We, at a deep level, assume intelligence on the other end of a communications channel, and "recognize" it when the correct framing is there.
If you doubt this, work some with people suffering from Alzheimer's. It is amazing how casual visitors will assume that everything is OK when there is no understanding at all, as long as appropriate noises are made, smiles are made at the right time, etc.
The difference is that the US Government does not generally sent undercover agents to pretend to be defendants and entrap defense attorneys. Although, given what they are doing here, I would expect to see that soon enough.
I don't know what else you can call this. Note that (according to McClatchy) they are not charging that instructing people how to beat a polygraph is a crime (as far as I know it isn't), they are targeting people who instruct this with whatever random crime they can come up with, and probably using entrapment to do it:
In the last year, authorities have launched stings targeting Doug Williams, a former Oklahoma City police polygrapher, and Chad Dixon, an Indiana man who’s said to have been inspired by Williams’ book on the techniques, people who are familiar with the investigation told McClatchy. Dixon has pleaded guilty to federal charges of obstructing an agency proceeding and wire fraud.
That this sort of gross misuse of the prosecutorial power is a danger to freedom hardly needs to be said.
"does not provide encryption keys to any government."
Based on recent evidence these words mean absolutely nothing* and you would be a fool to trust them.
* That doesn't mean they are technically a lie. Maybe 128 bit AES has a hidden weakness. Maybe there is NSA sponsored back door to their code. Who knows? Who, except for the forensic types, cares?
Actually, of all of the facts in the summary, that one I knew. Lockheed used to mention that a lot back in the 1960's (the skunkworks wasn't a secret, just most of what they did).
'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'
It is not surprising that courts want people to say certain things, to re-establish their sense of moral correctness and order, or that they get the people in front of them to say these things. It is (always) surprising that anyone not on the bench gives these words any weight at all. Coerced testimony is, after all, no true testimony at all.
Someday, Bradley Manning will be as forgotten to them as Monica Lewinsky is. Then they’ll yield to the hornet-like, persistent buzz of the leftie peaceniks, and let Bradley go. He’s not dangerous. Bradley Manning will never do anything of similar consequence again. He’s not a power player. He’s a prisoner of conscience.
Treason is defined in the Constitution. This is clearly not treason as so defined, nor was he charged with such. The most treason-like thing he was charged with (giving aid and comfort to the enemy), he was acquitted of.
So not a scientific experiment performed by professional scientists under carefully controlled conditions, then...
The plural of anecdotes is astronomy, so this doesn't bother me. I know how to make observations.
I've known parrots to make such calls after years of separation.
How many years?
Roughly four years without question, but I wasn't trying to set any records. The interesting thing was
- the parrot had a distinctive call for a particular person (they liked to goof on each other) - the person had been a border, left, and came back to say hello. He didn't leave on the best of terms, and was not given to dropping by, but we had a visitor he wanted to see. - We had all forgotten about the call, until the parrot reminded us, so I don't see any way we could have cued it.
One of my parrots has been angry at my son for over three years now, but they do see each other every few months.
Alex the parrot lived 31 years. I bet he never forgot a grad student, and that data showing that are buried in Pepperberg's work.
I bet he did forget. I can't be bothered to go and check either, though.
Well, Dr. Pepperberg should know. I understand the principle here (Q. Which mission was the first to discover water on Mars? A. Basically, all of them!*), you need some sort of "first" to get into the press, which makes me sympathetic if cynical about the process. My guess is the actual paper claims no such record, and some eager P.R. person put in the claim.
* In July I heard a NASA honcho state that they were going to have to stop letting new missions claim the discovery of water on Mars, as it had been done to death.
In my experience, parrots never forget people they associate with (that's easiest to show when they have a certain call they make for a given person; I've known parrots to make such calls after years of separation).
Alex the parrot lived 31 years. I bet he never forgot a grad student, and that data showing that are buried in Pepperberg's work.
You left out the general relativistic time dilation (mostly due to the Sun's gravity), which is GM/c^2 R. That's OK, so did the Air Force with the first GPS test satellite.
