Of course they did! What did you think they were going to do, invite Wikileaks staff in to check the rest of their sensitive records just in case?!
Send someone over to redact documents? Beats the alternative...
no-one seems to have even claimed to show any specific benefits it has brought.
Well, there's the whole exposing government incompetence thing - seems that a lot of classified stuff is classified because it's easier than making a call or because it's embarrassing.
Moreover, a less sensationalist, more focussed release of some of that information, managed properly by a critical free press
Yeah, where were you planning to find that?
more effective at forcing a government to address genuinely inappropriate actions.
Okay, how about free speech zones and the standing agreement that people who ask hard questions at white house press conferences don't get invited back? Genuinely inappropriate, and nothing much has been done.
And as long as people who want government accountability are chanting the Wikileaks anthem, there is less incentive to introduce serious reforms in the real checks and balances,
Because? You haven't done more than state an opinion.
Basically, Wikileaks is a vigilante, anarchist organisation.
And thank god for that - there's precious little journalism going on in the media these days - it's all muckraking and press releases.
But how would (all of) your associates ensure you are in a situation that warrants the release of the key?
any. You tell 4 people that they are the only person who has key X, and to use their judgment.
"neutralized" would mean your enemies killed or cut the server that would publish the key. This could be avoided by having several hosts able to publish the key, checking each other's status continually.
Again, this requires communication. Sorry, but you can't get past this. Anyway, I don't care to discuss specifics, just pointing out that no communication is easier to hide than communication.
3) sure, so long as it isn't 'morning regret rape' or something rooted in the rather extreme feminist laws that were passed somewhat recently. I can't see how two timing can be a criminal matter, nor how screwing someone and then never calling them again would be.
Otherwise you would wake up the next morning, decide you didn't like the guy that much and charge him of rape even though before the night before you have sex with him willingly.
Does anyone seriously believe that Wikileaks have the resources and skills necessary to ensure that all information they publish is guaranteed not to compromise anything valuable by mistake?
Don't be simple, not even wikileaks believes that. Of course, the Pentagon refused to help, leaving wikileaks to do the best they could. So it goes.
The bottom line in this debate is that Wikileaks have shown that they do not respect the law in several countries by now.
That's kind of the point - they're a leak site. If it was legal to publish the info, it wouldn't be a leak.
Wikileaks are irresponsible, they do pose a clear threat to the national security of several countries in both military and civil/political terms, and they have made it very clear that they intend to continue doing so and don't much care what anyone else thinks.
I'd wager that the threat is largely political; anyway, this sort of thing is probably good on the whole.
Method 2 is risky, as it allows the deadman switch to be traced and neutralized/spoofed by requiring communication. Having a handful of people who can release the key when needed is better, especially if they don't know about each other.
must suck going to bars if you're afraid to talk to the women. The irony is that the fear gives off a vibe that's more likely to result in an accusation of general creepiness.
There's such a thing as a slow start - you don't tell dead baby jokes to some woman you just met in the park, but you sort of have to expect that a singles bar comes with people hitting on you. Yes, there are some guidelines, but you have to be seriously clueless to not know them.
Munching on the whole raw food thing tends to be both tasty and healthy; it's actually hard to cook something fresh that's as bad for you as a tv dinner. Also, it turns out that that sort of thing is cheap.
this is quite true - forget yourself, go talk to anyone you find interesting about what you feel like - make off color jokes, push boundaries and find out that the cute girl in front of you has a mind like a sewer AND IT'S WONDERFUL!
Screw up and maybe you change your approach, but just don't be fake and you'll, errm, level up.
Was good for you. Then bad for you. Now has good cholestorol.
That's what happens when you listen to some sensationalist muckraker. Fact is, studies will disagree or find different things, and media looking for a thrill will oversimplify in to the crap you just repeated. It's not the scientists' fault, though - blame the 24 hour news cycle.
We're hiring energetic people with enthusiasm for their work.
Shouldn't you be hiring competent people with some measure of perspective? I understand that this can masquerade as tired to those used to eager beavers, but I assure you that they actually get more done.
No it doesn't. Paper depreciates based on the amount of money (not paper) - most USD is data in a server somewhere. But there's also the balance between currency and wealth - if we had twice as much stuff but the same amount of USD, would the buying power go up or down?
Why would anybody care about actual machine names? Unless you're talking about a specific repro of a problem in prod, machine names are so much noise; they should all be exactly the same, guaranteed by process and beneath notice pretty much all the time.
And what actually happened was that the sysadmin ignored the deploy doc and did as he damn well pleased, then complained when it didn't work. Never mind that production doesn't match what the available docs claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they did! What did you think they were going to do, invite Wikileaks staff in to check the rest of their sensitive records just in case?!
Send someone over to redact documents? Beats the alternative...
no-one seems to have even claimed to show any specific benefits it has brought.
Well, there's the whole exposing government incompetence thing - seems that a lot of classified stuff is classified because it's easier than making a call or because it's embarrassing.
