Indeed. After reading these cables, I am asking why someone would put their life on the line to disclose the information. At this point, I'm leaning towards childhood trauma or some sort of mental illness.
Assange has "distributed to fellow hackers an encrypted 'poison pill' of damaging secrets, thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay." This from his lawyer.
'This is what they believe to be a thermo-nuclear device in the information age.
No. I would say Bradly Manning, as he's the one facing the rest of his life in a cell, paying the price for all the lavish praise the Internet is lumping on Julian Assange.
Saying that the problem is 'debt' is just another way of saying that the value of the service over traditional cell networks isn't enough to outweigh the enormous initial investment required.
Which makes sense. Satellites are enormously expensive and only a handful of people really get any benefit over a normal cell phone. For those who do find a benefit, there are more cost-effective ways of dealing with communication than launching dedicated satellites into orbit.
Except that by default, when a law is unconstitutional it is struck down in its entirety, to prevent such unintended consequences.
If Congress doesn't want this to happen, they can include a severability clause that says 'hey, we don't mind if this part stands on its own.' But Congress didn't do that. If mandatory insurance falls, so does the entire bill.
They redact the bare minimum needed to avoid accusations of gross negligence. But as one US admiral pointed out recently, most of these documents that were classified "Secret" weren't done so because of the content, they were classified to protect the source. Redacting a document to replace someone's name with 'XXXXXX' might hide the identity from your random armchair pundit, but the context and content will still make these people's identities clear to any interested investigator.
As an example, one of the earliest leaked "Secret" documents was reporting on Ghaddafi's mental state. Wikileaks helpfully redacted the source's name but failed to remove the mention that the source was responsible for Ghaddafi's lodgings during his most recent UN visit. Now I have no fucking clue who this person was, and I bet neither do you; I bet the wikileaks volunteer who so helpfully redacted his name couldn't figure it out. But I guarantee Ghaddafi's people won't have much trouble remembering out which aide this was.
And if you actually READ the memo, you'll see that they were. This was in the New York Times a year ago, and didn't become a huge issue because the people involved were punished. The system worked.
Uh, no. Nothing of the sort. The US Ambassador told the Iraqis that the US would not stand for an invasion. The Iraqis tool his cool and unruffled demeanor to mean that it was just a bluff. They were wrong.
Duplicate content on a site is not grounds for action on that site unless it appears that the intent of the duplicate content is to be deceptive and manipulate search engine results. If your site suffers from duplicate content issues, and you don't follow the advice listed above, we do a good job of choosing a version of the content to show in our search results.
I don't think Amazon is doing this to boost their pagerank.
Have you actually read them? I have. They're almost entirely "boring", like talking about Ghadafi's aversion to living on top floors, or the details of trade sanction or nuclear antiproliferation enforcement.
And yes, they have blacked out names... but that doesn't help when the information source includes references to specific actions taken by the information source. To use the Ghadafi example, I have no clue who was talking to a US agent about Ghadafi's personal phobias and oddities, but I can guarantee you that Ghadafi's people do, since the report tells us that the source was responsible for finding Ghadafi's accommodations in New York.
So yes, this release was absolutely irresponsible.
I'm certain more details will come out as people have more time to go through these documents. But so far what I've found most surprising is how unsurprising these documents are. So the US is spying. Big fucking deal, everybody spies. This isn't news. There's no smoking gun, no festering sore of corruption that this was presented to be.
Is this really a case of 'holding the US to account for its crimes' or just malice, someone's personal agenda to get back at the big bad Americans? So far, it's looking more like the latter. I'm starting to question my former support for wikileaks.
Then your guess would be wrong, and if you own a car you should probably learn your rights, or you'll get screwed. In the US the Magnuson-Moss act prevents Ford from generally voiding your warranty if you install aftermarket parts. They can only deny warranty claims if they can show that it was the non-Ford part or modification that caused the failure. e.g., if you install a new stereo, they can't deny warranty repair on your transmission.
Except, no. If you want to buy or sell a new entertainment system for your car, you don't need to ask Ford for permission.
Nobody has a problem with Apple selling their product in a state they like. The problem is with Apple trying to assert control over how people use their product after they've sold it.
