Actually, it seems as if it was obtained from [site], so I suggest to anyone who has bought anything from them online to look into it.
(thankfully my name isnt in there)
I strongly recommend that you inform a contact at the web site as soon as possible. I got a very fast response in my own case. You may find a good contact by looking at the web site at the main domain you found the file at and looking for a contact address, or alternatively by looking up the domain contact information at internic or something. For best results, provide them
with the URL of the file you found, that it's
generally web accessable, and that you found it
through a search engine. I also recommend politeness, despite the gross negligence involved--you'll get a faster response, and the person you'll be talking to is probably not the person who actually coded the web site.
Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
Looked up the first 8 digits of one of my own
CC numbers, and, while I didn't find my own
CC # on the net, I did immediately find a
large file full of them with names, expiration
dates, etc. (Sent a message to the site manager,
but this case is pretty clearly an accidental
leak.)
So what makes that different in any way to the US' reasons for landing on the moon? Astronomers didn't really gain much knowledge - certainly no useful knowledge - by the billions of dollars spent. The functional gain was American morale boosting, and American muscle flexing around the world.
...and increased interest in children in learning about math and science, probably contributing to the US Geek Culture we live in today, not to mention spinoffs like microelectronics and pacemakers.
Your comments have nothing to do with mine.
Take a deep breath, and reread what I actually
wrote.
Just because I take issue with someones confusion
over different meanings of the word harboring
does not imply anything about my opinion about
any particular individual cases. For all you
know, I agree with you about them. Heck, for
all *I* know, I agree with you, you haven't
cited particular individual IRA terrorists that
he US has failed to extradite, but if there's
been such a request I'd be likely to suspect
that that request should be upheld.
So, off my case, dude.
And, again, looking at the content of the (translated) text, as you indicate, it is not even that clear from the quote that it even indicates guilt.
You're reading and mine vary. That's okay.
That's why I provide links, you're welcome
to make up your own mind.
And as someone else pointed out here, the quotes are taken out of context without reference.
Absolutely. Please remember that my own
readings of this are colored by additional
translations of the same speech that are
not published. This is not meant to convince
you, (there's no particular reason I expect
to you trust my friends) merely to explain why
I am convinced. If I were you, I wouldn't
trust my judgement there, either.:)
No, that is not the article. I'm beginning
to doubt there was one.
The article the previous poster claimed that
the US bombed those targets
knowing that it wasn't a military target
and that the US State Dept. admitted such.
Whether the US did bomb those intentionally
or did not, the article includes no such
admission by the State department, and in
fact specifically states that the buildings
targeted were believed to house Taliban military
equipment.
I quote: Although details are still being investigated, the ICRC warehouses were among a series of warehouses targeted by U.S. forces because the Taliban used them for storage of military equipment. Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses. U.S. forces did not know that ICRC was using one or more of the warehouses.
Read the articles being referred to before
accusing someone of newspeak.
The bombings of the Red Cross centers was
tragic. The loss of telephone access (even
more than net access) in Somalia is tragic.
But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly"
as "intentional".
I actually find UBL's admission to be proof
enough for me. You might question the fuzziness
of the translation of his comments, but a
few friends who speak Arabic as a first language
tell me that they find the connotation of
admission of guilt in UBL's 10/20 statement to
be clearer to them in the Arabic than in the
current translations in the US press. Your
standards of proof may vary, of course.
I'll note that the UN did not question UBL's
guilt in the murder of hundreds in the embassy
bombings, that led to their resolution demanding
UBL's extradition from the Taliban in 1999.
(UN Resolution 1267, if you care to look it up.)
Pity that the UN didn't enforce that resolution.
He's widely considered to be not sophisticated enough to come up with such an attack on his own.
Precisely how much intellectual sophistication do you believe is required to plan the 9/11 attacks? Seems like learning to fly for the hijackers was probably the most intellectually difficult task. The rest was simple patience, committment, and money, none of which are in serious question.
I'm guessing that the moderator in question believes that the poster made up the comment about CNN reporting intentional Red Cross bombings. My own watching of CNN, and searching through the CNN web site, shows no such article. If the person did in fact make that alleged CNN reference up, then I'd think that troll was an appropriate mod. I am not, for the record, a moderator at this time, and was not involved in the moderation of that comment (as you can tell by the fact that I've posted here.)
The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC.'
You're using two different meanings of the word
harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for
four years, without US knowledge.
Usama Bin Laden lives or lived in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, with the understanding and support of the Taliban, and rejected the
(powerless) United Nations attempt to extradite
him from Afghanistan under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999) for the murder of hundreds of individuals in embassy bombings.
