assertions that Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program and never wanted one. There are more stages to the nuclear stance: Japan is an extreme case of a nuclear threshold state. It's official policy is that when needed it can create a nuclear arsenal at short notice, in the time of a few months. Brazil has stepped back from their weapons program to 'weapons capability' status. Iran's position is that the fact that they have civilian nuclear capabilities has a deterrent value: if really pressed hard they could create nukes , which demonstrates strength and restraint. China is interesting but I don't know a lot about their nuclear strategy. They have nukes but appear to show a lot of restraint.
Well, more or less, but I see it more like this: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2... You've got the Pentagon who think they can control Trump, there's the Pentagon and Trump who think they know what they're doing , and they're escalating tensions (just applying a bit of pressure on the chinese you know) until they paint themselves into a corner and they don't see how to back out. The more aggressive the US posture the more they confirm to North Korea that they need a nuclear deterrence.
We've got decades of promoting lunatics to high positions because they increase tension, and tension is good for business. I'm sure they all think 'Trust me I know what I'm doing.' Or 'we've had 70 years without nuclear war, we know what we're doing'. The US is now posing a serious danger to the planet and Trump is just a symptom.
Seriously. Go read about the man. He and Trump would have been on the same wavelength.
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq. The public image of our opponents is generally outrageously stupid, and it's encouraged by the press who will uncritically reproduce any claim about the opponents. We're not that different, any claim about North Korea is deemed credible. But cruel dictatorships are often easy to negotiate with. We call them mad because it suits us, that's all. In the case of North Korea there is a long history of their willingness to negotiate.They still are ready to talk. They will no longer consider getting rid of their nukes an option though. For good reason. Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
I always saw Mensa as a kind of a selfhelp group and gave that as a reason for not joining. But hey, maybe I wouldn't have qualified. Preempting the sour grapes and all that. I'm sure it's full of people who don't need the help though
What we need is more driver assistance tools: autopilot, collision detection, lane assist. There's money in it , it appeals to the laziness of the drivers, and allows to take control away from the drivers. What's not to like.
I thought gold was just created the same as everything else heavier than iron, in a supernova. So a quick google shows that colliding neutron stars would provide a new mechanism but it doesn't discount the old mechanism https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
I don't know why NSA would want my data either, but they probably don't need a very strong reason
They need it 'just in case'. But the NSA only bulk-captures traffic. they're not going to put advanced malware on a large set of computers. Each time you put malware on a computer you increase the chance of being found out so you have to use it sparingly. Being found out on one system increases the chances of being found out everywhere. Now imagine what the Israelis did: sneak in Duqu inside Kaspersky. That's totally reckless. They ruined the package for everyone. That also explains why they're eager to come up with claims they found something while getting back at Kaspersky. What, like two years later?
Propaganda ok, but I'd be surprised if the NSA had gotten involved in the propaganda business.
Now, there is some value in the claim that Kaspersky data is shared with spying agencies. Data is uploaded to their servers and these servers are a target. After all the Israelis have succeeded in getting in, in a reckless attempt to provide Kaspersky and others with the most advanced evolution of Stuxnet/Duqu. They claim the Russians also succeeded in getting access and it's not impossible. It's probably a lie, especially when upgraded to 'yeah and the Russians don't even have to try hard' , but it shows people want to get in there.
Talking about flimsy arguments, that's one. As is the leading article of the topic. I've been modded troll as well for all the wrong reasons.
As I said, it's reasonable to just go with the authoritative statements of the CIA. And sometimes that means you're wrong. This is one of those times. I gave you one solid link. You think I should have given you twenty to make an impression? You think any major paper will stick their neck out and say the whole Russiagate thing(which is a whole set of accusations) is bullshit? They'll instantly be accused of being Russia stooges. But if they just publish everything about Russiagate they'll be sure everyone gobbles it up. Difficult choice..
This should not be modded troll. It actually addresses a crucial question: where's the meat? When an authoritative report supports a claim one should think twice. But that is also what good journalists should do: challenge the report. They do it, mostly outside of the mainstream, sometimes in it. And the report is very weak and does not represent the intelligence community to the extent it claims. One recent analysis is from Scott Ritter: https://consortiumnews.com/201... .
So one can say the FBI, CIA, NSA are not really 'in' but the chiefs of FBI and CIA are. The(now former) DNI predictably is , that's James Clapper. NSA chief is not in. NSA assessment listed in the report is 'moderate'. That means 'it's possible'. And they're the experts. So they're being polite. Coincidentally Clapper has asked for replacement of the NSA chief.
I'm uncomfortable with the designation 'conspiracy theory'. I would call it a negotiated position. A lot of people want to get rid of Trump, and some of them for very good reasons. Russiagate is the solution that's offered (originally by the Clinton team). What do you do? Go for truth? I'd go for truth for multiple reasons. One reason is that I think concern for truth has dropped to dangerously low levels. And another is that I think the offer of Russiagate is a bad deal. It satisfies the hawks, and it may even lead to the warmongers leading with Trump still in place.
