Well, since the entire world was informed that Libya is a no-fly zone, anything on the wing in that neighborhood is now a legal target. Which I think is your meaning though in the fog of war it's best to ACK and NACK.
They're not as antiquated as you think, and it costs a metric assload to upgrade them, and to support backward-compatibility with aircraft and airfields that are just not economical ever to upgrade.
So far he's intercepted some sloppy links and one that is clearly open so that Libyan forces can hear it and do what it tells them.
He is likely not causing anyone serious grief (and I'm not counting a navigator getting dressed-down for leaving his transponder on as serious), as he is unlikely to be breaking into any comms that really are secured.
And the physical constraint on spectrum isn't as limiting as you think. Bandwidth can be improved by multiplying what are called "accesses" on the same frequencies. Time-access, aka time-slotting; code-access (CDMA); phase-access and polarity access (QPSK); pulse-coding (PCM); spatial access / spatial diversity. It can also be improved by improving sensitivity and selectivity.
You have to find vendors willing to implement those improvements, just as for the increase in IP address size.
Broadcasters have been historically stone-headed about improving their product. HD was supposed to be out a decade before it showed up. And now they're whining that the bandwidth they gave up in the process (because VHF was not needed for HD) should be given back to them.
We should still be discussing what AT&T just did to the economy by dumping $39 Billion on T-Mobile to remove the only agile competitor from the market. $70M for a few wigets doesn't seem to rate a line in the classifieds.
We don't need Wikileaks per se to do that. And they proved they can't do it without causing trouble that we don't want. Other people can do it better than they can.
wait. you think a router gives a damn about the name of a site?
doesn't do you any good to resolve a name to an IP address if packets containing the IP address get spilled on onan's floor
Re:TLD for Financial Transactions
on
ICANN Approves .XXX
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's actually a really good idea, until I stand up my fake TLD server and steal half the internet away from their usual.bank sites, around which they no longer do any sort of shoulder-checking when they enter security information.
All you'd have to do first is define "porn" (and by that, I mean defining it a whole lot more objectively than a former Supreme Court Justice when his answer was: "I'll know it when I see it!")
Well, no, you don't.
Before the Internet, porn was confined to stores specializing in it, and to controlled locations in stores. Everyone knew what not to put out on the magazine rack where the nanny-squad could imagine a child getting his hands on it. And the definition was pretty much what you quoted there.
They still do it that way out in brick-and-mortar land. Just nobody notices the porn out there any more, because we're all inured to it by the mass quantities available in plain sight on the Interwebs.
Well, no, they solicited them from the disgruntled soldier, and promised him glory and fame.
Well, he got the fame alright.
As for your second paragraph, you're not paying attention. I'm the one here who knows the difference between properly classified information and improperly classified information, and how to get improperly classified information declassified properly, so that it doesn't harm anyone who shouldn't be harmed. You and Julian Assange, not so much.
My precious democracy is already fascist, since the Supreme Court, which is packed with fascists, declared that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns without revealing anything about it. So that's another case where you're simply not paying attention and using words that don't mean what you think they sound like they should mean.
That is naive and stupid. The legal system is why we don't just attack every country where an American citizen gets murdered. It's why we have the authority to capture the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though the ones we actually found in Afghanistan didn't actually commit a crime against us, and the ones that did died in the process of committing the crime.
If you want to change it, you're going to have to become king or something, because them's the rules.
BTW, if someone wants fly to Holland to smoke pot they'll have to remember that it's actually illegal to do so, even though it's openly tolerated by the Dutch government. But they can still be busted for it there, and they can be busted for it when they get back home, if the US AG has the evidence.
If you read the story linked to Libby's name on that Wikipedia page, you find that he was spreading her identity around long before the first date in that timeline. The timeline is typical Wikipedia misinformation, and you fell for it.
Wait. So, you're saying, because Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Scooter Libby (the fall guy) did it, it's okay for Wikileaks to do it?
Because they also sold America a pile of lies about WMD to get the Iraq war started. You want Wikileaks or anyone else doing that?