Moreover, a less sensationalist, more focussed release of some of that information, managed properly by a critical free press
Yeah, where were you planning to find that?
more effective at forcing a government to address genuinely inappropriate actions.
Okay, how about free speech zones and the standing agreement that people who ask hard questions at white house press conferences don't get invited back? Genuinely inappropriate, and nothing much has been done.
And as long as people who want government accountability are chanting the Wikileaks anthem, there is less incentive to introduce serious reforms in the real checks and balances,
Because? You haven't done more than state an opinion.
Basically, Wikileaks is a vigilante, anarchist organisation.
And thank god for that - there's precious little journalism going on in the media these days - it's all muckraking and press releases.
But how would (all of) your associates ensure you are in a situation that warrants the release of the key?
any. You tell 4 people that they are the only person who has key X, and to use their judgment.
"neutralized" would mean your enemies killed or cut the server that would publish the key. This could be avoided by having several hosts able to publish the key, checking each other's status continually.
Again, this requires communication. Sorry, but you can't get past this. Anyway, I don't care to discuss specifics, just pointing out that no communication is easier to hide than communication.
3) sure, so long as it isn't 'morning regret rape' or something rooted in the rather extreme feminist laws that were passed somewhat recently. I can't see how two timing can be a criminal matter, nor how screwing someone and then never calling them again would be.
Otherwise you would wake up the next morning, decide you didn't like the guy that much and charge him of rape even though before the night before you have sex with him willingly.
Welcome to america.
Does anyone seriously believe that Wikileaks have the resources and skills necessary to ensure that all information they publish is guaranteed not to compromise anything valuable by mistake?
Don't be simple, not even wikileaks believes that. Of course, the Pentagon refused to help, leaving wikileaks to do the best they could. So it goes.
The bottom line in this debate is that Wikileaks have shown that they do not respect the law in several countries by now.
That's kind of the point - they're a leak site. If it was legal to publish the info, it wouldn't be a leak.
Wikileaks are irresponsible, they do pose a clear threat to the national security of several countries in both military and civil/political terms, and they have made it very clear that they intend to continue doing so and don't much care what anyone else thinks.
I'd wager that the threat is largely political; anyway, this sort of thing is probably good on the whole.
Method 2 is risky, as it allows the deadman switch to be traced and neutralized/spoofed by requiring communication. Having a handful of people who can release the key when needed is better, especially if they don't know about each other.
Actually, if she thinks you looked at her in a creepy way, that could be 'by deed'. The law as written is batshit insane.
Former?
must suck going to bars if you're afraid to talk to the women. The irony is that the fear gives off a vibe that's more likely to result in an accusation of general creepiness.
There's such a thing as a slow start - you don't tell dead baby jokes to some woman you just met in the park, but you sort of have to expect that a singles bar comes with people hitting on you. Yes, there are some guidelines, but you have to be seriously clueless to not know them.
Munching on the whole raw food thing tends to be both tasty and healthy; it's actually hard to cook something fresh that's as bad for you as a tv dinner. Also, it turns out that that sort of thing is cheap.
Oh, well it's a good thing that I decided that I was OK with something killing me eventually, because you know, it will anyway.
this is quite true - forget yourself, go talk to anyone you find interesting about what you feel like - make off color jokes, push boundaries and find out that the cute girl in front of you has a mind like a sewer AND IT'S WONDERFUL!
Screw up and maybe you change your approach, but just don't be fake and you'll, errm, level up.
seconded - if my dick looked like some of these things, I'd go to the doctor.
Essentially the study authors have no idea *why* heavy drinkers seem to outlive teetotalers
1-2 drinks per day isn't a heavy drinker. That won't even get you drunk.
Was good for you. Then bad for you. Now has good cholestorol.
That's what happens when you listen to some sensationalist muckraker. Fact is, studies will disagree or find different things, and media looking for a thrill will oversimplify in to the crap you just repeated. It's not the scientists' fault, though - blame the 24 hour news cycle.
Why on earth should I work insane hours to write code that younger people can write faster and cheaper (and honestly probably better)?
What makes you think they'll write the right code? That's what experience buys.
We're hiring energetic people with enthusiasm for their work.
Shouldn't you be hiring competent people with some measure of perspective? I understand that this can masquerade as tired to those used to eager beavers, but I assure you that they actually get more done.
If I found one, I wouldn't say anything, just swap with another similar car in a parking garage one day.
I'm just channeling my experience at $job-1
that sounds more like a data sharding issue - the way you phrased it sounded like people actually cared what app server X was called.
No it doesn't. Paper depreciates based on the amount of money (not paper) - most USD is data in a server somewhere. But there's also the balance between currency and wealth - if we had twice as much stuff but the same amount of USD, would the buying power go up or down?
Why would anybody care about actual machine names? Unless you're talking about a specific repro of a problem in prod, machine names are so much noise; they should all be exactly the same, guaranteed by process and beneath notice pretty much all the time.
Sounds like Amazon, not that I disagree or anything.
And what actually happened was that the sysadmin ignored the deploy doc and did as he damn well pleased, then complained when it didn't work. Never mind that production doesn't match what the available docs claim.