First, you should study history, because you are talking about things you obviously don't understand. Communism did not arise out of factory workers revolting, as Marx predicted. Factory workers fought for, and won, the health and safety protections they enjoy today, but went no further. Communism arose entirely out of agrarian societies. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea... none of these countries were industrialized when they adopted Communism. And famously Communist industrialization killed millions. Tens of millions. Possibly into the hundreds of millions. Capitalist robber barons looked like fucking Santa Claus, in comparison to Stalin and Mao. But yeah, the evils of free market industrialization are obvious when you compare North and South Korea today.
Second, calling Bhopal a "free market" disaster also shows an enormous ignorance of history. India was a very socialist country (it still is, to some extent), and Bhopal was 50% owned by the Indian government, and 50% controlled by UCIL, a UCC subsidiary, but not a directly controlled one. The disaster was ultimately triggered by human error, but the deeper cause was (a) UCIL was forced to replace the automated safety systems in the original design with manual ones, so that the plant would hire more local workers, and (b) UCIL was required to source many of the plant's components from Indian firms, and those parts were ultimately substandard and failed far before their design lifes. Does UCC bear some blame for Bhopal? Some. Does UCIL bear blame? Absolutely. But the Indian government deserves most of it. They applied the standard Indian socialist principle of "business' primary purpose it to provide jobs for locals," and in consequence forced a fundamentally unsafe situation.
Or you could wallow in ignorance and enjoy the feeling of self-righteousness you get when you hate on the "free market."
Pure revisionist history. This narrative that only Apple can innovate is pure dreck. When the iMac was released, Apple was close to insolvency. They'd been bailed out the previous year by Microsoft, and the Mac's market share was in the 2-3% range. The iMac attracted attention to Apple, but Apple absolutely did not have the influence in the market to drive adoption of USB.
You know what else came, just a month before the iMac G3, that just might have had some influence? Windows 98, which introduced to the wintel world proper support for USB, and ended up with around 95% market share. That just might have something to do with the reason why USB was uncommon before 1998.
But ultimately the GP is right. What drove adoption of USB is that USB was good. It was enormously better than serial and parallel connections in practically every way.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. After reading these cables, I am asking why someone would put their life on the line to disclose the information. At this point, I'm leaning towards childhood trauma or some sort of mental illness.
http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-is-going-to-drop-a-poison-wiki-bomb-if-hes-killed-or-arrested-2010-12
Second commandment rights?
You shall have no other gods before Rick Astley?
No. I would say Bradly Manning, as he's the one facing the rest of his life in a cell, paying the price for all the lavish praise the Internet is lumping on Julian Assange.
Saying that the problem is 'debt' is just another way of saying that the value of the service over traditional cell networks isn't enough to outweigh the enormous initial investment required.
Which makes sense. Satellites are enormously expensive and only a handful of people really get any benefit over a normal cell phone. For those who do find a benefit, there are more cost-effective ways of dealing with communication than launching dedicated satellites into orbit.
Except that by default, when a law is unconstitutional it is struck down in its entirety, to prevent such unintended consequences.
If Congress doesn't want this to happen, they can include a severability clause that says 'hey, we don't mind if this part stands on its own.' But Congress didn't do that. If mandatory insurance falls, so does the entire bill.
They challenge the laws they don't like. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same.
Of course, if you just want to sit back comfortably and rely on others to protect your rights, then you deserve to lose them.
They redact the bare minimum needed to avoid accusations of gross negligence. But as one US admiral pointed out recently, most of these documents that were classified "Secret" weren't done so because of the content, they were classified to protect the source. Redacting a document to replace someone's name with 'XXXXXX' might hide the identity from your random armchair pundit, but the context and content will still make these people's identities clear to any interested investigator.
As an example, one of the earliest leaked "Secret" documents was reporting on Ghaddafi's mental state. Wikileaks helpfully redacted the source's name but failed to remove the mention that the source was responsible for Ghaddafi's lodgings during his most recent UN visit. Now I have no fucking clue who this person was, and I bet neither do you; I bet the wikileaks volunteer who so helpfully redacted his name couldn't figure it out. But I guarantee Ghaddafi's people won't have much trouble remembering out which aide this was.
This war was lost 20 years ago, it's time to give it a rest. "Crack" will not replace "hack" in these contexts, nor will the south rise again.
Oh, I don't know about that. The US military still has a lot of horses left.
And if you actually READ the memo, you'll see that they were. This was in the New York Times a year ago, and didn't become a huge issue because the people involved were punished. The system worked.
No, but UNIX and Linux trusts applications to modify my data. That's far worse than modifying the system.
There's no reason why applications should run with my userid, and with all my user rights.
