No, again, being in proximity to a valid target does not make another person (or object, for that matter) a valid target. You argue that the US soldiers were convinced that all targets were military and, thus, valid. That's a judgment call on two accounts: first, that they really were convinced, and second, that they performed the required recon to be legally able to make that distinction. Not saying your judgement is incorrect; I don't really care and I don't know enough about the practical application of humanitarian law to make that call, anyway.
In a war zone, if you are seen with others who have weapons, YOU ARE A LEGAL TARGET. In this case, HE WAS A LEGAL TARGET.
No, not according to international humanitarian law. Civilians are almost never a legitimate target, it is almost always illegal to fire with the intent of hitting a civilian. It is also illegal to fire randomly, ie. without a target; so, in other words, it is almost exclusively legal for a soldier to fire if he intends to hit a military target. There are a (very) few exceptions, being in proximity to a legitimate target is not one of them.
Note that the above paragraph deals with firing with the intent of hitting a non-military target; it does not cover cases where you intend to fire at a military target and hit a civilian by accident or cases where you hit a legitimate target and affect civilian targets which are nearby. In the latter case, proportionality needs to be taken into account.
US politics are bizarre. Despite reading a lot of local political commentary, I don't think I've ever seen anybody talk about German Chancellor Merkel's grades. Nobody cares!
... PSX, PS2, GameCube, Wii. Yep, there are working emulators for all of them. Some Wii games look freaking brilliant in 1080p. Needs a pretty fast CPU though.
I know I'm probably responding to a troll, but for the record, hardware video (including H.264) acceleration is supported on Linux desktop via VDPAU/VA API. I can't vouch for the Intel/ATI VA API, but VDPAU has worked fine for me. Playing back a 1080p H.264 file has basically no impact on system load.
I agree, though abolishing deletionism will create certain challenges, e.g. without notability criteria you would end up with hundreds of biographical articles of non-notable persons, making it difficult for users of the encyclopedia to find the (notable) person they're looking for. It'd also lead to a huge number of articles that are hardly edited, and many more vandalized pages. E.g. an article about me would instantly be deleted on account of notability (lack thereof), and so it's hard to spread misinformation about me that way. If it isn't deleted, somebody has to watch out for (even subtle) misinformation. Dealing with BLPs is hard enough as it is. I guess those are all classic deletionist arguments, sorry about that.
At the very least, you'd need to emphasize certain rules about verifiability and the sources of verifiable information. For instance, there certainly should not be an article about your (hypothetical) new-born niece even though she exists (you know, hypothetically), because there is probably no publicly verifiable information about her. And I'm not sure a mere entry in a phone book or on a personal or even a university course list should be a "good enough" source for verifiable information, either. You might end up with notability criteria for primary sources, which I think would be an improvement.
Even if you can argue that Facebook has a greater impact on the world than Wikileaks, the issue is which had a greater impact in 2010.
Okay, I can't argue with that.
But regarding the depth/breadth thing, I'm sticking to what I said. I think it comes down to a judgment call on how broad Wikileaks influence has been so far. I absolutely do not think Wikileaks has had a major effect on everyone in the world (and of course, I still don't really know how to meaningfully discuss, measure and compare the "amount" of influence).
I don't consider being the focus of newspaper articles or internet discussions as real influence; similarly I don't think TV shows like Star Trek or Lost were very influential (when compared to things other than TV shows or sci-fi series) by any sensible metric, even though many people are aware of them and they were a constant topic in the media. I don't think Wikileaks has governments around the world scared, either. But as I said in my original post, I certainly agree that Wikileaks has the potential to have a very broad impact, perhaps with more cablegate memos, or with the announced banking leak.
Assange had greater impact? That's begging the question. I don't see any easy way to measure and compare the impact Zuckerberg/Facebook and Assange/Wikileaks are having (and really, they both derive virtually all of their influence from the one organisations they each founded -- it's in poor taste to talk about them instead of talking about the phenomenon they helped to create, but whatever, that's what TIME does).
I would argue -- in very metaphorical terms that I hope some people can understand -- that Wikileaks has some specific, deep influence (e.g. Iceland/Kolping, possibly some individual cables) with the chance to gain a broader kind of influence (more widespread leaks, change in the culture of dealing with them, vague societal shifts in disposition towards certain political positions, I'm sure it will have effects on legislation). Facebook, on the other hand, has some extremely broad influence (500 megausers) and the chance to gain deeper influence among those users (use Facebook for virtually all communication, Facebook buttons on every website, etc.).