It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.
If we believe this, we're right to take action. But direct action. Punishing the company and the country for the actions of one man is rank hypocrisy.
So, if I pay someone to kill someone else, I'm not guilty,
only the person who actually does the killing is?
Mind you, I am extremely concerned (more by the loss of the telephone network than the 'net) about the damage that's being done by this in Somalia, and it is my strong hope that conenctivity is reestablished in a very, very short period of time. But I do take issue with your thought that all the 'blame' belongs on one individual.
The US state dept.,( as reported by CNN), has now admited that they bombed the Red Cross center in Afghanistan, multiple times, * knowing that it wasn't a military target* because Taliban members and troops were *suspected* of pilfering some amount of food from it.
Have some crater pix. Of course these aren't surface artifacts, those would have worn away in the intervening hundreds of millions of years... but the rock densities live on.
I call this direct evidence. Your mileage may vary.
A note to FlashBoltzmann (admittedly a bit of
a digression)--I notice that you point out that
a lot of these folks have slow connections.
I suspect that's true in a direct sense, but
isn't it true that continental bandwidth to/from
Africa is still pretty limited as well? It
seems to me that there's a chance that an
archive of related software, located on
the African contient, might help the downloading
time issues and give you a place to put
a bunch of related software to make it easier
for folks to find....
Sometimes authors aren't the best judges of their work.
Perhaps. I still have mixed feelings about it. I'm not much of a writer, but I am a nature photographer in my off hours, and I think there's an analogy here that bothers me. I have a lot of as yet unpublished photographs. Part of making a quality art print isn't just the pre-exposure and exposure-time work, it's the darkroom work (chemical or digital) in really cleanly establishing tonal relationships in the print, this is a process that takes some time to get right, and may be something I revisit.
Call me a control freak, but I don't feel that something is part of my work until it's finished. It's an intermediate result of my work, but since it doesn't completely represent my intention--it doesn't represent what I wanted from it. It may be enjoyable, it may be saleable, but it isn't really fair to give me the credit or the blame for releasing it.
Ansel Adams had a small number of color photographs that he never wished published, they were published after his death. These photographs, in my opinion, weren't up to the quality of his other work, if I didn't know (as many people don't) that this work was published without his consent, I would think less of the artist and the body of the artists work as a whole.
I'm not an Ansel Adams, I'm not a Douglass Adams, but I very much hope that whatever viewership and following I ever gain will not be confused by the publication of my intermediate work products. (I grant that good labelling of the intermediate prints would be a reasonable way of approaching the "confusion" question--but note that publishers only have an incentive to publish, not an incentive to publicize the nature of the work product.)
In the case of Douglass Adams, I worry that the publication of an unpublished draft of a 6th HHGTG novel, that Adams himself thought was dull, will color peoples impressions of Adams in a negative way, and paint the rest of his work.
I'd rather not see that loss--and I am cynical that publishers will do anything to alert readers to the unfinished, incomplete nature of the work. (If they do, I grant that my objections are mitigated or removed.)
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that this is still, OT, but to answer your question--it was Space Junk (TM). CNN actually has a story on it.
I strongly recommend that you inform a contact at the web site as soon as possible. I got a very fast response in my own case. You may find a good contact by looking at the web site at the main domain you found the file at and looking for a contact address, or alternatively by looking up the domain contact information at internic or something. For best results, provide them with the URL of the file you found, that it's generally web accessable, and that you found it through a search engine. I also recommend politeness, despite the gross negligence involved--you'll get a faster response, and the person you'll be talking to is probably not the person who actually coded the web site.
Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
So what if it's accidental, does that make the CC#'s any less real?
Of course not. And yes, it is a MAJOR screwup.
At any rate--scary it is.
...or at least an appropriate exerpt.
I'm with you there, man.
Just because I take issue with someones confusion over different meanings of the word harboring does not imply anything about my opinion about any particular individual cases. For all you know, I agree with you about them. Heck, for all *I* know, I agree with you, you haven't cited particular individual IRA terrorists that he US has failed to extradite, but if there's been such a request I'd be likely to suspect that that request should be upheld. So, off my case, dude.
Sorry, it has happened. I bet it has been censored since this guy read it.
Sure. (Nods and smiles, and walks slowly, and carefully away.)
You're reading and mine vary. That's okay. That's why I provide links, you're welcome to make up your own mind.
And as someone else pointed out here, the quotes are taken out of context without reference.
Absolutely. Please remember that my own readings of this are colored by additional translations of the same speech that are not published. This is not meant to convince you, (there's no particular reason I expect to you trust my friends) merely to explain why I am convinced. If I were you, I wouldn't trust my judgement there, either. :)
The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.
