Remember that, script kiddies, when the NSA comes and takes your Millenium Falcon modded case from your Mom's basement along with Dad's Blackberry, your XBox, and anything else the runs on a CPU. It's all fun until they take everything you've loved since middle school away.
First of all, there is no cloud. A "cloud computing system" is a server and/or group of servers. All they're doing is closing down data centers and moving the data to either someone else's or other government centers. Second, if it "is" managed services who's managing it? If I have a data center in Houston run by say the IRS and I'm an employee in Bridgport and my files are on servers in Houston then I'm "cloud" computing. This is an over-hyped bunch of crap. While everyone is drooling over the new marketing term think about the big elephant in the room. Yeah, we call him Tim. Know what he's doing? Firing all those people in those data centers that are closing down. The nice thing about "moving to the cloud" or more correctly "outsourcing" is that eventually, they come back. Why? Because putting your stuff in someone else's hands just to free yours eventually makes you wonder about what you had in your hands. It's like sending your friend shopping with your girlfriend. You start to wonder what they're doing when they've been gone too long.
First, don't put words in my mouth. Second, you don't vote for diplomats. You "as a voter" have very little to do with who becomes a diplomat. Advantage, moi.
There's a reason many things are kept secret. I don't have a problem with it. I think we have whistle-blowers who risk life and limb to bring these to light and in cases of illegal activity or more importantly, injustices, that's good. Wikileaks is nothing more than a bunch of petulant attention whores who thought it would be cool to poke their finger in the eye of the U.S. and other countries. I say that because, again I'll point out, they went beyond what they thought was injustice and started releasing everything.
It's sad to see Anonymous get involved. I generally think much of their work is fairly altruistic. Defending Assange isn't, however. This man should be prosecuted along with anyone else who can be from Wikileaks. They lost the high ground. They got their attention. Now they should live with it.
As for the British, the Tea Act, and the Colonies we eventually revolted as a nation. But it wasn't for such leftist ideals. I'm fully convinced, however, that the left in the U.S. will eventually have to secede, that or the conservatives. We'll see how transparent their (your?) new government is. Remember Obama and Pelosi promised the most transparent government ever.
Assange and Wikileaks crossed the line when he released the cables as collateral. They had nothing to do with unlawful acts. It was just insurance, as was said. So yeah, as far as I'm concerned they became an enemy of the state. They did it because they could, they wanted attention, they wanted to stick it to the man. All these calls for altruism are B.S. as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for whistle blowing when you see a crime being committed but dumping the whole stockpile was more than pissy and petty, it's frankly tantamount to an act of war. Why should Assange care? He's getting his attention.
Agreed. The bigger the voluntary botnet gets, the more casualties. Most of which will be propaganda-drunken script-kiddies looking to earn 'Net cred by walking down Internet Ave. with picket sign. The puppet masters are so far deep they won't be found. But these people will and will suffer for it, likely, through prosecution. Just as drug dealers and gangs use their youth, these experienced hackers are using the ignorant. The bigger the botnet the easier it is to find someone within it, even if but a few. So Timmy may get thrown under the bus "for the cause." But hey, give peas a chance eh?
I, personally, see the hope in stem cell research. But to posit that some women will choose a pregnancy to have their fetuses harvested isn't so far off the mark. One could see a time when they are compensated much like plasma patients.
My point is I don't think it is going down as altruistic as Assange would have us believe. Why should the cables be released? I'm not convinced that the public needs to know about what diplomats are discussing if it's not illegal. And for the most part, that appears to be the case. The cables are the pawns to protect the release of so-called "war crimes." And Assange gets to decide what is and isn't a war crime. They're left the realm of "media" and have turned against various states in what their follows admit is a war. Hopefully, they'll be treated like soldiers and dealt with. I'm all for whistle-blowing but this has gotten way out of hand.
I think where Wikileaks loses sympathy is with the release of diplomatic cables that have no other purpose than to release them. It's one thing to release information of wrong-doing. It's another altogether to release materials simply because you have them and can. It's disappointing that a) Ellsberg would equate the two and b) that Wikileaks is attempting to justify it.
For that reason I'm against Wikileaks. I don't consider them a journalistic organization. The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
That just makes it worse. If a police officer had probably cause he could obtain a warrant for this type of work, perhaps. But having someone break the law to obtain evidence still puts them in jeopardy. And not prosecuting them to obtain that evidence is something that should be cause for a mistrial. This judge is doing a good thing. Frankly, the prosecution should have been reprimanded.
I'm sure this will make many atheists happy to here (despite the fact that this is coming from the University of Grenada...I mean, c'mon!?) but I can assure you, no matter what your education level, if you stand down the barrel of a gun at the hands of a killer you will fear death.