I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't think Wikileaks affects them in any way whatsoever and who, at the same time, feel that Facebook has had a major influence on their lifes -- particularly those people who weren't using forums and IRC or what have you and so didn't feel very connected before they started using Facebook.
I'm not a crypto geek, so I only recently read about Nothing up my sleeve numbers (here on Slashdot, in fact). After seeing that I'd guess seemingly random large constants would already be considered suspicious.
Not sure how you're going to tell people who are astroturfing from people who are genuinely commenting (maybe even avoiding stories which are a conflict of interest), but the fusion table posted earlier has the domain part of the address in the clear.
= microsoft.com: 107 (you can get the exact count by clicking on "many") = google.com: 118 contains samsung.: 4x samsung.com + 4x others = gizmodo.com: 73 (?) = gawker.com: 160 = youstuckupgawkerpeopele.com: 1:P
I don't read the site so I don't know what other domains might be fun. I'm not sure if you actually needed to be able to check the mail on an address to get it into the database.
Also, here are the top10 domains: gmail.com 173,945 yahoo.com 101,920 hotmail.com 72,840 aol.com 20,541 comcast.net 8,106 msn.com 6,076 mac.com 5,835 sbcglobal.net 4,340 hotmail.co.uk 3,396 verizon.net 2,532
Only if you have a very simplistic and very homogeneous view about information. Information isn't equal. All of it might want to be free, but not all of it should be. You can easily and coherently argue that certain kinds of government communication should be "liberated" -- particularly if it's an abusive government's information -- and that other kinds of personal information should remain confidential.
No, this thread is about whether the attack outlined before is viable. It is, but you'd have to break SHA-1 to do it. You also have to do a couple of other things, but those are trivial compared to managing a preimage attack on SHA-1.
If you're at a point where you need a botnet to make a spoofed file look legit, you're doing pretty well. Using a botnet is a lot of effort for fairly little gain. However, AFAIK there are (or were) other ways of faking the number of peers without resorting to "brute force". Still, looking at the number of people associated with a torrent is a moderately good metric of its quality, though it's obviously not the only.
Might not be a factor for you, but it is for many people. This is why the DRM of a game is already somewhat of a success if it keeps the pirates (arr) at bay for even a couple of days or a week: many people want to play the game on day 1, and if they can afford it they will pay for the privilege even if they wouldn't, otherwise. Or so the theory goes. I think the same applies to TV series, particularly the popular, water-cooler-talk ones.
Because you're probably using either GTK or Qt anyway, so you might as well go the last mile and integrate well with the corresponding DE.
On a sidenote regarding desktop integration, I was amazed recently when I wanted to send a friend an audio file (some old amiga module) and I could simply draw it from the Banshee playlist into his Pidgin chat window. I could scarcely believe my eyes.
While I agree with your sentiment, you really need to stop pretending that you know for a fact that Assange is guilty of anything. There has been no trial yet, hell, he hasn't even been formally charged yet as far as I understand it. I've read conflicting information on the possible charges, including sources which really should match (for the moment, the 2+1+1 thing is probably as accurate as it gets). If there is a trial, it'll be a difficult one -- we might end up with two contradicting descriptions for each of the instances of alleged misconduct and hardly any corroborating evidence.
Since you're a staunch advocate of prayer in government buildings, I assume you understand that Reduced Fat Triscuits are NOT a replacement for Original Triscuits. The reduced fat content leads to a changed TASTE that is NOT comparable to the real Triscuit taste. It's too bad that all the healthy-food idiots of the country think otherwise!
I very much doubt that they'll unleash the insurance file(s) (there are several) if Julian Assange is arrested in the UK, or even if is extradited to Sweden. While the so-called rape allegations appear to be without merit, it's still being handled -- vaguely -- within the confines of law and reason. I think the insurance is reserved for more extreme occurrences.
Slashdot Mirror
No, again, being in proximity to a valid target does not make another person (or object, for that matter) a valid target. You argue that the US soldiers were convinced that all targets were military and, thus, valid. That's a judgment call on two accounts: first, that they really were convinced, and second, that they performed the required recon to be legally able to make that distinction. Not saying your judgement is incorrect; I don't really care and I don't know enough about the practical application of humanitarian law to make that call, anyway.
