One, the papers may not have really vetted anything
Whatever. They're still the ones who made the decision of what cables to publish, not WikiLeaks.
the New York Times, for one example, will publish pretty much anything that hurts the government
Again, whatever. Take it up with the NYT. That has exactly nothing to do with WikiLeaks, and in no way supports the contention of the comment I was replying to that, according to WikiLeaks, "ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time."
Are you sure you're replying to the comment you meant to reply to?
But Lord High Julian never made a mistake and ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time.
All of the cables published on the WikiLeaks website - a little over a thousand the last time I checked - were first vetted and published by one of the five newspapers they partnered with. So it's not "ALLL" information as you state, it's a small fraction of all of the cables that were submitted to Wikileaks.
And if you feel some of what *was* published should not have been, maybe you should take it up with the newspaper that made the decision to publish it.
the jury foreman was unsure of a specific phrase and used wikipedia to look it up. Honest mistake.
Honest mistake? "No outside research" seems pretty straightforward to me. This was discussed the other day in the article about cell phones in court rooms. And this has always been the case, at least where I live. You consider only the evidence presented to you in court. If you have a question, or need a definition, you ask the judge. Period.
A mistrial wasn't declared because of Wikipedia. It was declared because the jury forewoman failed to follow the most basic, most fundamental instruction that is given to a jury on day one.
I really don't think following instructions from the people developing the product that's "being hacked" is in any way skilful.
The author of the article - who as you said followed instructions he found on the Chromium site - was referring to whoever wrote those instructions as hackers, not those like him who followed them.
An Engadget post says that "certified" Chrome OS laptops, when they become commercially available in mid-2011, will not support dual booting with any non-Google operating system. I haven't been able to confirm yet whether this is true, but it is certainly very difficult to boot a second operating system onto the Cr-48 prototype version that Google has shipped to thousands of testers and journalists... So I was happy to see that a step-by-step installation guide for booting Ubuntu on Cr-48 has now appeared. I don't think it was written by a Google employee, but it is being hosted on what appears to be Google's official Chromium project site.
From the sounds of it, the manufacturer has every intention of making it hard for the user to duel-boot. The prototype the author has suggests this as well. So I think this more than qualifies as a hack, as it gives the user control over his hardware that he might not otherwise enjoy.
You've just misidentified who the hacker in this story is.
What laws have they broken? Receiving and distributing classified information that causes harm to national security is against the law.
Which nation? Australia? That's where Julian is from.
What specific information in the thousand or so cables published to date has endagered the security of any nation?
Whose(sic) laws? The laws of the United States.
That's not how (sic) works. You put (sic) after what I actually wrote to indicate that you believe I spelled it wrong, but are leaving it that way to maintain the integrety of the quote.
Getting the quote wrong, then putting (sic) after it kind of defeats the purpose of using (sic).
I wasn't familiar with the case, so I went to Wikipedia. Here's an excerpt from the article about Steven J. Rosen:
He was under federal indictment from August 4, 2005 for alleged violations of the Espionage Act in the conduct of AIPAC's work, but the prosecution dropped charges once it was clear that they would not be able to convict him. The case has received wide attention more because it raises new issues about the conflict between Bush Administration national security policy and civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment attorney, said the AIPAC case "is the single most dangerous case for free speech and free press" (Washington Post, March 31, 2006) and Alan Dershowitz called it "the worst case of selective prosecution I have seen in 42 years of legal practice" (Jerusalem Post, January 31, 2006).
So you've actually brought my attention to another case that illustrates why it is important to speak out against the attacks on WikiLeaks, and ensure free speach and freedom of the press is vigorously defended whenever it is attacked by the government of the day.
You must be retarded to have to ask those questions.
I should have just stopped reading your comment there.
Also, pressuring companies to cut off service to wikiLeaks because it is a "criminal organization." What laws have they broken? Who's laws? Were those laws written prio to the commission of the "crime?"
This is a denial of service. A company can not refuse to serve someone because of their religeon, or the colour of their skin.
Others are calling for the assassination, or arrest and execution (which pretty much amounts to the same thing) of people working for WikiLeaks.
This is absolutely a free speach issue, and if ordinary people don't draw a line in the sand and support WikiLeaks - even if they don't like the fact that theses particular cables were leaked - they will one day find themselves prevented from being allowed to know what their government is up to.
Sure you could encrypt the drive, but then again this is an attack being carried out by a legitimate user who therefore must have access to the encryption key in order to boot the host.
