By your own admission you agreed with his main point: "Yes, there were significant and devastating design flaws in the reactor.". Everything else you hold up as some kind of contrarian evidence can easily be files under his second main point: "Cost Savings Vs Safety". Forgive me if I take your qualified conclusion ("full of shit this guy is") with a large grain of salt, given that the guy is a highly respected nuclear safety expert with many published papers under his belt.
Spain is very worried (politically, that is) since they have one (or two not sure) of the exact same type of reactors - and they are already past their expiry date and due to be decommissioned. Before this disaster struck the politicians were wrangling to get the life of the reactors extended so they did not have to decommission and construct modern, safer ones. This disaster has put the political spotlight on what would otherwise have been a little reported event in the Spanish media (old reactors patched up and kept limping on for another few years).
Yes sorry about the google translation it is a bit rough - I fixed it here and there but it needs some work. Note however that the original interview was done by a Spanish reporter and written up/published first in Spanish - there is no original in Russian or English as you speculated - but if you find a better translation please link it, thanks. The guy has been interviewed by Reuters but they left out the meat of what he is saying: That the IAEA is not in any way impartial, and as a result the whole industry is both judge and jury onto themselves. Also that costly safety has been neglected in order to be "competitive" - he claims that the negligence is criminal (since the industry judges onto itself), so all we get is an information vacuum, lies and misdirection. From his credentials, If anyone would know what is really going down politically around this tragedy - he would
Speaking of Chernobyl, below is and interview with a former director of the Soviet Spetsatom agency handling the Chernobyl case. He has plenty of published papers out there and apparently now teaches and advises on nuclear safety in Vienna. In the interview he gives four scenarios for the Japanese reactors... I wonder what the verdict is not a week later.
Full translated interview:
17/03/2011 Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies"
"The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium," said Yuli
He spent five years at Chernobyl. Spetsatom was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.
Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.
"In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants," says this expert.
In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.
Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.
One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency "depends on the nuclear industry," said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.
Security, money, irresponsibility
"Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something... "
What are they hiding?
They lend themselves to compromise on security in exchange for selfish considerations. In the USSR for the cost of uranium enrichment in Japan simply for money. The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly.... Behind all this there is corruption. I have no proof, but will not take long to appear. How can I design a nuclear power plant in an area of ââhigh seismic risk, near the ocean, with emergency generators at the surface?. Wave arrived and everything was out of service. There is no error, this is a crime.
that is the opinion of ONE man out of millions. Don't give it more weight than it deserves.
As he points out in the interview, it is easy to see plenty of serious security oversights that could warrant criminal investigation. For example: "The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly...."
Great, some good old character assassination shoot-the-messenger reactions going on later in this thread in response to this interview. He must of touched a nerve. The only difference between this man and millions of others, is the he is a certified nuclear expert with plenty of published papers in respected scientific journals under his belt, and who also happened to be former director of the Soviet Spetsatom cleanup agency. He apparently now teaches and advises on nuclear safety in Vienna... so some forum claims that he must be crazy or not an expert should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.
Full translated interview:
17/03/2011 Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies"
"The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium," said Yuli
He spent five years at Chernobyl. Spetsatom was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.
Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.
"In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants," says this expert.
In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.
Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.
One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency "depends on the nuclear industry," said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.
Security, money, irresponsibility
"Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something... "
The jury is still out - you have no information to make "probable" guesses. Read this translated interview of a Nuclear cleanup expert to see the four possible outcomes of this accident.
I tried very hard, but I just could not find the following _full_ interview in English, only Spanish. Reuters quote part of the interview but leave out the juiciest and most damning accusations by nuclear accident cleanup hero/expert Yuri Andreyev. Luckily google translate does a decent translation so you can read it...
A couple of (corrected) quotes:
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies"
[What has happened in Japan's Nuclear facility] "was not an error, it is a crime"
Simple tools like FireSheep are an awesome way to force websites to up their game on the encryption front and improve their security.
I guess the addon you mention is EFF's "https-everywhere". Notice that the list of https sites the addon supports is growing pretty large. They will soon have to add the option "exclude these sites" rather than try and provide a massive list of included sites.
Good old Overton Window, good for treaties too. People will be so shocked at how far this new proposal goes, that they will be happy to bend over and take the original "moderate" version of ACTA.
In relation to human groups: They are Identity. Association.