Whether the US did bomb those intentionally or did not, the article includes no such admission by the State department, and in fact specifically states that the buildings targeted were believed to house Taliban military equipment.
I quote: Although details are still being investigated, the ICRC warehouses were among a series of warehouses targeted by U.S. forces because the Taliban used them for storage of military equipment. Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses. U.S. forces did not know that ICRC was using one or more of the warehouses.
Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.
The bombings of the Red Cross centers was tragic. The loss of telephone access (even more than net access) in Somalia is tragic. But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".
I'll note that the UN did not question UBL's guilt in the murder of hundreds in the embassy bombings, that led to their resolution demanding UBL's extradition from the Taliban in 1999. (UN Resolution 1267, if you care to look it up.) Pity that the UN didn't enforce that resolution.
Precisely how much intellectual sophistication do you believe is required to plan the 9/11 attacks? Seems like learning to fly for the hijackers was probably the most intellectually difficult task. The rest was simple patience, committment, and money, none of which are in serious question.
I'm guessing that the moderator in question believes that the poster made up the comment about CNN reporting intentional Red Cross bombings. My own watching of CNN, and searching through the CNN web site, shows no such article. If the person did in fact make that alleged CNN reference up, then I'd think that troll was an appropriate mod. I am not, for the record, a moderator at this time, and was not involved in the moderation of that comment (as you can tell by the fact that I've posted here.)
You're using two different meanings of the word harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for four years, without US knowledge.
Usama Bin Laden lives or lived in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, with the understanding and support of the Taliban, and rejected the (powerless) United Nations attempt to extradite him from Afghanistan under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999) for the murder of hundreds of individuals in embassy bombings.
It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.
Oh? Is that actually true?
So, if I pay someone to kill someone else, I'm not guilty, only the person who actually does the killing is?
Mind you, I am extremely concerned (more by the loss of the telephone network than the 'net) about the damage that's being done by this in Somalia, and it is my strong hope that conenctivity is reestablished in a very, very short period of time. But I do take issue with your thought that all the 'blame' belongs on one individual.
You might, uhh, reread the article. It discusses the effects the loss of the 'net and phone system are having on UN humanitarian aid.
Missed that, do you have a reference?
Wasn't that the goodly Dr. Strangelove?
I call this direct evidence. Your mileage may vary.
A note to FlashBoltzmann (admittedly a bit of a digression)--I notice that you point out that a lot of these folks have slow connections. I suspect that's true in a direct sense, but isn't it true that continental bandwidth to/from Africa is still pretty limited as well? It seems to me that there's a chance that an archive of related software, located on the African contient, might help the downloading time issues and give you a place to put a bunch of related software to make it easier for folks to find....
Ack! I thought you were kidding that such a thing existed for a moment, but a quick check of Google and it's clear that you aren't.
Cool. Now I know what I want for Xmas! Thanks!
Perhaps. I still have mixed feelings about it. I'm not much of a writer, but I am a nature photographer in my off hours, and I think there's an analogy here that bothers me. I have a lot of as yet unpublished photographs. Part of making a quality art print isn't just the pre-exposure and exposure-time work, it's the darkroom work (chemical or digital) in really cleanly establishing tonal relationships in the print, this is a process that takes some time to get right, and may be something I revisit.
Call me a control freak, but I don't feel that something is part of my work until it's finished. It's an intermediate result of my work, but since it doesn't completely represent my intention--it doesn't represent what I wanted from it. It may be enjoyable, it may be saleable, but it isn't really fair to give me the credit or the blame for releasing it.
Ansel Adams had a small number of color photographs that he never wished published, they were published after his death. These photographs, in my opinion, weren't up to the quality of his other work, if I didn't know (as many people don't) that this work was published without his consent, I would think less of the artist and the body of the artists work as a whole.
I'm not an Ansel Adams, I'm not a Douglass Adams, but I very much hope that whatever viewership and following I ever gain will not be confused by the publication of my intermediate work products. (I grant that good labelling of the intermediate prints would be a reasonable way of approaching the "confusion" question--but note that publishers only have an incentive to publish, not an incentive to publicize the nature of the work product.)
In the case of Douglass Adams, I worry that the publication of an unpublished draft of a 6th HHGTG novel, that Adams himself thought was dull, will color peoples impressions of Adams in a negative way, and paint the rest of his work. I'd rather not see that loss--and I am cynical that publishers will do anything to alert readers to the unfinished, incomplete nature of the work. (If they do, I grant that my objections are mitigated or removed.)
--Joe