So you don't encrypt the whole drive, just the files themselves. Different keys for different levels of access. Does a PFC really need unfettered access to *all* 250,000 diplomatic cables, for example? Maybe he does, I don't know. Would we not log events like copying the entire motherload of cables on to a USB drive? Shouldn't that raise suspision?
Apparently not, because AFAIK the only reason PFC Manning is in jail is that he confided in Adrian Lamo, who chose to turn him in.
Social engineering is a great attack vector, especially if your target hasn't prepared for it. People can be trained to recognize such attacks, though. During WW2 the phrase was "loose lips sink ships" and they took this stuff seriously.
That was probably one of the reasons the allies were successful. They fought the campaign as hard on the factory floor as they did on the battlefield.
I would think military equipment would be hardened to make tamporing difficult to do without raising suspicion. Diplomatic emails would be encrypted, so no one but the intended recipient would be able to read them, although lower level functionaries could still manage the sytems that move the data around. Unfettered access to USB, or the Internet, not only makes it possible to make unauthorized copies of sensitive data, it is also a vector for spyware, viruses ect.
I assume if I tried to walk on to a military base and leave with a file cabinet full of memos, or diplomatic cables, or plans to invade Iran, for example, someone would stop me before I could get out. It just strikes me as odd they don't seem to have similar protections already in place for electonic data.
I understand some of this stuff has to be available for whatever reasons for the military and government to function, but if the release of these diplomatic cables is such a threat to our very civilization, as Hillary Clinton seems to be suggesting, how is it a PFC can stick a USB stick in a computer and copy the whole unencrypted lot without that action triggering alarms?
Didn't the US Navy create TOR? They must know about encryption. Why aren't they using it?
I can't believe there are still places that allow jurors to bring phones and computers in to court either. I was called for jury duty earlier this year, and we were told our phones would have to be left behind in the jury room while we were in court. I don't think any of us expected that we would be allowed to bring these things in to court.
I think receiving an emergency call on your company phone alerting you to the fact that your wife has been involved in a car accident would fall under "acceptable use" in most companies.
Personal calls on company-owned devices are far more likely to be along the lines of "Mom, Bobby won't let me play Guitar Hero and it's my turn."
So employees wouldn't be taking personal calls on company time, and work wouldn't be encroaching on yours during off hours. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The issue of company data on employee-owned devices (and vice versa) is an important one, though, and likely to become a bigger one as companies that have deployed tech like BES Express allow employees to activate their own devices on company servers. RIM has said future versions will allow for segregation between company and employee owned data, sort of along the same line as what TFA discusses, but I don't think they will be using virtualization to do it.
I still think the best policy is to issue company-owned devices for business use only and require people to turn their personal cell phones off during work hours.
That's what I was thinking. Wouldn't "duel booting" make more sense? You could still keep work separate from business, without the overhead of running two systems concurrently.
I don't know, I donated to Wikileaks once, and then the following week a package of over 10,000 of my private emails, credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc, was leaked and republished in the New York Times and Guardian Newspaper.
Never again...
So you must be pretty pissed at the NYT and Guardian for publishing your private emails, cc numbers and ssn. Do you think companies like Amazon and Paypal should stop doing business with them?
My budget, which is basically my income minus expenditures (which includes savings, charitable contributions etc).
How do you determine which features are must-have?
Research, which includes reading manuals and spec sheets, reviews from a variety of sources, physically appraising the quality and workmanship of the product I'm interested in and speaking with people I know who have made similar purchases. Watching paid advertisements is not performing research.
If you think those decisions are not being constantly manipulated by others, guess again.
Decisions are also being affected by bias, experience, and personal preference. All of the advertising in the world won't convince my dad to buy a car that wasn't made by Ford.
But not everyone makes purchasing decisions based on "I aways buy brand x" like my dad, nor does everyone base major purchases on marketing materials provided by manufacturers. As a starting point, to find out what they have on offer, sure. But your job as purchaser doesn't begin and end with watching an ad with a catchy jingle.
If that's how you manage your money, you're not doing it very well.
You have to be given modpoints by the system before you can mod people up. The UI will make it fairly obvious that you are able to moderate if and when that happens.
And try not to be a dick about it, like the tool that moderated koreaman's comment Offtopic. It was, but it also provided helpful insight for new users like yourself. Leaving it scored at 1 and giving a positive moderation to a good comment instead would have served the discussion better.