Some anonymous identify with certain images, some don't. Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible, some aren't.
Note the big distinction here between "Anonymous" the identifiable group with it's culture and symbols, as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous. You have also explained that Anonymous has some loos group rules and telling us what the group's ideals and identity is about - extremely group-orientated behavior! You'd be more correct by saying: "Some Anonymous identify themselves as a group with this name and with certain symbols, some anonymous' people don't (and therefore are not associating themselves with this particular group). Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible (everyday you see anon people walking on the street), some (anonymous' people) aren't (for example, when they are in their bedrooms)."
Just because two people using the same name perform "publicly visible actions" doesn't mean they're a group. Bob Dole and Bob Dylan aren't a group, despite both being named Bob. If they both started calling themselves anonymous they would still not be a group in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses
I agree that "Bob Dole" and "Bob Dylan" are not a group ("in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses") because they have the name Bob. After this I think is where the logic you outline falls short: Your saying two Bobs don't make a group, so therefore the hundreds (or more) who have associated with the name "Anonymous" (as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous) and its symbols are also not a group. This comparison does not hold up. Everything else you mention after this appears to be based off this faulty logic.
I agree with most of what your saying, except for one basic point: "Anonymous isn't a group". It certainly is a group: just because it has no organization, no fixed philosophy or members, "no pride", has a pure anarchic "direction" - whatever - none of that disqualifies it from being a group. It was a group from the instance more than one person decided to use the same name "Anonymous" to attribute to their random _publicly visible_ action(s). "Anonymous" the group has gone even further than that though by taking up unique symbols to identify itself with. The only way to not be a group is to all go back to being individuals with different names, different symbols - then "they" would be a truly anonymous in the real sense of the word again. Further, the moment any group real or imaginary has a recognizable free for all to use name/symbol, it is vulnerable to false flag attacks - the organizational structure and everything else you mentioned is irrelevant. Example: Hypothetically - if the general population started to see many and repeated reports in the news of any group Name/symbols always being associated with something that motivates their emotions (say, Child porn), then it will not be long before the majority of the population automatically associates that groups name and their symbols as being equal to child porn. If some random individual with no previous connection to anyone else decides to setup a webpage, or go out in public wearing the mask, wave around the name or the symbol - they are automatically judged a pedo - any other mesage they might have will be lost and irrelevant. Enough negativity in the population associated with the group, and individuals would decide to stop using the name/symbols.
Anonymous has so far been no serious threat to any major power base. It has not done anything to piss off the majority of the population. The name and it's symbols are not associated with something the population automatically fear's and/or hates (it is nowhere near the negative name-brand recognition that the group name al-qaeda has for example)... so the name and symbols are so far not under any public pressure. That does not mean it is not vulnerable or its name cannot be destroyed.
I would posit that Anonymous is an ideology or attitude, and those are neither groups nor "nothing."
I agree with you that Anonymous is more of an ideology or philosophy than much else. Random people perform random acts of disobedience, some of them claim to be with the ethereal group "Anonymous". Non geeks look impressed and vision a dark sprawling underground organization.
The "false flag" for La Mano Negra (if it was indeed a false-flag situation) wasn't "La Mano Negra," it was "an anarchist group Things were done by that group and then used to justify attacks on other groups.
Just a quick correction: La Mano Negra by most accounts didn't exist. Much of the Spanish literature on the subject points to it being an invention of the government at the time. The "four crimes committed by La Mano Negra" are speculated to be the False Flag operations used by the government to justify an extremely violent suppression of the unarmed farming peasants - who were beginning to question serfdom and demand political recognition, following the lead from other European countries at the time.
Fine. But how do you apply that to a "group" that attacks disparate targets, seremingly at random, for contradictory reasons? Are you saying you can false flag as "random people on the Internet" in a meaningful way?
Yes and very easily so - those random people have banded around the name "Anonymous", and that can be used against them. Your government want's to pass some extreme laws to militarize the internet or some such nonsense - all that is needed is some justification to wave around and scare enough people with to accept your laws without much question (Witness all the "Cyber war" rhetoric). If the "real" Anonymous idealists are not willing to do something destructive and unpopular enough, organize a false flag event or two and claim your the same Anonymous "members" that hacked the HBGary servers (Since they have already got widespread publicity that can be subverted). Do enough damage in the False Flag attack to give the political capital needed to pass your crappy laws, al-la Patriot Act style. After seeing the depth's HBGary were willing to stoop to, this does not sound very far fetched - it's a textbook False Flag attack. The point is: If I was the individual(s) who claimed to hack HBGary servers using the banner name Anonymous, I'd want the power to discredit anyone else claiming to do other acts in my name. PGP signatures on any and all public communications would give me that power (with no downside).
