TFA also says that the one guy who was charged with doing so, got off scott-free, and has no explanation as to why.
That's how you read it. What I read is that the guy who allegedly went to pro-Assange demonstrations in London was investigated and had lost his classified access privileges. Not "charged", but "investigated/suspected". He was never charged but the damage is, of course, already done. I am sure other military personnel will think twice before expressing any pro-WikiLeaks views
I am sure if the guy in question had actually leaked anything or directly contacted Assange, he'd be in custody.
It just means now that US government
employees and military personnel who leak information to him would be committing a crime.
air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.... The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".
Or, you know, any military personnel that expresses support for Assange (according to TFA).The analyst in question wasn't charged, but it seems that he did lose his access to classified information.
But why let facts get in your way.
If you're a member of the military and you send an email to Wikileaks from home, it is likely nothing would ever happen. If you send one from your jrandomguy@army.mil address then can we really say it is shocking if that might get some attention at this point? The part that is alarmist though is that merely communicating with them isn't going to result in anyone getting even remotely close to the death penalty.
There are few things more disturbing than "maximum penalty is death, but only people who _really_ deserve it will be subjected to it". The rules should be more explicit, outlining what qualifies for which range of punishments. Nor is there a reason to have special treatment depending on who you send the information to. Is it worse to share state secrets with Wikileaks than with, say, New York Times reporter who publishes it? Wikileaks certainly hasn't done anything more than publishing the info.
To directly address your point about it being alarming, passing military secrets to the enemy has always meant serious punishments. This is nothing new. Dressing it up as something else doesn't change what it is, no?
I am not seeing the "passing military secrets" anywhere. Unless the rules have been significantly rephrased, they refer to "communicating with". I.e. a member of the military asking Assange about his time in Ecuadorian embassy is technically eligible for death penalty too (yes, I don't expect that to be applied, but formal eligibility is disturbing enough).
That's a extreme far cry from designating anyone anything.
reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
The article claims (and that's TFA not the summary), that technically any military personnel communicating with Wikileaks/Assange may be charged with a crime that goes all the way to death as penalty. That does seem alarming.
The constitution places the power to declare war and issue letters of marque with the congress, not the executive. It's up to the congress to tell the military who's an enemy, not the other way around.
We have a "legal" category called "enemy of the state"? How does that work? What are their rights and responsibilities in US?
Despite the whole "War on Terror" thing, I don't think there is a war declared on al-Qaeda seeing how that is at best a loosely connected organization rather than a sovereign entity.
Well, at least "War on Assange" has an interesting ring to it.
If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.
Oooh, I know one more rule about "war against terrorists"!
If you are fighting a war against terrorists, you are never going to win because that's one of the least defined terms. If we were at least talking about one organization... but we are talking about an extensive list of unrelated organizations that changes periodically (usually growing).
It's akin to "War against Drugs" and "War against Poverty", which coincidentally also tend to skim the rules for the greater cause.
They ask terrorists (the "victims" of the drone attacks) how they feel about drones and you get the expected response.
You sort of have a point here. Except for implying that entire Pakistan is comprised of terrorists without exception(?) Should have stayed with "victim".
The number of "civilian" casualties cannot be confirmed or even reliably estimated since the terrorists dress like civilians.
And you totally lost it. Maybe true, but is sufficient justification to stop worrying about it?? How about US try to estimate the civilian casualties, instead of considering every adult male a "militant"?
If any of us where in his situation, sans the riches and connections, we would be totally and utterly fucked.
Absolutely.
But still, two wrongs may make somewhat of a right here. He was probably illegally arrested and because he has bribed half the government someone might actually look into that. That seems like a good outcome, even if it happens for a wrong reason.
Nearly a year after getting their funding, their product is nowhere in sight, promises made were not kept, the funders are upset, the project owners are MIA and all of it gives Kickstarter a black eye.
Maybe Kickstarter just needs to make this notice in large and blinking letters:
Kickstarter does not investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. Backers ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it..
I remember seeing that notice, but it isn't on the page you referenced (somewhere in the corner when you finalize backing/paying, but not shown you just browse projects).
Yes, yes, I am. That's the one. Thanks for the response.
I know it's splitting hairs, but it doesn't 'fine' you, it just uses plate recognition to manage the toll.
Ah, but what if you are on a rental car?:) According to Budget bastards, _they_ have been charged $50 fine on top of the toll (~$13) and they kindly offer to only charge me only a $25 fine this one time.