No, not according to international humanitarian law. Civilians are almost never a legitimate target, it is almost always illegal to fire with the intent of hitting a civilian. It is also illegal to fire randomly, ie. without a target; so, in other words, it is almost exclusively legal for a soldier to fire if he intends to hit a military target. There are a (very) few exceptions, being in proximity to a legitimate target is not one of them.
Note that the above paragraph deals with firing with the intent of hitting a non-military target; it does not cover cases where you intend to fire at a military target and hit a civilian by accident or cases where you hit a legitimate target and affect civilian targets which are nearby. In the latter case, proportionality needs to be taken into account.
US politics are bizarre. Despite reading a lot of local political commentary, I don't think I've ever seen anybody talk about German Chancellor Merkel's grades. Nobody cares!
... PSX, PS2, GameCube, Wii. Yep, there are working emulators for all of them. Some Wii games look freaking brilliant in 1080p. Needs a pretty fast CPU though.
I know I'm probably responding to a troll, but for the record, hardware video (including H.264) acceleration is supported on Linux desktop via VDPAU/VA API. I can't vouch for the Intel/ATI VA API, but VDPAU has worked fine for me. Playing back a 1080p H.264 file has basically no impact on system load.
I agree, though abolishing deletionism will create certain challenges, e.g. without notability criteria you would end up with hundreds of biographical articles of non-notable persons, making it difficult for users of the encyclopedia to find the (notable) person they're looking for. It'd also lead to a huge number of articles that are hardly edited, and many more vandalized pages. E.g. an article about me would instantly be deleted on account of notability (lack thereof), and so it's hard to spread misinformation about me that way. If it isn't deleted, somebody has to watch out for (even subtle) misinformation. Dealing with BLPs is hard enough as it is. I guess those are all classic deletionist arguments, sorry about that.
At the very least, you'd need to emphasize certain rules about verifiability and the sources of verifiable information. For instance, there certainly should not be an article about your (hypothetical) new-born niece even though she exists (you know, hypothetically), because there is probably no publicly verifiable information about her. And I'm not sure a mere entry in a phone book or on a personal or even a university course list should be a "good enough" source for verifiable information, either. You might end up with notability criteria for primary sources, which I think would be an improvement.
Even if you can argue that Facebook has a greater impact on the world than Wikileaks, the issue is which had a greater impact in 2010.
Okay, I can't argue with that.
But regarding the depth/breadth thing, I'm sticking to what I said. I think it comes down to a judgment call on how broad Wikileaks influence has been so far. I absolutely do not think Wikileaks has had a major effect on everyone in the world (and of course, I still don't really know how to meaningfully discuss, measure and compare the "amount" of influence).
I don't consider being the focus of newspaper articles or internet discussions as real influence; similarly I don't think TV shows like Star Trek or Lost were very influential (when compared to things other than TV shows or sci-fi series) by any sensible metric, even though many people are aware of them and they were a constant topic in the media. I don't think Wikileaks has governments around the world scared, either. But as I said in my original post, I certainly agree that Wikileaks has the potential to have a very broad impact, perhaps with more cablegate memos, or with the announced banking leak.
No you didn't. You are the third person, unless he meant three **other** people in the room besides yourself
I managed to screw up my own improvement to the joke.
Assange had greater impact? That's begging the question. I don't see any easy way to measure and compare the impact Zuckerberg/Facebook and Assange/Wikileaks are having (and really, they both derive virtually all of their influence from the one organisations they each founded -- it's in poor taste to talk about them instead of talking about the phenomenon they helped to create, but whatever, that's what TIME does).
I would argue -- in very metaphorical terms that I hope some people can understand -- that Wikileaks has some specific, deep influence (e.g. Iceland/Kolping, possibly some individual cables) with the chance to gain a broader kind of influence (more widespread leaks, change in the culture of dealing with them, vague societal shifts in disposition towards certain political positions, I'm sure it will have effects on legislation). Facebook, on the other hand, has some extremely broad influence (500 megausers) and the chance to gain deeper influence among those users (use Facebook for virtually all communication, Facebook buttons on every website, etc.).