As an aside, 'al qaeda' is another ideology banded around by disparate, fragmented and disenfranchized groups who carry out random uncoordinated acts of misguided violence in it's name. Far from damaging the MIC, secretive governments and abusive corporations - they have indirectly helped to increase their power. Unlike Anonymous however, there is usually no need to use False Flags to get people whipped up into a fear frenzy. Even then, some creative non-standard False Flag events can go a long way to increasing your power base and guarantee further funding.
Claiming to be Anonymous is only meaningful to people who don't understand what Anonymous is.
Logical conclusion of that line of thinking: Anonymous isn't anything. LOL. Debatable.... but besides the point: history has already proved you wrong on the first point: False Flag attacks do work, even if the "target" does not exist "in any real sense". See La Mano Negra. Anonymous is not important to attackers (States/MIC/Corporations) - not nearly as much as the potential laws and actions they can do in the name of attacking "it". See "War on Terror/Drugs/Bogyman" for more references.
Anonymous does not desire for you to know which "faction" is at work. If identifiability was desired a group would be formed with a name. Factions are irrelevant.
I think your mixing things up a bit there. Crypto-Signature of Mr X vs Mr Y does not make the two any less anonymous... it only makes any anonymous message they wish to send distinguishable.
The big downside for "them" not using cryptography/signatures is that the most rudimentary and basic social engineering attacks are trivial to perform against "them" as a whole. Specifically, False Flag attacks.
"They" don't care.
Sure - "They" don't care is probably pretty accurate. Personally I find it interesting that a group that more or less prides itself on being security experts leaves themselves wide open to one of the oldest and simplest of attacks though. Even a major coo like the HBGary debacle is easily negated... Just que some malicious attacks in the next few months against any warm and fuzzy organization (Emergency 911 service/Amnesty/Dali Lama/take your pick) all in the name of Anonymous. All the excuse needed to justify contracting a few more HBGary 'cyber-security' firms, throw a few more extreme laws against the internet and open communication onto the books.
Spain is an interesting case because we can read about what goes on in the backroom thanks to the WIkileaks cables. We see how the US embassy to Spain ran around at the bidding IIPA subverting the democratic process (things like stifling public debate and "advising" elected officials not to discuss the new laws with their constituents) all the way to ram through more stringent copyright measures than even the US has.
http://iberosphere.com/2010/12/spains-anti-p2p-%E2%80%9Csinde-law%E2%80%9D-her-masters-voice/1840
I am cheering Anonymous for their actions with HBGary. However, I am cheering for the specific people that did this specific act.
Cheering for Anonymous is like modding an AC on Slashdot as +5 Insightful and then wondering why he was being such a dick two posts later.
True. I always wondered why "they" do not use public keys and PGP signing/signatures or the like more, at least you'd know which faction was at play as soon as they start flashing around the Anonymous flag and claiming they have biiig stuff going on...
'The CIA wants the American people and the world to understand its mission and its vital role in keeping our country safe.'
The CIA is trying to regain some credibility/reputation which has rapidly gone downhill since the Iraq war. News and leaks from Wikileaks and other sources keeps throwing their smelly shit into the fan for all to see. It seems to be nearly every day now we hear of a new scandal, or some gross misuse of our taxpayers funds. But never fear, they have a plan: Apart from this new "Spy goodies" for geeks section to woo us with pretty trinkets, they have also thought of the children - adding games and quizzes to their website - helping them become your all American family-friendly organization again. Further, soon there will be no more bad news thanks to the CIA teaming up with the Democrats to clean out those with faulty moral compasses - so we can all live safe and ignorant again.
Interlocks allow for upper class cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power[3]. They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals.[4] They help the upper class maintain a class advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation.[2][5] In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."[6]
Related to the MIC, Guantanamo and Wikileaks being an enemy of the state: the relevant leaked "cablegate" Embassy Cables are even being read out to Congress now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfF7FUlhg4o
See this very recent coverage of the effective US cable and satellite carriers blackout of Al Jazeera, apart from "a handful of homes in the United States". (Your obviously one of the lucky few - care to name who your provider is?)