So the plate recognition charge is $3.50? That is very useful, thank you.
fuck you you ignorant smearmonger... LOVE OF FREEDOM... spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand... goose stepping nazis are not out to detroy your freedom for no good reason, you dumb shit.... those idiots who impinge on the freedoms of others
Yeah, that sounds like a balanced, insightful response to the parent. Because nothing strengthens your argument more than calling the person you strongly disagree with a nitwit without a brain and dumb shit
And that's irrespective of taking any sides in your argument.
In all likelihood, it would be a service that would be available *IF YOU WANT IT*
Indeed. To give a more recent example (than SSN given by someone else), consider the electronic toll-booths.
First, it was a discount pilot program for those who want it
Then it was a normal-price convenience
Then the cash-booths dwindled to one or two per road
And I have already ran into some booths in Illinois with "no human operator present". And ran into something like that in Canada (no cash payment option, apparently, but they can charge and fine you later with plate recognition)
It doesn't even take that long to go from "optional convenience" to "optional if you like to suffer and pay extra"
Cell phones are becoming less about communications and more about tracking and identification.
It's a good thing that not every phone is an iPhone then, huh. If their patent works out, they are sure to make this iTravel thing a permanent and non-removable staple of iPhone 6S or whatever it'll be by then.
Why are they expending money on new versions of the scanners when not all airports have the first version?
I think we all know the answer to that:
Because as soon as they deploy a few dozen "new generation" machines (and these prove to be useless too), they can start drafting large contracts for "3rd generation" scanner machines.
What we need to do is to claw back money paid for any machine that provably doesn't do what it was bought for (i.e. detect dangerous objects). Maybe once a couple of contractor firms are sued into oblivion, others will slow down.
Windows boxes also need to be administered. Their administration also involves routine cleanup of "toolbars" and trojans and other crap that either installs itself, or with some help from a clueless user, and then the whole thing comes to a grinding halt once every two years due to malware, FAT shortcomings, or getting completely hijacked by some Trojan... you meant that Windows does not require administration at all, didn't you?
You have a point, perhaps I am just bitter that *I* can't seem to be able to install Linux like I can Windows. I guess that makes me biased.
But still, coming to a grinding halt every 2 years (actually, 6-12 months may be more likely) is a far cry from things like "can't get a USB wireless card to work without kernel recompilation" or "must manually edit a config file from command line to get XServer to work". And every year or so, I could probably walk my mom (if not my grandma) through a clean Windows wipe/reinstall by phone if I had to. So I claim that Windows is more usable in some ways.
If a vendor matched up hardware with a custom build everything would just work. You can put Linux on anything. MS and Apple just set boundaries,
I see your point on Apple, but what boundaries does MS set, exactly? You don't need to match up hardware for MS (not that I have ever heard, anyway). And you do indeed need to match Linux and hardware if you want it to be supported.
I installed Windows more than a few times (mostly around 98-2000-XP times), but I don't know if I ever edited an.inf file. Registry - yes, but mostly to fix an install that got messed up by spyware, not to get an installation working.
This is a valid point, and examples about multimedia could be added. But I'm a competent user and I can solve those issues for myself and family members, so I am fine with the Linux desktop, and so are they, even though they are 'average' users. But this discussion was originally about office software.
I know, I know, I went offtopic, into blasphemy that merits troll rating without being read.
I agree that Linux is wonderful as long as someone else manages it for you. In fact, I cannot imagine developing under Windows. But what if I don't want to administer my Linux box? What then?
I always start ranting when I see the slashdot attitude: "Linux has been ready for desktop many years now! Anyone and their grandma can use it"... (as long as someone carefully administers that box for them) is rarely mentioned.
First an interface that no body likes...say hello to blocky windows 8 than a screw you charge for Office. Bill come back! The captain is steering into the reefs! Awww...screw it just go open source, spend half an hour learning the in's and out's and be free!
This is working for MS just fine. Vista was a failure similar to what Windows 8 is (apparently) shaping up to be, and no lasting damage was done. Most users and all corporations just skipped it. MS may be coordinating good/bad releases with corporate re-licensing cycle on purpose, for all we know
Most of those actions would be destructive for a non-monopoly but work reasonably well for MS.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA also says that the one guy who was charged with doing so, got off scott-free, and has no explanation as to why.
That's how you read it. What I read is that the guy who allegedly went to pro-Assange demonstrations in London was investigated and had lost his classified access privileges. Not "charged", but "investigated/suspected". He was never charged but the damage is, of course, already done. I am sure other military personnel will think twice before expressing any pro-WikiLeaks views
I am sure if the guy in question had actually leaked anything or directly contacted Assange, he'd be in custody.
It just means now that US government employees and military personnel who leak information to him would be committing a crime.
air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London. ... The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".