(You were also modded OT - probably by the same person - for a clearly ON topic comment, which should give you an idea of how useful the moderation system here is).
You'll notice that the story I am linking to and quoting is an AP story... would Slashdot then be required to pay these fees?
ASCAP exists to collect royalties for creative works. "News" articles are a collection of facts (at least that's what they are supposed to be), and those facts are not copyrightable. This is the reason in the old days news papers busted their asses trying to "scoop" on another. They knew once the information was out there, it was fair game for anyone to report on it.
Opinion columns, features, photos etc are a different matter. But simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever. They're still the ones who made the decision of what cables to publish, not WikiLeaks.
Again, whatever. Take it up with the NYT. That has exactly nothing to do with WikiLeaks, and in no way supports the contention of the comment I was replying to that, according to WikiLeaks, "ALLL information needs to be free ALL the time."
Are you sure you're replying to the comment you meant to reply to?
All of the cables published on the WikiLeaks website - a little over a thousand the last time I checked - were first vetted and published by one of the five newspapers they partnered with. So it's not "ALLL" information as you state, it's a small fraction of all of the cables that were submitted to Wikileaks.
And if you feel some of what *was* published should not have been, maybe you should take it up with the newspaper that made the decision to publish it.
Honest mistake? "No outside research" seems pretty straightforward to me. This was discussed the other day in the article about cell phones in court rooms. And this has always been the case, at least where I live. You consider only the evidence presented to you in court. If you have a question, or need a definition, you ask the judge. Period.
A mistrial wasn't declared because of Wikipedia. It was declared because the jury forewoman failed to follow the most basic, most fundamental instruction that is given to a jury on day one.
The author of the article - who as you said followed instructions he found on the Chromium site - was referring to whoever wrote those instructions as hackers, not those like him who followed them.
From the sounds of it, the manufacturer has every intention of making it hard for the user to duel-boot. The prototype the author has suggests this as well. So I think this more than qualifies as a hack, as it gives the user control over his hardware that he might not otherwise enjoy.
You've just misidentified who the hacker in this story is.
Which nation? Australia? That's where Julian is from.
What specific information in the thousand or so cables published to date has endagered the security of any nation?
That's not how (sic) works. You put (sic) after what I actually wrote to indicate that you believe I spelled it wrong, but are leaving it that way to maintain the integrety of the quote.
Getting the quote wrong, then putting (sic) after it kind of defeats the purpose of using (sic).
Re: "the laws of the United States" see above.
You're joking?
I wasn't familiar with the case, so I went to Wikipedia. Here's an excerpt from the article about Steven J. Rosen:
So you've actually brought my attention to another case that illustrates why it is important to speak out against the attacks on WikiLeaks, and ensure free speach and freedom of the press is vigorously defended whenever it is attacked by the government of the day.
I should have just stopped reading your comment there.
I think you're right. They sure don't seem to be of the people, by the people or for the people.
Oh, and before anyone bothers ...
"whoooosssshhhh ..."
Also, pressuring companies to cut off service to wikiLeaks because it is a "criminal organization." What laws have they broken? Who's laws? Were those laws written prio to the commission of the "crime?"
This is a denial of service. A company can not refuse to serve someone because of their religeon, or the colour of their skin.
Others are calling for the assassination, or arrest and execution (which pretty much amounts to the same thing) of people working for WikiLeaks.
This is absolutely a free speach issue, and if ordinary people don't draw a line in the sand and support WikiLeaks - even if they don't like the fact that theses particular cables were leaked - they will one day find themselves prevented from being allowed to know what their government is up to.
There's a word for that, and it ain't democracy.
So you don't encrypt the whole drive, just the files themselves. Different keys for different levels of access. Does a PFC really need unfettered access to *all* 250,000 diplomatic cables, for example? Maybe he does, I don't know. Would we not log events like copying the entire motherload of cables on to a USB drive? Shouldn't that raise suspision?
Apparently not, because AFAIK the only reason PFC Manning is in jail is that he confided in Adrian Lamo, who chose to turn him in.
Social engineering is a great attack vector, especially if your target hasn't prepared for it. People can be trained to recognize such attacks, though. During WW2 the phrase was "loose lips sink ships" and they took this stuff seriously.
That was probably one of the reasons the allies were successful. They fought the campaign as hard on the factory floor as they did on the battlefield.