Historically this blackout has been due to pressure from the US Government on cable providers. From Washington Embraces Al Jazeera linked earlier:
"On April 11 senior [US] military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, “The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies.” On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera’s reporting “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.” It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. “He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere,” a source told the Mirror. “There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do"
Anyone else having trouble reaching english.aljazeera.net in the U.S.? It stopped coming up for me yesterday, and is going on 24 hours since I've been able to access it. I don't see anything in the news about why it might be down. Just wondering if anyone else is having problems.
Yes, it is "unofficially" censored in the US - that is, censored due to political pressure in the same way that Paypal/Amazon/Visa/Mastercard/BOA were "encouraged" by the administration to censor Wikileaks. At least they have not bombed their offices (yet) as Bush Jr wanted.
Al Jazeera media network is by far the best coverage, but unfortunately it is more or less censored in the US apart from the above live stream (Censored in the same way that Paypal/Visa/MCard "censored" wikileaks, that is).
Er, yeah, that's because every state in the world has 20% of the world coal market - without it it would be impossible for them all to run. Not to mention Aussies rejecting raising taxes on mining companies - being the lowest in the first world. Who is calling whom stupid?
As for your climate change dig (Queenslander are we?) - if you listened at all to climate change scientist community you would know that it means more frequent extreme weather conditions (not necessarily "biggest ever"). You know, like the recent series of floods in south Spain (never happened so frequently in recoded history), more frequent cyclones etc. Perhaps your fox news channel hasn't been keeping you informed.
Slashdot Mirror
By your own admission you agreed with his main point: "Yes, there were significant and devastating design flaws in the reactor.". Everything else you hold up as some kind of contrarian evidence can easily be files under his second main point: "Cost Savings Vs Safety". Forgive me if I take your qualified conclusion ("full of shit this guy is") with a large grain of salt, given that the guy is a highly respected nuclear safety expert with many published papers under his belt.
Spain is very worried (politically, that is) since they have one (or two not sure) of the exact same type of reactors - and they are already past their expiry date and due to be decommissioned. Before this disaster struck the politicians were wrangling to get the life of the reactors extended so they did not have to decommission and construct modern, safer ones. This disaster has put the political spotlight on what would otherwise have been a little reported event in the Spanish media (old reactors patched up and kept limping on for another few years).
Yes sorry about the google translation it is a bit rough - I fixed it here and there but it needs some work. Note however that the original interview was done by a Spanish reporter and written up/published first in Spanish - there is no original in Russian or English as you speculated - but if you find a better translation please link it, thanks. The guy has been interviewed by Reuters but they left out the meat of what he is saying: That the IAEA is not in any way impartial, and as a result the whole industry is both judge and jury onto themselves. Also that costly safety has been neglected in order to be "competitive" - he claims that the negligence is criminal (since the industry judges onto itself), so all we get is an information vacuum, lies and misdirection. From his credentials, If anyone would know what is really going down politically around this tragedy - he would
Full translated interview:
17/03/2011 Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies" "The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium," said Yuli
He spent five years at Chernobyl. Spetsatom was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.
Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.
"In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants," says this expert.
In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.
Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.
One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency "depends on the nuclear industry," said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.
Security, money, irresponsibility
"Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something ... "
What are they hiding?
They lend themselves to compromise on security in exchange for selfish considerations. In the USSR for the cost of uranium enrichment in Japan simply for money. The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly .... Behind all this there is corruption. I have no proof, but will not take long to appear. How can I design a nuclear power plant in an area of ââhigh seismic risk, near the ocean, with emergency generators at the surface?. Wave arrived and everything was out of service. There is no error, this is a crime.
What problems do you see wi
that is the opinion of ONE man out of millions. Don't give it more weight than it deserves.
As he points out in the interview, it is easy to see plenty of serious security oversights that could warrant criminal investigation. For example: "The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly...."
Great, some good old character assassination shoot-the-messenger reactions going on later in this thread in response to this interview. He must of touched a nerve. The only difference between this man and millions of others, is the he is a certified nuclear expert with plenty of published papers in respected scientific journals under his belt, and who also happened to be former director of the Soviet Spetsatom cleanup agency. He apparently now teaches and advises on nuclear safety in Vienna... so some forum claims that he must be crazy or not an expert should be taken with more than a few grains of salt.