Or, you know, any military personnel that expresses support for Assange (according to TFA).The analyst in question wasn't charged, but it seems that he did lose his access to classified information. But why let facts get in your way.
If you're a member of the military and you send an email to Wikileaks from home, it is likely nothing would ever happen. If you send one from your jrandomguy@army.mil address then can we really say it is shocking if that might get some attention at this point? The part that is alarmist though is that merely communicating with them isn't going to result in anyone getting even remotely close to the death penalty.
There are few things more disturbing than "maximum penalty is death, but only people who _really_ deserve it will be subjected to it". The rules should be more explicit, outlining what qualifies for which range of punishments. Nor is there a reason to have special treatment depending on who you send the information to. Is it worse to share state secrets with Wikileaks than with, say, New York Times reporter who publishes it? Wikileaks certainly hasn't done anything more than publishing the info.
To directly address your point about it being alarming, passing military secrets to the enemy has always meant serious punishments. This is nothing new. Dressing it up as something else doesn't change what it is, no?
I am not seeing the "passing military secrets" anywhere. Unless the rules have been significantly rephrased, they refer to "communicating with". I.e. a member of the military asking Assange about his time in Ecuadorian embassy is technically eligible for death penalty too (yes, I don't expect that to be applied, but formal eligibility is disturbing enough).
They may never go after Assange. But the next Brad Manning may find him/herself swinging from the gallows.
Wouldn't it be easier to designate everyone as "enemy of the state"? Then the military could have unlimited flexibility.
It's not like there is an appeal process or even a publicly available list of these "enemies of the state"
That's a extreme far cry from designating anyone anything.
reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
The article claims (and that's TFA not the summary), that technically any military personnel communicating with Wikileaks/Assange may be charged with a crime that goes all the way to death as penalty. That does seem alarming.
The constitution places the power to declare war and issue letters of marque with the congress, not the executive. It's up to the congress to tell the military who's an enemy, not the other way around.
We have a "legal" category called "enemy of the state"? How does that work? What are their rights and responsibilities in US?
Despite the whole "War on Terror" thing, I don't think there is a war declared on al-Qaeda seeing how that is at best a loosely connected organization rather than a sovereign entity.
Well, at least "War on Assange" has an interesting ring to it.
If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.
Oooh, I know one more rule about "war against terrorists"!
If you are fighting a war against terrorists, you are never going to win because that's one of the least defined terms. If we were at least talking about one organization... but we are talking about an extensive list of unrelated organizations that changes periodically (usually growing).
It's akin to "War against Drugs" and "War against Poverty", which coincidentally also tend to skim the rules for the greater cause.
They ask terrorists (the "victims" of the drone attacks) how they feel about drones and you get the expected response.
You sort of have a point here. Except for implying that entire Pakistan is comprised of terrorists without exception(?)
Should have stayed with "victim".
The number of "civilian" casualties cannot be confirmed or even reliably estimated since the terrorists dress like civilians.
And you totally lost it. Maybe true, but is sufficient justification to stop worrying about it??
How about US try to estimate the civilian casualties, instead of considering every adult male a "militant"?
The pervasive attitude is, "bin Laden, a hero, was murdered, and by the very people that made him a hero."
Yep. That's the attitude. It has nothing to do with things like
"The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims."
because that's a minor detail no one would worry about.
You'd have to actually change something to increase cost.
They could just change the markup :)
Why not charge $1000 per phone now?
If any of us where in his situation, sans the riches and connections, we would be totally and utterly fucked.
Absolutely.
But still, two wrongs may make somewhat of a right here. He was probably illegally arrested and because he has bribed half the government someone might actually look into that.
That seems like a good outcome, even if it happens for a wrong reason.
According to what I have read, anyway.
It's a little un-Apple-like.
Nearly a year after getting their funding, their product is nowhere in sight, promises made were not kept, the funders are upset, the project owners are MIA and all of it gives Kickstarter a black eye.
Maybe Kickstarter just needs to make this notice in large and blinking letters:
Kickstarter does not investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. Backers ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it..
I remember seeing that notice, but it isn't on the page you referenced (somewhere in the corner when you finalize backing/paying, but not shown you just browse projects).
Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited.
So people would have to create multiple accounts if they want multiple quantities??
Today we added a new section to the project page called "Risks and Challenges".
That's a great idea! There should be some understanding that the creators may or may not succeed even if they honestly try.
I assume you're talking about the 407,
Yes, yes, I am. That's the one. Thanks for the response.
I know it's splitting hairs, but it doesn't 'fine' you, it just uses plate recognition to manage the toll.