And your puny terrestrial years! Curiosity has some time (322 of your weak days, or a mere 313 of our superior Martian sols) before it reaches its first Martian birthday.
And, since it is now on Mars, that is clearly the birthday that counts.
"...you would have to scrutinize the key material in many thousands of connections before you would even start to suspect something was wrong."
Why should you trust certificate authorities? Do you even know who all your certificate authorities are? I think that this confuses trust for assignment of liability. A CA is good for making sure that someone else is liable if you put your credit card number in a web site shopping page and it gets stolen, and it helps make prevent some guy sitting in Starbucks from stealing credit card numbers, but as far as trust, I don't think it does a thing.
And, guess what, people do do things like scrutinize the key material in many thousands of connections. And, if they don't, as soon as the next Snowden leaks what's going on, they will.
A significant amount of your traffic to the UK and the rest of the world goes through the fiber optic landing site in Halifax. See http://www.submarinecablemap.com/
These servers are at Embassies or Consulates, which means that what they receive from the local net is likely to be filtered, or...
They have set up dummy corporations, and have servers sitting in commercial internet provider spaces in those countries.
(Or, of course, both.) Note that there appear to be no servers in Southern India, which has a lot of Internet colo sites (Bangalore, Hyderabad, etc.), which is in favor of option 1. Also note that there is only one site in Brazil, in Brasilia, which is of course where the Embassy is, but is by no means a hub of Internet traffic, also in favor of option 1.
Also note that there are no servers in Canada. What do you want to bet that there is a backstory there.
At any rate, I suspect that most of these servers are the equivalent of the google spiders (i..e., doing active probing). The data they really want can only be gotten at a hub with the cooperation of the local Internet provider, and I would be astounded if Russia or China went along with that.
Of course, what a NM _really_ is (or was) is one minute of arc on the surface of the Earth. That requires a reference spheroid to convert it to a linear measure (feet or meters), but if you are working off of a map, you basically can just read the NM with your protractor.
As a result, the world overheats, boiling its oceans and filling its atmosphere with steam, which leaves the planet glowing-hot and forever uninhabitable,
Well, until someone comes along and terraforms it back using a sunshade.
Slashdot Mirror
We, at a deep level, assume intelligence on the other end of a communications channel, and "recognize" it when the correct framing is there.
If you doubt this, work some with people suffering from Alzheimer's. It is amazing how casual visitors will assume that everything is OK when there is no understanding at all, as long as appropriate noises are made, smiles are made at the right time, etc.
The difference is that the US Government does not generally sent undercover agents to pretend to be defendants and entrap defense attorneys. Although, given what they are doing here, I would expect to see that soon enough.
Note, however, that is it not a crime for a federal agent to lie to you. Symmetry does not apply.
I don't know what else you can call this. Note that (according to McClatchy) they are not charging that instructing people how to beat a polygraph is a crime (as far as I know it isn't), they are targeting people who instruct this with whatever random crime they can come up with, and probably using entrapment to do it :
That this sort of gross misuse of the prosecutorial power is a danger to freedom hardly needs to be said.
Based on recent evidence these words mean absolutely nothing* and you would be a fool to trust them.
* That doesn't mean they are technically a lie. Maybe 128 bit AES has a hidden weakness. Maybe there is NSA sponsored back door to their code. Who knows?
Who, except for the forensic types, cares?
Actually, of all of the facts in the summary, that one I knew. Lockheed used to mention that a lot back in the 1960's (the skunkworks wasn't a secret, just most of what they did).
Made a pretty good movie, too.
It is not surprising that courts want people to say certain things, to re-establish their sense of moral correctness and order, or that they get the people in front of them to say these things. It is (always) surprising that anyone not on the bench gives these words any weight at all. Coerced testimony is, after all, no true testimony at all.
As for Manning, I think that Geek Empire nails it
Treason is defined in the Constitution. This is clearly not treason as so defined, nor was he charged with such. The most treason-like thing he was charged with (giving aid and comfort to the enemy), he was acquitted of.
In my experience,
So not a scientific experiment performed by professional scientists under carefully controlled conditions, then...