"As open source freedom fighter Simon Phipps writes in his ComputerWorldUK blog, behavior like this by Amazon and Tableau [and now PayPal] 'informs us as customers of web services and cloud computing services that we are never safe from intentional outages when the business interests of our host are challenged.'"
First, let's stop with the "cloud services" references. It's the Internet. More specifically, the web. Second, what it exposes is the ability of any service to stop providing you services. Which private companies can do if you stray outside their terms of use. And third, it's Wikileaks. I struggle to give a flying rats feces about it. I realize to the rest of the world seeing the U.S. getting a finger in the eye is tantamount to a juicy episode of American Idol but they opened the door and were surprised to find that not everyone was going to kiss their gluteus maximus in thanks.
The quotes seem pretty direct. He has some valid points. You're going to bring into open court two witnesses that had to break the law to get your evidence and then seek to have that fact kept from the jury? This is no different than getting warrants after the fact or say a vice cop not just propositioning a hooker but going ahead and sleeping with her, paying her, then arresting her and seeking to keep much of that out of court.
No, it assumes that someone down the line does or gets a DRM free copy. With a large enough network of friends and friends of friends you can amass quite a collection. If you're not afraid of the RIAA, that is. I'm just saying it's possible.:p
First, what is the "enterprise cloud sector?" Microsoft is just making up marketing terms now. Granted, marketing is it's game and core competency. Google doesn't need the enterprise. Yes, it'd be nice but there are far more humans on the planet than there are enterprise companies. I'm really getting tired of "the cloud." It's called the Internet. You can call your little piece of it "the cloud" but it's still the 'Net. IRC is the cloud. Email is the cloud. Making up a new name does nothing but troll for the ignorant. Unfortunately, that's where Microsoft got it's start so maybe this all makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. :p
Remember that, script kiddies, when the NSA comes and takes your Millenium Falcon modded case from your Mom's basement along with Dad's Blackberry, your XBox, and anything else the runs on a CPU. It's all fun until they take everything you've loved since middle school away.
First of all, there is no cloud. A "cloud computing system" is a server and/or group of servers. All they're doing is closing down data centers and moving the data to either someone else's or other government centers. Second, if it "is" managed services who's managing it? If I have a data center in Houston run by say the IRS and I'm an employee in Bridgport and my files are on servers in Houston then I'm "cloud" computing. This is an over-hyped bunch of crap. While everyone is drooling over the new marketing term think about the big elephant in the room. Yeah, we call him Tim. Know what he's doing? Firing all those people in those data centers that are closing down. The nice thing about "moving to the cloud" or more correctly "outsourcing" is that eventually, they come back. Why? Because putting your stuff in someone else's hands just to free yours eventually makes you wonder about what you had in your hands. It's like sending your friend shopping with your girlfriend. You start to wonder what they're doing when they've been gone too long.
First, don't put words in my mouth. Second, you don't vote for diplomats. You "as a voter" have very little to do with who becomes a diplomat. Advantage, moi.
There's a reason many things are kept secret. I don't have a problem with it. I think we have whistle-blowers who risk life and limb to bring these to light and in cases of illegal activity or more importantly, injustices, that's good. Wikileaks is nothing more than a bunch of petulant attention whores who thought it would be cool to poke their finger in the eye of the U.S. and other countries. I say that because, again I'll point out, they went beyond what they thought was injustice and started releasing everything.
It's sad to see Anonymous get involved. I generally think much of their work is fairly altruistic. Defending Assange isn't, however. This man should be prosecuted along with anyone else who can be from Wikileaks. They lost the high ground. They got their attention. Now they should live with it.
As for the British, the Tea Act, and the Colonies we eventually revolted as a nation. But it wasn't for such leftist ideals. I'm fully convinced, however, that the left in the U.S. will eventually have to secede, that or the conservatives. We'll see how transparent their (your?) new government is. Remember Obama and Pelosi promised the most transparent government ever.
Assange and Wikileaks crossed the line when he released the cables as collateral. They had nothing to do with unlawful acts. It was just insurance, as was said. So yeah, as far as I'm concerned they became an enemy of the state. They did it because they could, they wanted attention, they wanted to stick it to the man. All these calls for altruism are B.S. as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for whistle blowing when you see a crime being committed but dumping the whole stockpile was more than pissy and petty, it's frankly tantamount to an act of war. Why should Assange care? He's getting his attention.
