Wikileaks does not record any source-identifying information and there are a number of mechanisms in place to protect even the most sensitive submitted documents from being sourced. We do not keep any logs. We can not comply with requests for information on sources because we simply do not have the information to begin with.
This has always been like this. The clean track record of Wikileaks, many years, thousands of leaks, supports the above. For whatever reason, DDB is pushing the Pentagon-friendly view that Wikileaks is a threat to leakers.
Also, what I read is "[Domscheit-Berg] said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could not guarantee a safe handling of the material".
It's because Wikileaks is completely honest. My understanding is that the submission system strips all identifying information when the materials is uploaded to Wikileaks. Even though, it's downright impossible to "guarantee" that the source will never be identified, it would be actually be dishonest to claim so. Even the source might not know that the materials he is leaking might contain identifying information, let alone Wikileaks knowing about it. So Wikileaks is being honest by not casting the mirage of "guarantee." You will see that Wikileaks provides useful advices to go as far as possible to stay anonymous, and in his interview with Pilger, Assange makes it clear that "nothing in this world is guaranteed." DDB knows this but it serves his selfish purpose to brand this impossible to fulfill promise as the reason to not return the material.
If you have been following DDB and Wikileaks since last year, the mud was actually flowing from DDB toward Wikileaks/Assange, not the other way around. DDB went so far as to write a book about his time at Wikileaks, generously throwing mud at Assange in the process. There was such retarded stuff in there that it made DDB look silly, obviously he was holding a grudge. In the few instances where Wikileaks referred to DDB was to say he had been fired at some point in the past, period. No mud-slinging. This week only Wikileaks addressed the DDB-saga by disclosing more about DDB when it appeared the unpublished leaked materials was not going to be returned.
No need to speculate, stick to the track record so far to judge, and Wikileaks' track record is impeccable when it comes to standing up for whistle-blowers, to publish their leaked materials, and to defend in court the publication of their leaked materials. On the other hand, DDB's track record rather shows a trampling, not support, of the whistle-blowers' wishes.
If what DDB claims are true, he also destroyed five gigabytes of internal documents from the Bank of America. Seriously, how can anyone trust OpenLeaks when one of his founder completely disregarded the wishes of the whistle-blowers to expose what they perceived as wrong, immoral, and/or of public interest? His excuse that he wanted to "protect the sources" is over-the-top ridiculous given that the track record of Wikileaks is impeccable regarding source protection (alleged cablegate leaker outed himself as per alleged chat transcript.)
I was really looking forward to have Bank of America being exposed, especially after reading this piece.
In the end, DDB exposes himself as ultimate retarded prick.
Hey I sure like the sense of accomplishment too, but there come a point where a game, which is supposed to mean "fun time" is no longer fun, rather feels like a frustrating chore, like when you died for the n-tenth times in the same spot. In such case the amount of frustration is so large that no eventual success will be enough to shift the mood in "sense of accomplishment" territory. We all have different skills, and this should be taken into account. I was never able to finish the last level of Thrine, and had no mean to fine tune the difficulty at that point for my shortcomings. I think it was God of War 3, I don't remember for sure, but if you died a couple of times in the same spot, the game would offer the choice to lower the level of difficulty (I never lowered it actually but nice to be offered the choice). I think that's the way to go to ensure games' primary purpose (fun) is preserved.
Please, stop making the game character die over and over and over and over in the same few f*****g spots in order to make your game feels as if it LAST LONG. Wake-up! We are not in the 80's where dying over and over was a requirement in order to suck in the next quarter. Also, how difficult is it to add a few program lines like so:
Don't believe what NASA says, if the doomsday reports weren't true I wouldn't have maxed out my ten newly acquired credit cards and re-mortgaged my house five times to spend all in Vegas.