Full translated interview:
17/03/2011 Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies" "The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium," said Yuli
He spent five years at Chernobyl. Spetsatom was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.
Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.
"In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants," says this expert.
In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.
Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.
One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency "depends on the nuclear industry," said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.
Security, money, irresponsibility
"Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something ... "
What are they hiding?
The jury is still out - you have no information to make "probable" guesses. Read this translated interview of a Nuclear cleanup expert to see the four possible outcomes of this accident.
I tried very hard, but I just could not find the following _full_ interview in English, only Spanish. Reuters quote part of the interview but leave out the juiciest and most damning accusations by nuclear accident cleanup hero/expert Yuri Andreyev. Luckily google translate does a decent translation so you can read it...
A couple of (corrected) quotes:
Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies"
[What has happened in Japan's Nuclear facility] "was not an error, it is a crime"
Simple tools like FireSheep are an awesome way to force websites to up their game on the encryption front and improve their security.
I guess the addon you mention is EFF's "https-everywhere". Notice that the list of https sites the addon supports is growing pretty large. They will soon have to add the option "exclude these sites" rather than try and provide a massive list of included sites.
Good old Overton Window, good for treaties too. People will be so shocked at how far this new proposal goes, that they will be happy to bend over and take the original "moderate" version of ACTA.
What's in a name? What's in a symbol?
In relation to human groups: They are Identity. Association.
Some anonymous identify with certain images, some don't. Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible, some aren't.
Note the big distinction here between "Anonymous" the identifiable group with it's culture and symbols, as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous. You have also explained that Anonymous has some loos group rules and telling us what the group's ideals and identity is about - extremely group-orientated behavior! You'd be more correct by saying: "Some Anonymous identify themselves as a group with this name and with certain symbols, some anonymous' people don't (and therefore are not associating themselves with this particular group). Some of anonymous' actions are publicly visible (everyday you see anon people walking on the street), some (anonymous' people) aren't (for example, when they are in their bedrooms)."
Just because two people using the same name perform "publicly visible actions" doesn't mean they're a group. Bob Dole and Bob Dylan aren't a group, despite both being named Bob. If they both started calling themselves anonymous they would still not be a group in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses
I agree that "Bob Dole" and "Bob Dylan" are not a group ("in any but the most trivial and irrelevant senses") because they have the name Bob. After this I think is where the logic you outline falls short: Your saying two Bobs don't make a group, so therefore the hundreds (or more) who have associated with the name "Anonymous" (as apposed and very distinct to the to the word, anonymous) and its symbols are also not a group. This comparison does not hold up. Everything else you mention after this appears to be based off this faulty logic.
I agree with most of what your saying, except for one basic point: "Anonymous isn't a group". It certainly is a group: just because it has no organization, no fixed philosophy or members, "no pride", has a pure anarchic "direction" - whatever - none of that disqualifies it from being a group. It was a group from the instance more than one person decided to use the same name "Anonymous" to attribute to their random _publicly visible_ action(s). "Anonymous" the group has gone even further than that though by taking up unique symbols to identify itself with. The only way to not be a group is to all go back to being individuals with different names, different symbols - then "they" would be a truly anonymous in the real sense of the word again. Further, the moment any group real or imaginary has a recognizable free for all to use name/symbol, it is vulnerable to false flag attacks - the organizational structure and everything else you mentioned is irrelevant. Example: Hypothetically - if the general population started to see many and repeated reports in the news of any group Name/symbols always being associated with something that motivates their emotions (say, Child porn), then it will not be long before the majority of the population automatically associates that groups name and their symbols as being equal to child porn. If some random individual with no previous connection to anyone else decides to setup a webpage, or go out in public wearing the mask, wave around the name or the symbol - they are automatically judged a pedo - any other mesage they might have will be lost and irrelevant. Enough negativity in the population associated with the group, and individuals would decide to stop using the name/symbols.
Anonymous has so far been no serious threat to any major power base. It has not done anything to piss off the majority of the population. The name and it's symbols are not associated with something the population automatically fear's and/or hates (it is nowhere near the negative name-brand recognition that the group name al-qaeda has for example)... so the name and symbols are so far not under any public pressure. That does not mean it is not vulnerable or its name cannot be destroyed.