I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't think Wikileaks affects them in any way whatsoever and who, at the same time, feel that Facebook has had a major influence on their lifes -- particularly those people who weren't using forums and IRC or what have you and so didn't feel very connected before they started using Facebook.
That one's so much funnier with two bullets and three persons in the room (the answer is the same).
I'm not a crypto geek, so I only recently read about Nothing up my sleeve numbers (here on Slashdot, in fact). After seeing that I'd guess seemingly random large constants would already be considered suspicious.
Not sure how you're going to tell people who are astroturfing from people who are genuinely commenting (maybe even avoiding stories which are a conflict of interest), but the fusion table posted earlier has the domain part of the address in the clear.
= microsoft.com: 107 (you can get the exact count by clicking on "many") :P
= google.com: 118
contains samsung.: 4x samsung.com + 4x others
= gizmodo.com: 73 (?)
= gawker.com: 160
= youstuckupgawkerpeopele.com: 1
I don't read the site so I don't know what other domains might be fun. I'm not sure if you actually needed to be able to check the mail on an address to get it into the database.
Also, here are the top10 domains:
gmail.com 173,945
yahoo.com 101,920
hotmail.com 72,840
aol.com 20,541
comcast.net 8,106
msn.com 6,076
mac.com 5,835
sbcglobal.net 4,340
hotmail.co.uk 3,396
verizon.net 2,532
Only if you have a very simplistic and very homogeneous view about information. Information isn't equal. All of it might want to be free, but not all of it should be. You can easily and coherently argue that certain kinds of government communication should be "liberated" -- particularly if it's an abusive government's information -- and that other kinds of personal information should remain confidential.
No, this thread is about whether the attack outlined before is viable. It is, but you'd have to break SHA-1 to do it. You also have to do a couple of other things, but those are trivial compared to managing a preimage attack on SHA-1.
No, you're thick. Breaking SHA-1 is the difficult part, the things you keep bringing up are trivial in comparison.
If you're at a point where you need a botnet to make a spoofed file look legit, you're doing pretty well. Using a botnet is a lot of effort for fairly little gain. However, AFAIK there are (or were) other ways of faking the number of peers without resorting to "brute force". Still, looking at the number of people associated with a torrent is a moderately good metric of its quality, though it's obviously not the only.
Well now here comes ARM based hardware just waiting to get repurposed to running a more general purpose netbook environment.
Here? Are you talking about the Cr-48 from TFA? Because that's an Atom device, not ARM.
Shift-Ctrl-C and -V usually work in X terminals, though.
Will you marry me?!
Might not be a factor for you, but it is for many people. This is why the DRM of a game is already somewhat of a success if it keeps the pirates (arr) at bay for even a couple of days or a week: many people want to play the game on day 1, and if they can afford it they will pay for the privilege even if they wouldn't, otherwise. Or so the theory goes. I think the same applies to TV series, particularly the popular, water-cooler-talk ones.
At the moment? Those three things have been the norm for pretty much all of human history.
Because you're probably using either GTK or Qt anyway, so you might as well go the last mile and integrate well with the corresponding DE.
On a sidenote regarding desktop integration, I was amazed recently when I wanted to send a friend an audio file (some old amiga module) and I could simply draw it from the Banshee playlist into his Pidgin chat window. I could scarcely believe my eyes.
While I agree with your sentiment, you really need to stop pretending that you know for a fact that Assange is guilty of anything. There has been no trial yet, hell, he hasn't even been formally charged yet as far as I understand it. I've read conflicting information on the possible charges, including sources which really should match (for the moment, the 2+1+1 thing is probably as accurate as it gets). If there is a trial, it'll be a difficult one -- we might end up with two contradicting descriptions for each of the instances of alleged misconduct and hardly any corroborating evidence.
Since you're a staunch advocate of prayer in government buildings, I assume you understand that Reduced Fat Triscuits are NOT a replacement for Original Triscuits. The reduced fat content leads to a changed TASTE that is NOT comparable to the real Triscuit taste. It's too bad that all the healthy-food idiots of the country think otherwise!
I very much doubt that they'll unleash the insurance file(s) (there are several) if Julian Assange is arrested in the UK, or even if is extradited to Sweden. While the so-called rape allegations appear to be without merit, it's still being handled -- vaguely -- within the confines of law and reason. I think the insurance is reserved for more extreme occurrences.