It's possible to do secrecy and investigative journalism without burning America's entire intelligence apparatus in the middle east and getting people killed (the confirmed results of what Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Libby did by outing Valerie Plame, which destroyed Brewster Jennings, the CIA's front firm in the middle east, and revealed everyone employed or associated with it in the middle east to be a CIA operative or collaborator).
The only one wearing no clothes is you. You don't know right from wrong.
Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization and does not handle release of classified information the way the NY Times does. In fact, once the government pointed that out following its original releases, Wikileaks changed its methods and now submits the information to the NY Times for redaction, so as to avoid further charges. But it's not absolved of the original charges.
This is why voting bodies specify quorum rules and time limits for voting. If someone doesn't want to participate actively, they can't slow it down or prevent it.
Of course, even with a quorum rule there are exceptions (thank goodness).
Honestly, I don't get why anyone in an educational setting isn't just counting raised hands...
I mean Wikileaks can be replaced with SombodyElseleaks.
I do not mean Wikileaks can be traded for cash.
Therefore, I mean Wikileaks is fungible, not that it is liquid.
Frankly, I wouldn't give a nickel for their chances once the AG files charges, so it's definitely not liquid.
As for who could do what they do, well, anyone can. All Wikileaks does is provide a computer on the web where anyone can dump anything via a secure connection (an ssh-wrapped browser upload, I have no doubt). Then they post it on a website or give it to someone else to post. Any keen 13-year-old could become the next Wikileaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since the entire world was informed that Libya is a no-fly zone, anything on the wing in that neighborhood is now a legal target. Which I think is your meaning though in the fog of war it's best to ACK and NACK.
Makes me wonder. It'd be interesting to see if GPS is currently giving out whacky numbers.
They're not as antiquated as you think, and it costs a metric assload to upgrade them, and to support backward-compatibility with aircraft and airfields that are just not economical ever to upgrade.
So far he's intercepted some sloppy links and one that is clearly open so that Libyan forces can hear it and do what it tells them.
He is likely not causing anyone serious grief (and I'm not counting a navigator getting dressed-down for leaving his transponder on as serious), as he is unlikely to be breaking into any comms that really are secured.
wherupon he changes his handle to @FML
Those vendors will go away, then.
And the physical constraint on spectrum isn't as limiting as you think. Bandwidth can be improved by multiplying what are called "accesses" on the same frequencies. Time-access, aka time-slotting; code-access (CDMA); phase-access and polarity access (QPSK); pulse-coding (PCM); spatial access / spatial diversity. It can also be improved by improving sensitivity and selectivity.
You have to find vendors willing to implement those improvements, just as for the increase in IP address size.
Broadcasters have been historically stone-headed about improving their product. HD was supposed to be out a decade before it showed up. And now they're whining that the bandwidth they gave up in the process (because VHF was not needed for HD) should be given back to them.
We should still be discussing what AT&T just did to the economy by dumping $39 Billion on T-Mobile to remove the only agile competitor from the market. $70M for a few wigets doesn't seem to rate a line in the classifieds.
And the fq in fqdn!
We don't need Wikileaks per se to do that. And they proved they can't do it without causing trouble that we don't want. Other people can do it better than they can.
wait. you think a router gives a damn about the name of a site?
doesn't do you any good to resolve a name to an IP address if packets containing the IP address get spilled on onan's floor
That's actually a really good idea, until I stand up my fake TLD server and steal half the internet away from their usual .bank sites, around which they no longer do any sort of shoulder-checking when they enter security information.
It does one more thing.
7. You can finally spell goatse.xxx right
All you'd have to do first is define "porn" (and by that, I mean defining it a whole lot more objectively than a former Supreme Court Justice when his answer was: "I'll know it when I see it!")
Well, no, you don't.
Before the Internet, porn was confined to stores specializing in it, and to controlled locations in stores. Everyone knew what not to put out on the magazine rack where the nanny-squad could imagine a child getting his hands on it. And the definition was pretty much what you quoted there.