Now one still can judge a story like the Pokemon one independently. This one appears to be built on nothing but it's written because Russiagate leads and it becomes big news because the headline specialists need to beef it up a bit to make it sell. Because everyone just reads headlines there's a constant feeling of 'my god it's even worse than we thought'.
I can more or less agree. Just present your research as having military relevance. But I don't think it's harmless. I'll put it another way: after a while everyone decide they benefit from plugging into the military industrial complex which then helps it grow and increases the concentration of power. And such power concentratoin is a bad thing and we shouldn't do bad things now should we.
Good summary. Including the part about the Cubans be super motivated not to piss off the US.
In fact I think that is the general pattern. The designated enemies of the US can deem it necessary to display sabre rattling of an essentially defensive nature, but they by and large try hard to keep the door open for improvements in the relations.
There's also the possibility that the US already knows the explaination of the sounds but is embarassed about it so keeps quiet.
It's always the military applications because that's where the money is. What was it again for US? 700 bn + 130 bn or so for ongoing wars. With a bunch of obfuscated and indirect costs on top.
Well what do we have * the stolen information was commercially sensitive rather than “classified” military information. * the firm was subcontracted four levels down from defence contracts.
In other words a nonevent not worth discussing, but he catchy title and summary are made up to sell it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only advise you when someone tries to sell you a bridge: walk away from it.
You don't consider that funny? FBI talking about this huge russian hack of our election, an unprecedented act of war, but they don't deem it necessary to analyze the DNC servers?
So the way to get rid of the 1st amendment is to privatize.
That's because these things are incremental. You start with the extreme cases to introduce the principle. Then it's just an implementation detail to expand to any form of activism or voice of opponents/oppressed/disenfranchised.
So when more pressure is applied to Reddit,Twitter,Facebook and so on they won't have much trouble complying.
That's funny. I consider CAPTCHAS broken when I can't decipher them without the help of a software tool.
I'm not sure that's a disagreement.
It certainly raises the tension if you have nukes and that's part of the consideration. It may have the advantage of forcing the US to the negotiation table. North Korea already has a target on its forehead. They have been completely destroyed by the US in the fifties and have a lot of reason to think the US at least wants to overthrow them again. AFAIK they first started to work on nukes when the US invaded Grenada by surprise. They also consider how Iraq and Libya gave up a nuke program and then got overthrown by the West.
There are those in the US who also like to raise the tension: it's good for business and it signals to Japan and South Korea that they need the US and shouldn't be tempted to cuddle up to China. Simultaneously it puts pressure on China to reduce the tension (purportedly by pressuring North Korea).
I agree that the nuclear strike capability of North Korea for striking US is still close to non existing. That will change at some point to a real capability to at least hit one city.
I agree but it was a measured statement: it is reasonable to think nukes help your deterrence.It may be wrong but it does not make you an unreasonable party. It does not make your position 'below par' on the international stage. It might also depend on the specific situation a country is in.
There is one clear case to me of a state that doesn't believe nukes help their defense and it's Iran, though everybody seems to believe otherwise. I follow Gareth Porter and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett in their assertions that Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program and never wanted one. There are more stages to the nuclear stance: Japan is an extreme case of a nuclear threshold state. It's official policy is that when needed it can create a nuclear arsenal at short notice, in the time of a few months. Brazil has stepped back from their weapons program to 'weapons capability' status. Iran's position is that the fact that they have civilian nuclear capabilities has a deterrent value: if really pressed hard they could create nukes , which demonstrates strength and restraint.
China is interesting but I don't know a lot about their nuclear strategy. They have nukes but appear to show a lot of restraint.
Well, more or less, but I see it more like this: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2...
You've got the Pentagon who think they can control Trump, there's the Pentagon and Trump who think they know what they're doing , and they're escalating tensions (just applying a bit of pressure on the chinese you know) until they paint themselves into a corner and they don't see how to back out. The more aggressive the US posture the more they confirm to North Korea that they need a nuclear deterrence.
We've got decades of promoting lunatics to high positions because they increase tension, and tension is good for business. I'm sure they all think 'Trust me I know what I'm doing.' Or 'we've had 70 years without nuclear war, we know what we're doing'. The US is now posing a serious danger to the planet and Trump is just a symptom.
I did. It's a reasonable assumption that a nuclear weapon would have saved Saddam and Iraq.
The public image of our opponents is generally outrageously stupid, and it's encouraged by the press who will uncritically reproduce any claim about the opponents. We're not that different, any claim about North Korea is deemed credible.
But cruel dictatorships are often easy to negotiate with. We call them mad because it suits us, that's all.