Thanks for deconstructing the silliness, it reads well, as opposed to the original article, which I had stopped reading at "HTML5 isn't the solution for every problem": I was unaware that HTML5 was held as solving "every problem." It struck me as a strawman, and right at the start of the article, so I figured the rest wasn't worth reading.
I find this article about security to be informative. Always good to be reminded to look at how secure we think we are.
However, I didn't appreciate that, without NoScript, the web page on which the article sits would have pulled in scripts from over 25 sources from around the web...
I support the move, I don't use Intel stock coolers anyway, too noisy and not that efficient at dissipating heat. Since I assemble my PCs to last for years to come, I go for a silent and efficient cooler. So I bought an i5-660 (no need for video card, one less source of noise), and the Intel stock cooler was a real annoying buzz, going high-pitch when the load increased. Bought the Scythe Shuriken 3-Heatpipe Low Profile, and it is just great, quite silent, and efficient, only a noticeable non-annoying low breeze-like sound when the CPU load maxes.
What really matters is the carbon which is not part of the natural cycle, the carbon taken from the ground and burned up. We are not about to stop burning it, but surely there are ways to reduce significantly our consumption.
Thanks.
First part seems to be about Offline Web applications (in draft phase), which I understand should be supported by FF 3.5+. Not sure why the failure.
The second part is definitely Web Database code, which is not HTML5, only exposed by Webkit browser. The proposed standard is actually Indexed Database API.
Slashdot Mirror
Much to learn: http://rixstep.com/1/20110624,00.shtml Although I don't expect any information to get in the way of your spins.
Wikileaks does not record any source-identifying information and there are a number of mechanisms in place to protect even the most sensitive submitted documents from being sourced. We do not keep any logs. We can not comply with requests for information on sources because we simply do not have the information to begin with.
This has always been like this. The clean track record of Wikileaks, many years, thousands of leaks, supports the above. For whatever reason, DDB is pushing the Pentagon-friendly view that Wikileaks is a threat to leakers.
Also, what I read is "[Domscheit-Berg] said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could not guarantee a safe handling of the material".
It's because Wikileaks is completely honest. My understanding is that the submission system strips all identifying information when the materials is uploaded to Wikileaks. Even though, it's downright impossible to "guarantee" that the source will never be identified, it would be actually be dishonest to claim so. Even the source might not know that the materials he is leaking might contain identifying information, let alone Wikileaks knowing about it. So Wikileaks is being honest by not casting the mirage of "guarantee." You will see that Wikileaks provides useful advices to go as far as possible to stay anonymous, and in his interview with Pilger, Assange makes it clear that "nothing in this world is guaranteed." DDB knows this but it serves his selfish purpose to brand this impossible to fulfill promise as the reason to not return the material.
If you have been following DDB and Wikileaks since last year, the mud was actually flowing from DDB toward Wikileaks/Assange, not the other way around. DDB went so far as to write a book about his time at Wikileaks, generously throwing mud at Assange in the process. There was such retarded stuff in there that it made DDB look silly, obviously he was holding a grudge. In the few instances where Wikileaks referred to DDB was to say he had been fired at some point in the past, period. No mud-slinging. This week only Wikileaks addressed the DDB-saga by disclosing more about DDB when it appeared the unpublished leaked materials was not going to be returned.
No need to speculate, stick to the track record so far to judge, and Wikileaks' track record is impeccable when it comes to standing up for whistle-blowers, to publish their leaked materials, and to defend in court the publication of their leaked materials. On the other hand, DDB's track record rather shows a trampling, not support, of the whistle-blowers' wishes.
If what DDB claims are true, he also destroyed five gigabytes of internal documents from the Bank of America. Seriously, how can anyone trust OpenLeaks when one of his founder completely disregarded the wishes of the whistle-blowers to expose what they perceived as wrong, immoral, and/or of public interest? His excuse that he wanted to "protect the sources" is over-the-top ridiculous given that the track record of Wikileaks is impeccable regarding source protection (alleged cablegate leaker outed himself as per alleged chat transcript.)