I would posit that Anonymous is an ideology or attitude, and those are neither groups nor "nothing."
I agree with you that Anonymous is more of an ideology or philosophy than much else. Random people perform random acts of disobedience, some of them claim to be with the ethereal group "Anonymous". Non geeks look impressed and vision a dark sprawling underground organization.
The "false flag" for La Mano Negra (if it was indeed a false-flag situation) wasn't "La Mano Negra," it was "an anarchist group Things were done by that group and then used to justify attacks on other groups.
Just a quick correction: La Mano Negra by most accounts didn't exist. Much of the Spanish literature on the subject points to it being an invention of the government at the time. The "four crimes committed by La Mano Negra" are speculated to be the False Flag operations used by the government to justify an extremely violent suppression of the unarmed farming peasants - who were beginning to question serfdom and demand political recognition, following the lead from other European countries at the time.
Fine. But how do you apply that to a "group" that attacks disparate targets, seremingly at random, for contradictory reasons? Are you saying you can false flag as "random people on the Internet" in a meaningful way?
Yes and very easily so - those random people have banded around the name "Anonymous", and that can be used against them. Your government want's to pass some extreme laws to militarize the internet or some such nonsense - all that is needed is some justification to wave around and scare enough people with to accept your laws without much question (Witness all the "Cyber war" rhetoric). If the "real" Anonymous idealists are not willing to do something destructive and unpopular enough, organize a false flag event or two and claim your the same Anonymous "members" that hacked the HBGary servers (Since they have already got widespread publicity that can be subverted). Do enough damage in the False Flag attack to give the political capital needed to pass your crappy laws, al-la Patriot Act style. After seeing the depth's HBGary were willing to stoop to, this does not sound very far fetched - it's a textbook False Flag attack. The point is: If I was the individual(s) who claimed to hack HBGary servers using the banner name Anonymous, I'd want the power to discredit anyone else claiming to do other acts in my name. PGP signatures on any and all public communications would give me that power (with no downside).
As an aside, 'al qaeda' is another ideology banded around by disparate, fragmented and disenfranchized groups who carry out random uncoordinated acts of misguided violence in it's name. Far from damaging the MIC, secretive governments and abusive corporations - they have indirectly helped to increase their power. Unlike Anonymous however, there is usually no need to use False Flags to get people whipped up into a fear frenzy. Even then, some creative non-standard False Flag events can go a long way to increasing your power base and guarantee further funding.
Claiming to be Anonymous is only meaningful to people who don't understand what Anonymous is.
Logical conclusion of that line of thinking: Anonymous isn't anything. LOL. Debatable.... but besides the point: history has already proved you wrong on the first point: False Flag attacks do work, even if the "target" does not exist "in any real sense". See La Mano Negra. Anonymous is not important to attackers (States/MIC/Corporations) - not nearly as much as the potential laws and actions they can do in the name of attacking "it". See "War on Terror/Drugs/Bogyman" for more references.
Anonymous does not desire for you to know which "faction" is at work. If identifiability was desired a group would be formed with a name. Factions are irrelevant.
I think your mixing things up a bit there. Crypto-Signature of Mr X vs Mr Y does not make the two any less anonymous... it only makes any anonymous message they wish to send distinguishable.
The big downside for "them" not using cryptography/signatures is that the most rudimentary and basic social engineering attacks are trivial to perform against "them" as a whole. Specifically, False Flag attacks.
"They" don't care.
Sure - "They" don't care is probably pretty accurate. Personally I find it interesting that a group that more or less prides itself on being security experts leaves themselves wide open to one of the oldest and simplest of attacks though. Even a major coo like the HBGary debacle is easily negated... Just que some malicious attacks in the next few months against any warm and fuzzy organization (Emergency 911 service/Amnesty/Dali Lama/take your pick) all in the name of Anonymous. All the excuse needed to justify contracting a few more HBGary 'cyber-security' firms, throw a few more extreme laws against the internet and open communication onto the books.
Spain is an interesting case because we can read about what goes on in the backroom thanks to the WIkileaks cables. We see how the US embassy to Spain ran around at the bidding IIPA subverting the democratic process (things like stifling public debate and "advising" elected officials not to discuss the new laws with their constituents) all the way to ram through more stringent copyright measures than even the US has. http://iberosphere.com/2010/12/spains-anti-p2p-%E2%80%9Csinde-law%E2%80%9D-her-masters-voice/1840
I am cheering Anonymous for their actions with HBGary. However, I am cheering for the specific people that did this specific act.