Ah, but what if you are on a rental car? :) According to Budget bastards, _they_ have been charged $50 fine on top of the toll (~$13) and they kindly offer to only charge me only a $25 fine this one time.
So the plate recognition charge is $3.50? That is very useful, thank you.
fuck you you ignorant smearmonger ... LOVE OF FREEDOM ... spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand ... goose stepping nazis are not out to detroy your freedom for no good reason, you dumb shit. ... those idiots who impinge on the freedoms of others
Yeah, that sounds like a balanced, insightful response to the parent. Because nothing strengthens your argument more than calling the person you strongly disagree with a nitwit without a brain and dumb shit
And that's irrespective of taking any sides in your argument.
In all likelihood, it would be a service that would be available *IF YOU WANT IT*
Indeed. To give a more recent example (than SSN given by someone else), consider the electronic toll-booths.
First, it was a discount pilot program for those who want it
Then it was a normal-price convenience
Then the cash-booths dwindled to one or two per road
And I have already ran into some booths in Illinois with "no human operator present". And ran into something like that in Canada (no cash payment option, apparently, but they can charge and fine you later with plate recognition)
It doesn't even take that long to go from "optional convenience" to "optional if you like to suffer and pay extra"
Cell phones are becoming less about communications and more about tracking and identification.
It's a good thing that not every phone is an iPhone then, huh.
If their patent works out, they are sure to make this iTravel thing a permanent and non-removable staple of iPhone 6S or whatever it'll be by then.
You really think Romney'd change anything?
Sure he will. I am certain that an entirely different group of contractors would get to develop "3rd generation" machines if Romney replaced Obama.
Why are they expending money on new versions of the scanners when not all airports have the first version?
I think we all know the answer to that:
Because as soon as they deploy a few dozen "new generation" machines (and these prove to be useless too), they can start drafting large contracts for "3rd generation" scanner machines.
What we need to do is to claw back money paid for any machine that provably doesn't do what it was bought for (i.e. detect dangerous objects). Maybe once a couple of contractor firms are sued into oblivion, others will slow down.
Windows boxes also need to be administered. Their administration also involves routine cleanup of "toolbars" and trojans and other crap that either installs itself, or with some help from a clueless user, and then the whole thing comes to a grinding halt once every two years due to malware, FAT shortcomings, or getting completely hijacked by some Trojan ... you meant that Windows does not require administration at all, didn't you?
You have a point, perhaps I am just bitter that *I* can't seem to be able to install Linux like I can Windows. I guess that makes me biased.
But still, coming to a grinding halt every 2 years (actually, 6-12 months may be more likely) is a far cry from things like "can't get a USB wireless card to work without kernel recompilation" or "must manually edit a config file from command line to get XServer to work". And every year or so, I could probably walk my mom (if not my grandma) through a clean Windows wipe/reinstall by phone if I had to. So I claim that Windows is more usable in some ways.
If a vendor matched up hardware with a custom build everything would just work. You can put Linux on anything. MS and Apple just set boundaries,
I see your point on Apple, but what boundaries does MS set, exactly? You don't need to match up hardware for MS (not that I have ever heard, anyway). And you do indeed need to match Linux and hardware if you want it to be supported.
I installed Windows more than a few times (mostly around 98-2000-XP times), but I don't know if I ever edited an .inf file. Registry - yes, but mostly to fix an install that got messed up by spyware, not to get an installation working.
This is a valid point, and examples about multimedia could be added. But I'm a competent user and I can solve those issues for myself and family members, so I am fine with the Linux desktop, and so are they, even though they are 'average' users. But this discussion was originally about office software.
I know, I know, I went offtopic, into blasphemy that merits troll rating without being read.
I agree that Linux is wonderful as long as someone else manages it for you. In fact, I cannot imagine developing under Windows. But what if I don't want to administer my Linux box? What then?
I always start ranting when I see the slashdot attitude: "Linux has been ready for desktop many years now! Anyone and their grandma can use it" ... (as long as someone carefully administers that box for them) is rarely mentioned.
Word 2003 still works just fine...
Until you start receiving those docx files, you mean?
First an interface that no body likes ...say hello to blocky windows 8 than a screw you charge for Office. Bill come back! The captain is steering into the reefs! Awww...screw it just go open source, spend half an hour learning the in's and out's and be free!
This is working for MS just fine. Vista was a failure similar to what Windows 8 is (apparently) shaping up to be, and no lasting damage was done. Most users and all corporations just skipped it. MS may be coordinating good/bad releases with corporate re-licensing cycle on purpose, for all we know
Most of those actions would be destructive for a non-monopoly but work reasonably well for MS.