I was really looking forward to have Bank of America being exposed, especially after reading this piece.
In the end, DDB exposes himself as ultimate retarded prick.
I like having hard copies of journals, books, and magazines
Me too. It makes me feel good about myself when I throw them in the recyclable bin.
Here here is Adam on his own
Hey I sure like the sense of accomplishment too, but there come a point where a game, which is supposed to mean "fun time" is no longer fun, rather feels like a frustrating chore, like when you died for the n-tenth times in the same spot. In such case the amount of frustration is so large that no eventual success will be enough to shift the mood in "sense of accomplishment" territory. We all have different skills, and this should be taken into account. I was never able to finish the last level of Thrine, and had no mean to fine tune the difficulty at that point for my shortcomings. I think it was God of War 3, I don't remember for sure, but if you died a couple of times in the same spot, the game would offer the choice to lower the level of difficulty (I never lowered it actually but nice to be offered the choice). I think that's the way to go to ensure games' primary purpose (fun) is preserved.
Please, stop making the game character die over and over and over and over in the same few f*****g spots in order to make your game feels as if it LAST LONG. Wake-up! We are not in the 80's where dying over and over was a requirement in order to suck in the next quarter. Also, how difficult is it to add a few program lines like so:
if ( num_deaths > 10 ) { transient_difficulty_level = RETARDED_NOOB_LEVEL_LOL; }
GODAMMIT!!&*&&@
I've always wondered if cynical people have an unusual brain.
Couldn't they also invent a device that convert the kinetic energy of the wrist while in front of the computer screen?
Thought he was only 91-year-old.
Don't believe what NASA says, if the doomsday reports weren't true I wouldn't have maxed out my ten newly acquired credit cards and re-mortgaged my house five times to spend all in Vegas.
make refactoring code a bit less obnoxious.
Speaking of obnoxious, what's with the 'C++0x' name?
That some things were better in some distant past is a recurring idea.
Thanks for deconstructing the silliness, it reads well, as opposed to the original article, which I had stopped reading at "HTML5 isn't the solution for every problem": I was unaware that HTML5 was held as solving "every problem." It struck me as a strawman, and right at the start of the article, so I figured the rest wasn't worth reading.
Right, as long as no alert warns that "SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED", then obviously NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.
I find this article about security to be informative. Always good to be reminded to look at how secure we think we are.
However, I didn't appreciate that, without NoScript, the web page on which the article sits would have pulled in scripts from over 25 sources from around the web...
I support the move, I don't use Intel stock coolers anyway, too noisy and not that efficient at dissipating heat. Since I assemble my PCs to last for years to come, I go for a silent and efficient cooler. So I bought an i5-660 (no need for video card, one less source of noise), and the Intel stock cooler was a real annoying buzz, going high-pitch when the load increased. Bought the Scythe Shuriken 3-Heatpipe Low Profile, and it is just great, quite silent, and efficient, only a noticeable non-annoying low breeze-like sound when the CPU load maxes.
Major General Adelal-Morsy said there would be "no tolerance to insults directed at the armed forces."
This is obviously inciting violence against people who protest the armed forces, he should be charged as well.
What really matters is the carbon which is not part of the natural cycle, the carbon taken from the ground and burned up. We are not about to stop burning it, but surely there are ways to reduce significantly our consumption.
I see you don't install security updates often. (Yeah, I'm on Linux too and I had to reboot a couple of times these last 112 days.)
That's why I got lost despite my GPS last time. Some people in my house tried to make me feel as if I was stupid.
I suspect it is compressed JS code. I suppose syntax would still be highlighted though.
Thanks. First part seems to be about Offline Web applications (in draft phase), which I understand should be supported by FF 3.5+. Not sure why the failure. The second part is definitely Web Database code, which is not HTML5, only exposed by Webkit browser. The proposed standard is actually Indexed Database API.