The axiom of choice is an axiom, not a theory. Coincidentally, this is why it is not called the theory of choice.
Uh, no. Nothing of the sort. The US Ambassador told the Iraqis that the US would not stand for an invasion. The Iraqis tool his cool and unruffled demeanor to mean that it was just a bluff. They were wrong.
Peer review isn't done in blog posts.
From the very page linked
I don't think Amazon is doing this to boost their pagerank.
So go solar thermal. No rare earth metals, and for a large industrial installation you can break 50% efficiency, far better than PV's measly 20%.
Do you want to help people in Zimbabwe, or would you rather just feel morally righteous about letting them starve?
Have you actually read them? I have. They're almost entirely "boring", like talking about Ghadafi's aversion to living on top floors, or the details of trade sanction or nuclear antiproliferation enforcement.
And yes, they have blacked out names... but that doesn't help when the information source includes references to specific actions taken by the information source. To use the Ghadafi example, I have no clue who was talking to a US agent about Ghadafi's personal phobias and oddities, but I can guarantee you that Ghadafi's people do, since the report tells us that the source was responsible for finding Ghadafi's accommodations in New York.
So yes, this release was absolutely irresponsible.
See subject.
I'm certain more details will come out as people have more time to go through these documents. But so far what I've found most surprising is how unsurprising these documents are. So the US is spying. Big fucking deal, everybody spies. This isn't news. There's no smoking gun, no festering sore of corruption that this was presented to be.
Is this really a case of 'holding the US to account for its crimes' or just malice, someone's personal agenda to get back at the big bad Americans? So far, it's looking more like the latter. I'm starting to question my former support for wikileaks.
Then your guess would be wrong, and if you own a car you should probably learn your rights, or you'll get screwed. In the US the Magnuson-Moss act prevents Ford from generally voiding your warranty if you install aftermarket parts. They can only deny warranty claims if they can show that it was the non-Ford part or modification that caused the failure. e.g., if you install a new stereo, they can't deny warranty repair on your transmission.
Except, no. If you want to buy or sell a new entertainment system for your car, you don't need to ask Ford for permission.
Nobody has a problem with Apple selling their product in a state they like. The problem is with Apple trying to assert control over how people use their product after they've sold it.
Your two biggest examples are terrible.
First, you should study history, because you are talking about things you obviously don't understand. Communism did not arise out of factory workers revolting, as Marx predicted. Factory workers fought for, and won, the health and safety protections they enjoy today, but went no further. Communism arose entirely out of agrarian societies. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea... none of these countries were industrialized when they adopted Communism. And famously Communist industrialization killed millions. Tens of millions. Possibly into the hundreds of millions. Capitalist robber barons looked like fucking Santa Claus, in comparison to Stalin and Mao. But yeah, the evils of free market industrialization are obvious when you compare North and South Korea today.
Second, calling Bhopal a "free market" disaster also shows an enormous ignorance of history. India was a very socialist country (it still is, to some extent), and Bhopal was 50% owned by the Indian government, and 50% controlled by UCIL, a UCC subsidiary, but not a directly controlled one. The disaster was ultimately triggered by human error, but the deeper cause was (a) UCIL was forced to replace the automated safety systems in the original design with manual ones, so that the plant would hire more local workers, and (b) UCIL was required to source many of the plant's components from Indian firms, and those parts were ultimately substandard and failed far before their design lifes. Does UCC bear some blame for Bhopal? Some. Does UCIL bear blame? Absolutely. But the Indian government deserves most of it. They applied the standard Indian socialist principle of "business' primary purpose it to provide jobs for locals," and in consequence forced a fundamentally unsafe situation.
Or you could wallow in ignorance and enjoy the feeling of self-righteousness you get when you hate on the "free market."
Pure revisionist history. This narrative that only Apple can innovate is pure dreck. When the iMac was released, Apple was close to insolvency. They'd been bailed out the previous year by Microsoft, and the Mac's market share was in the 2-3% range. The iMac attracted attention to Apple, but Apple absolutely did not have the influence in the market to drive adoption of USB.
You know what else came, just a month before the iMac G3, that just might have had some influence? Windows 98, which introduced to the wintel world proper support for USB, and ended up with around 95% market share. That just might have something to do with the reason why USB was uncommon before 1998.
But ultimately the GP is right. What drove adoption of USB is that USB was good. It was enormously better than serial and parallel connections in practically every way.