They still do it that way out in brick-and-mortar land. Just nobody notices the porn out there any more, because we're all inured to it by the mass quantities available in plain sight on the Interwebs.
Well, no, they solicited them from the disgruntled soldier, and promised him glory and fame.
Well, he got the fame alright.
As for your second paragraph, you're not paying attention. I'm the one here who knows the difference between properly classified information and improperly classified information, and how to get improperly classified information declassified properly, so that it doesn't harm anyone who shouldn't be harmed. You and Julian Assange, not so much.
My precious democracy is already fascist, since the Supreme Court, which is packed with fascists, declared that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns without revealing anything about it. So that's another case where you're simply not paying attention and using words that don't mean what you think they sound like they should mean.
That is naive and stupid. The legal system is why we don't just attack every country where an American citizen gets murdered. It's why we have the authority to capture the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though the ones we actually found in Afghanistan didn't actually commit a crime against us, and the ones that did died in the process of committing the crime.
If you want to change it, you're going to have to become king or something, because them's the rules.
BTW, if someone wants fly to Holland to smoke pot they'll have to remember that it's actually illegal to do so, even though it's openly tolerated by the Dutch government. But they can still be busted for it there, and they can be busted for it when they get back home, if the US AG has the evidence.
If you read the story linked to Libby's name on that Wikipedia page, you find that he was spreading her identity around long before the first date in that timeline. The timeline is typical Wikipedia misinformation, and you fell for it.
They are not a journalistic organization. They are a spy organization. They solicit secrets and release them in an unsafe manner.
As for their concern for governments, they're about to find out that the ambivalence is not reciprocated.
They say that, but they keep on ignoring the lives they're putting at risk, when they know they can do their job without putting lives at risk.
Wait. So, you're saying, because Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Scooter Libby (the fall guy) did it, it's okay for Wikileaks to do it?
Because they also sold America a pile of lies about WMD to get the Iraq war started. You want Wikileaks or anyone else doing that?
It's possible to do secrecy and investigative journalism without burning America's entire intelligence apparatus in the middle east and getting people killed (the confirmed results of what Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Libby did by outing Valerie Plame, which destroyed Brewster Jennings, the CIA's front firm in the middle east, and revealed everyone employed or associated with it in the middle east to be a CIA operative or collaborator).
The only one wearing no clothes is you. You don't know right from wrong.
I'm not talking about the US Embassy cables.
Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization and does not handle release of classified information the way the NY Times does. In fact, once the government pointed that out following its original releases, Wikileaks changed its methods and now submits the information to the NY Times for redaction, so as to avoid further charges. But it's not absolved of the original charges.
If you don't understand the law, don't argue it.
The U.S. certainly can charge anyone on the planet with a crime committed anywhere on the planet.
Getting them extradited to stand trial for it is a matter of cooperation between nations, expense, and patience.
Things that increase the chances that extradition will occur: 1. the host country agrees with the charge and the possible punishment.
Okay, there was only one thing.
You're not doing anything electronic for 200 people for $200, unless you make one and pass it around, which will take hours.
This is why voting bodies specify quorum rules and time limits for voting. If someone doesn't want to participate actively, they can't slow it down or prevent it.
Of course, even with a quorum rule there are exceptions (thank goodness).
Honestly, I don't get why anyone in an educational setting isn't just counting raised hands...
I mean Wikileaks can be replaced with SombodyElseleaks.
I do not mean Wikileaks can be traded for cash.
Therefore, I mean Wikileaks is fungible, not that it is liquid.
Frankly, I wouldn't give a nickel for their chances once the AG files charges, so it's definitely not liquid.
As for who could do what they do, well, anyone can. All Wikileaks does is provide a computer on the web where anyone can dump anything via a secure connection (an ssh-wrapped browser upload, I have no doubt). Then they post it on a website or give it to someone else to post. Any keen 13-year-old could become the next Wikileaks.
Saying "WikiLeaks revealed classified information" doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.
No, which is why I'm always careful to qualify that with "properly".