Agreed. The bigger the voluntary botnet gets, the more casualties. Most of which will be propaganda-drunken script-kiddies looking to earn 'Net cred by walking down Internet Ave. with picket sign. The puppet masters are so far deep they won't be found. But these people will and will suffer for it, likely, through prosecution. Just as drug dealers and gangs use their youth, these experienced hackers are using the ignorant. The bigger the botnet the easier it is to find someone within it, even if but a few. So Timmy may get thrown under the bus "for the cause." But hey, give peas a chance eh?
When I first read this I thought, "Okay they got 2 mice from 2 fathers. Lots of people have children from two fathers." Poorly worded.
As for all the religious talk, if I had enough mod points I'd Off Topic all of them.
I, personally, see the hope in stem cell research. But to posit that some women will choose a pregnancy to have their fetuses harvested isn't so far off the mark. One could see a time when they are compensated much like plasma patients.
My point is I don't think it is going down as altruistic as Assange would have us believe. Why should the cables be released? I'm not convinced that the public needs to know about what diplomats are discussing if it's not illegal. And for the most part, that appears to be the case. The cables are the pawns to protect the release of so-called "war crimes." And Assange gets to decide what is and isn't a war crime. They're left the realm of "media" and have turned against various states in what their follows admit is a war. Hopefully, they'll be treated like soldiers and dealt with. I'm all for whistle-blowing but this has gotten way out of hand.
I think where Wikileaks loses sympathy is with the release of diplomatic cables that have no other purpose than to release them. It's one thing to release information of wrong-doing. It's another altogether to release materials simply because you have them and can. It's disappointing that a) Ellsberg would equate the two and b) that Wikileaks is attempting to justify it.
For that reason I'm against Wikileaks. I don't consider them a journalistic organization. The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
That just makes it worse. If a police officer had probably cause he could obtain a warrant for this type of work, perhaps. But having someone break the law to obtain evidence still puts them in jeopardy. And not prosecuting them to obtain that evidence is something that should be cause for a mistrial. This judge is doing a good thing. Frankly, the prosecution should have been reprimanded.
I'm seeing a therapist, if that helps.
You would be wrong.
Seen a few of the movies probably, never read his novels, and don't play Call of Duty.
And the smartest man in the world stands behind them so what does that say about the U of Granada's study? :p
Point taken. Spain vs. an island nation.
There could still be cultural differences at play, who knows?
Yeah I'm just an idiot. I'm going to take a wild guess that I have a pair of jeans older than you.
I'm sure this will make many atheists happy to here (despite the fact that this is coming from the University of Grenada...I mean, c'mon!?) but I can assure you, no matter what your education level, if you stand down the barrel of a gun at the hands of a killer you will fear death.
"As open source freedom fighter Simon Phipps writes in his ComputerWorldUK blog, behavior like this by Amazon and Tableau [and now PayPal] 'informs us as customers of web services and cloud computing services that we are never safe from intentional outages when the business interests of our host are challenged.'"
First, let's stop with the "cloud services" references. It's the Internet. More specifically, the web. Second, what it exposes is the ability of any service to stop providing you services. Which private companies can do if you stray outside their terms of use. And third, it's Wikileaks. I struggle to give a flying rats feces about it. I realize to the rest of the world seeing the U.S. getting a finger in the eye is tantamount to a juicy episode of American Idol but they opened the door and were surprised to find that not everyone was going to kiss their gluteus maximus in thanks.
The quotes seem pretty direct. He has some valid points. You're going to bring into open court two witnesses that had to break the law to get your evidence and then seek to have that fact kept from the jury? This is no different than getting warrants after the fact or say a vice cop not just propositioning a hooker but going ahead and sleeping with her, paying her, then arresting her and seeking to keep much of that out of court.
It's interesting that there's more pissing and moaning about Palin than there is about whether or not Assange should be pursued like the Taliban.
What would such a card cost? (pinky to the corner of the mouth) One BILLION dollars!
No, it assumes that someone down the line does or gets a DRM free copy. With a large enough network of friends and friends of friends you can amass quite a collection. If you're not afraid of the RIAA, that is. I'm just saying it's possible. :p
Meth is a terrible drug, Peter.
First, what is the "enterprise cloud sector?" Microsoft is just making up marketing terms now. Granted, marketing is it's game and core competency. Google doesn't need the enterprise. Yes, it'd be nice but there are far more humans on the planet than there are enterprise companies. I'm really getting tired of "the cloud." It's called the Internet. You can call your little piece of it "the cloud" but it's still the 'Net. IRC is the cloud. Email is the cloud. Making up a new name does nothing but troll for the ignorant. Unfortunately, that's where Microsoft got it's start so maybe this all makes sense.
Hey, he's a monkey! That's pretty good considering!