The plural of anecdotes is astronomy, so this doesn't bother me. I know how to make observations.
I've known parrots to make such calls after years of separation.
How many years?
Roughly four years without question, but I wasn't trying to set any records. The interesting thing was
- the parrot had a distinctive call for a particular person (they liked to goof on each other)
- the person had been a border, left, and came back to say hello. He didn't leave on the best of terms, and was not given to dropping by, but we had a visitor he
wanted to see.
- We had all forgotten about the call, until the parrot reminded us, so I don't see any way we could have cued it.
One of my parrots has been angry at my son for over three years now, but they do see each other every few months.
Alex the parrot lived 31 years. I bet he never forgot a grad student, and that data showing that are buried in Pepperberg's work.
I bet he did forget. I can't be bothered to go and check either, though.
Well, Dr. Pepperberg should know. I understand the principle here (Q. Which mission was the first to discover water on Mars? A. Basically, all of them!*), you need some sort of "first" to get into the press, which makes me sympathetic if cynical about the process. My guess is the actual paper claims no such record, and some eager P.R. person put in the claim.
* In July I heard a NASA honcho state that they were going to have to stop letting new missions claim the discovery of water on Mars, as it had been done to death.
In my experience, parrots never forget people they associate with (that's easiest to show when they have a certain call they make for a given person; I've known parrots to make such calls after years of separation).
Alex the parrot lived 31 years. I bet he never forgot a grad student, and that data showing that are buried in Pepperberg's work.
You left out the general relativistic time dilation (mostly due to the Sun's gravity), which is GM/c^2 R. That's OK, so did the Air Force with the first GPS test satellite.
And your puny terrestrial years! Curiosity has some time (322 of your weak days, or a mere 313 of our superior Martian sols) before it reaches its first Martian birthday.
And, since it is now on Mars, that is clearly the birthday that counts.
Here in the USA he is trying to destroy the entire country.
This was first done in 1921
http://www.pnas.org/content/7/6/179.full.pdf+html
True, they didn't have animated gifs back then...
Why should you trust certificate authorities? Do you even know who all your certificate authorities are? I think that this confuses trust for assignment of liability. A CA is good for making sure that someone else is liable if you put your credit card number in a web site shopping page and it gets stolen, and it helps make prevent some guy sitting in Starbucks from stealing credit card numbers, but as far as trust, I don't think it does a thing.
And, guess what, people do do things like scrutinize the key material in many thousands of connections. And, if they don't, as soon as the next Snowden leaks what's going on, they will.
A significant amount of your traffic to the UK and the rest of the world goes through the fiber optic landing site in Halifax. See http://www.submarinecablemap.com/
Two possibilities come to mind :
These servers are at Embassies or Consulates, which means that what they receive from the local net is likely to be filtered, or...
They have set up dummy corporations, and have servers sitting in commercial internet provider spaces in those countries.
(Or, of course, both.) Note that there appear to be no servers in Southern India, which has a lot of Internet colo sites (Bangalore, Hyderabad, etc.), which is in favor of option 1. Also note that there is only one site in Brazil, in Brasilia, which is of course where the Embassy is, but is by no means a hub of Internet traffic, also in favor of option 1.
Also note that there are no servers in Canada. What do you want to bet that there is a backstory there.
At any rate, I suspect that most of these servers are the equivalent of the google spiders (i..e., doing active probing). The data they really want can only be gotten at a hub with the cooperation of the local Internet provider, and I would be astounded if Russia or China went along with that.
Of course, what a NM _really_ is (or was) is one minute of arc on the surface of the Earth. That requires a reference spheroid to convert it to a linear measure (feet or meters), but if you are working off of a map, you basically can just read the NM with your protractor.
1 NM = 1852 meters exactly, or 6076.115 feet approximately.
If we are going to have a news article every time there is a missed approach, Slashdot should be renamed.
I think at sunshade at Sun-Venus Lagrange Point 1 would do the trick.
Well, until someone comes along and terraforms it back using a sunshade.
At 0.04 c, you have 1 kiloton energy release. Don't try it indoors.
touche