Cheering for Anonymous is like modding an AC on Slashdot as +5 Insightful and then wondering why he was being such a dick two posts later.
True. I always wondered why "they" do not use public keys and PGP signing/signatures or the like more, at least you'd know which faction was at play as soon as they start flashing around the Anonymous flag and claiming they have biiig stuff going on...
"No doubt the alleged HBGary plot is troubling..."
Troubling? That's an understatement... "The Obama Administration’s Justice Department advised the largest bank in America where to find a corporate hacker [Three military contracting 'cyber-security' companies] to fabricate information that could be used to blackmail American journalists" Corporate America, the Military Industrial Complex and the Government all in bed together to operate outside the law inside the US and without any checks, balances or semblance of respect for the law... and this Ted Samson character is more worried about the civil disobedience group Anonymous... Hellooo... threat assessment!?
'The CIA wants the American people and the world to understand its mission and its vital role in keeping our country safe.'
The CIA is trying to regain some credibility/reputation which has rapidly gone downhill since the Iraq war. News and leaks from Wikileaks and other sources keeps throwing their smelly shit into the fan for all to see. It seems to be nearly every day now we hear of a new scandal, or some gross misuse of our taxpayers funds. But never fear, they have a plan: Apart from this new "Spy goodies" for geeks section to woo us with pretty trinkets, they have also thought of the children - adding games and quizzes to their website - helping them become your all American family-friendly organization again. Further, soon there will be no more bad news thanks to the CIA teaming up with the Democrats to clean out those with faulty moral compasses - so we can all live safe and ignorant again.
Interlocks allow for upper class cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power[3]. They allow corporations to increase their influence by exerting power as a group, and to work together towards common goals.[4] They help the upper class maintain a class advantage, and gain more power over workers and consumers, by reducing intra-class competition and increasing cooperation.[2][5] In the words of Scott R. Bowman, interlocks "facilitate a community of interest among the elite of the corporate world that supplants the competitive and socially divisive ethos of an earlier stage of capitalism with an ethic of cooperation and a sense of shared values and goals."[6]
Very informative links, thanks.
Forget prison, they are just shooting them - videos and update blog: http://wlcentral.org/node/1312
Related to the MIC, Guantanamo and Wikileaks being an enemy of the state: the relevant leaked "cablegate" Embassy Cables are even being read out to Congress now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfF7FUlhg4o
See this very recent coverage of the effective US cable and satellite carriers blackout of Al Jazeera, apart from "a handful of homes in the United States". (Your obviously one of the lucky few - care to name who your provider is?)
Historically this blackout has been due to pressure from the US Government on cable providers. From Washington Embraces Al Jazeera linked earlier:
"On April 11 senior [US] military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, “The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies.” On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera’s reporting “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.” It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. “He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere,” a source told the Mirror. “There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do"
Anyone else having trouble reaching english.aljazeera.net in the U.S.? It stopped coming up for me yesterday, and is going on 24 hours since I've been able to access it. I don't see anything in the news about why it might be down. Just wondering if anyone else is having problems.
Yes, it is "unofficially" censored in the US - that is, censored due to political pressure in the same way that Paypal/Amazon/Visa/Mastercard/BOA were "encouraged" by the administration to censor Wikileaks. At least they have not bombed their offices (yet) as Bush Jr wanted.
Not looking good on the live stream: Plain clothes government paid thugs are attacking the demonstrating Egyptian public, trying to make them all go home.
Al Jazeera media network is by far the best coverage, but unfortunately it is more or less censored in the US apart from the above live stream (Censored in the same way that Paypal/Visa/MCard "censored" wikileaks, that is).
Er, yeah, that's because every state in the world has 20% of the world coal market - without it it would be impossible for them all to run. Not to mention Aussies rejecting raising taxes on mining companies - being the lowest in the first world. Who is calling whom stupid?
As for your climate change dig (Queenslander are we?) - if you listened at all to climate change scientist community you would know that it means more frequent extreme weather conditions (not necessarily "biggest ever"). You know, like the recent series of floods in south Spain (never happened so frequently in recoded history), more frequent cyclones etc. Perhaps your fox news channel hasn't been keeping you informed.