In the case of North Korea there is a long history of their willingness to negotiate.They still are ready to talk. They will no longer consider getting rid of their nukes an option though. For good reason.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
I always saw Mensa as a kind of a selfhelp group and gave that as a reason for not joining. But hey, maybe I wouldn't have qualified. Preempting the sour grapes and all that.
I'm sure it's full of people who don't need the help though
What we need is more driver assistance tools: autopilot, collision detection, lane assist. There's money in it , it appeals to the laziness of the drivers, and allows to take control away from the drivers. What's not to like.
Woah, my knowledge was really out of date there!
Table with main origins of elements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I thought gold was just created the same as everything else heavier than iron, in a supernova. So a quick google shows that colliding neutron stars would provide a new mechanism but it doesn't discount the old mechanism https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
They need it 'just in case'. But the NSA only bulk-captures traffic. they're not going to put advanced malware on a large set of computers. Each time you put malware on a computer you increase the chance of being found out so you have to use it sparingly. Being found out on one system increases the chances of being found out everywhere. Now imagine what the Israelis did: sneak in Duqu inside Kaspersky. That's totally reckless. They ruined the package for everyone. That also explains why they're eager to come up with claims they found something while getting back at Kaspersky. What, like two years later?
Propaganda ok, but I'd be surprised if the NSA had gotten involved in the propaganda business.
Now, there is some value in the claim that Kaspersky data is shared with spying agencies. Data is uploaded to their servers and these servers are a target. After all the Israelis have succeeded in getting in, in a reckless attempt to provide Kaspersky and others with the most advanced evolution of Stuxnet/Duqu. They claim the Russians also succeeded in getting access and it's not impossible. It's probably a lie, especially when upgraded to 'yeah and the Russians don't even have to try hard' , but it shows people want to get in there.
Talking about flimsy arguments, that's one. As is the leading article of the topic. I've been modded troll as well for all the wrong reasons.
As I said, it's reasonable to just go with the authoritative statements of the CIA. And sometimes that means you're wrong. This is one of those times. I gave you one solid link. You think I should have given you twenty to make an impression?
You think any major paper will stick their neck out and say the whole Russiagate thing(which is a whole set of accusations) is bullshit? They'll instantly be accused of being Russia stooges. But if they just publish everything about Russiagate they'll be sure everyone gobbles it up. Difficult choice..
This should not be modded troll. It actually addresses a crucial question: where's the meat? When an authoritative report supports a claim one should think twice. But that is also what good journalists should do: challenge the report. They do it, mostly outside of the mainstream, sometimes in it. And the report is very weak and does not represent the intelligence community to the extent it claims. One recent analysis is from Scott Ritter: https://consortiumnews.com/201... .
So one can say the FBI, CIA, NSA are not really 'in' but the chiefs of FBI and CIA are. The(now former) DNI predictably is , that's James Clapper. NSA chief is not in. NSA assessment listed in the report is 'moderate'. That means 'it's possible'. And they're the experts. So they're being polite. Coincidentally Clapper has asked for replacement of the NSA chief.
I'm uncomfortable with the designation 'conspiracy theory'. I would call it a negotiated position. A lot of people want to get rid of Trump, and some of them for very good reasons. Russiagate is the solution that's offered (originally by the Clinton team). What do you do? Go for truth?
I'd go for truth for multiple reasons. One reason is that I think concern for truth has dropped to dangerously low levels. And another is that I think the offer of Russiagate is a bad deal. It satisfies the hawks, and it may even lead to the warmongers leading with Trump still in place.
Now one still can judge a story like the Pokemon one independently. This one appears to be built on nothing but it's written because Russiagate leads and it becomes big news because the headline specialists need to beef it up a bit to make it sell. Because everyone just reads headlines there's a constant feeling of 'my god it's even worse than we thought'.
I can more or less agree. Just present your research as having military relevance. But I don't think it's harmless. I'll put it another way: after a while everyone decide they benefit from plugging into the military industrial complex which then helps it grow and increases the concentration of power. And such power concentratoin is a bad thing and we shouldn't do bad things now should we.
Good summary. Including the part about the Cubans be super motivated not to piss off the US.
In fact I think that is the general pattern. The designated enemies of the US can deem it necessary to display sabre rattling of an essentially defensive nature, but they by and large try hard to keep the door open for improvements in the relations.
There's also the possibility that the US already knows the explaination of the sounds but is embarassed about it so keeps quiet.
Well it could always be interference noises between some of the electronics they've installed at the embassy.
Just think of it as frowning.
It's always the military applications because that's where the money is. What was it again for US? 700 bn + 130 bn or so for ongoing wars. With a bunch of obfuscated and indirect costs on top.
Well what do we have
* the stolen information was commercially sensitive rather than “classified” military information.
* the firm was subcontracted four levels down from defence contracts.
In other words a nonevent not worth discussing, but he catchy title and summary are made up to sell it anyway.