I would think military equipment would be hardened to make tamporing difficult to do without raising suspicion. Diplomatic emails would be encrypted, so no one but the intended recipient would be able to read them, although lower level functionaries could still manage the sytems that move the data around. Unfettered access to USB, or the Internet, not only makes it possible to make unauthorized copies of sensitive data, it is also a vector for spyware, viruses ect.
I assume if I tried to walk on to a military base and leave with a file cabinet full of memos, or diplomatic cables, or plans to invade Iran, for example, someone would stop me before I could get out. It just strikes me as odd they don't seem to have similar protections already in place for electonic data.
I understand some of this stuff has to be available for whatever reasons for the military and government to function, but if the release of these diplomatic cables is such a threat to our very civilization, as Hillary Clinton seems to be suggesting, how is it a PFC can stick a USB stick in a computer and copy the whole unencrypted lot without that action triggering alarms?
Didn't the US Navy create TOR? They must know about encryption. Why aren't they using it?
No kidding. They're *just now* getting around to this?
I can't believe there are still places that allow jurors to bring phones and computers in to court either. I was called for jury duty earlier this year, and we were told our phones would have to be left behind in the jury room while we were in court. I don't think any of us expected that we would be allowed to bring these things in to court.
I think receiving an emergency call on your company phone alerting you to the fact that your wife has been involved in a car accident would fall under "acceptable use" in most companies.
Personal calls on company-owned devices are far more likely to be along the lines of "Mom, Bobby won't let me play Guitar Hero and it's my turn."
So employees wouldn't be taking personal calls on company time, and work wouldn't be encroaching on yours during off hours. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The issue of company data on employee-owned devices (and vice versa) is an important one, though, and likely to become a bigger one as companies that have deployed tech like BES Express allow employees to activate their own devices on company servers. RIM has said future versions will allow for segregation between company and employee owned data, sort of along the same line as what TFA discusses, but I don't think they will be using virtualization to do it.
I still think the best policy is to issue company-owned devices for business use only and require people to turn their personal cell phones off during work hours.
That's what I was thinking. Wouldn't "duel booting" make more sense? You could still keep work separate from business, without the overhead of running two systems concurrently.
Not if you're filing a DMCA takedown notice
I just completed a successful install of the x86 image in Virtualbox. I updated to version 3.2.12 r68302 first, so give that a try.
yeah, silly people, thinking 'copyright' means the exclusive right to make identical copies of something ...
So you must be pretty pissed at the NYT and Guardian for publishing your private emails, cc numbers and ssn. Do you think companies like Amazon and Paypal should stop doing business with them?
No kidding. It would make me happy if graduate students collectively told the State Dept. to STFU.
10.04 is LTS, which - by definition - means his version is not "out of date."
Have you tried 'sudo shutdown -h'? If that doesn't work, try -y (halts system even if issued from a dial-up terminal).
My budget, which is basically my income minus expenditures (which includes savings, charitable contributions etc).
Research, which includes reading manuals and spec sheets, reviews from a variety of sources, physically appraising the quality and workmanship of the product I'm interested in and speaking with people I know who have made similar purchases. Watching paid advertisements is not performing research.
Decisions are also being affected by bias, experience, and personal preference. All of the advertising in the world won't convince my dad to buy a car that wasn't made by Ford.
But not everyone makes purchasing decisions based on "I aways buy brand x" like my dad, nor does everyone base major purchases on marketing materials provided by manufacturers. As a starting point, to find out what they have on offer, sure. But your job as purchaser doesn't begin and end with watching an ad with a catchy jingle.
If that's how you manage your money, you're not doing it very well.
And try not to be a dick about it, like the tool that moderated koreaman's comment Offtopic. It was, but it also provided helpful insight for new users like yourself. Leaving it scored at 1 and giving a positive moderation to a good comment instead would have served the discussion better.
(You were also modded OT - probably by the same person - for a clearly ON topic comment, which should give you an idea of how useful the moderation system here is).
ASCAP exists to collect royalties for creative works. "News" articles are a collection of facts (at least that's what they are supposed to be), and those facts are not copyrightable. This is the reason in the old days news papers busted their asses trying to "scoop" on another. They knew once the information was out there, it was fair game for anyone to report on it.
Opinion columns, features, photos etc are a different matter. But simply reporting the fact that AP has cooked up a hair-brained scheme to try to extract money out of Google - and linking to your source for that "fact" - wouldn't require a royalty payment in any sane copyright law.