That is not true. Extraditions regularly happen for offenses which are not criminal in the source country. The only caveat is that the person has to be already in custody in the source country. This could be for any offense.
Also, let's examine Assange's current status. He's currently stuck in Great Britain, awaiting extradition to Sweden. He's sought asylum in at least two places - Ecuador and Switzerland, and one said a flat out "no", the other does not seem highly interested. Australia has stated that they don't want him back.
Do you wish to lay odds on his arrival on US shores?
The release of the whole batch means that any negotiation to avoid the worst criminal penalties for Assange and others has failed. These people know they are going to be seeing little but the cinderblock walls of a detention facility for many years. They're giving up.
The public at large knows better. The Anon and its supporters are an insular box. When the prison terms start coming and there is little sympathy out in the general public, maybe people will wise up.
1) Fraudulent issue of certificate 2) Revocation of certificate 3) Clients find out...how?
As an example, I downloaded the cert Google offered up on encrypted.google.com. It had no OCSP specified, but it did have a CRL specified. Now, is Firefox checking the CRL embedded in the cert or not? I think it is, but the only way to confirm would be to actually try to hit a site with a revoked cert. FF by default is configured to only use OCSP if the cert has the information embedded in it, which this Google cert didn't. Which doesn't give me the warm fuzzy about other certs, either. I checked a few others. The Verisign sites, including RapidSSL, have an OCSP URI embedded. So that's better.
My point is that the whole revocation business remains slipshod and saying that you 'revoked' the certificate doesn't mean a hell of a lot in reality.
FFS, finally someone said this. I lived through at least two Cat 3 storms hitting the Jersey Shore in 76 and 85, I think. A Cat 2 was mixed in there. It was just not that big a deal. WTF is Bloomberg and the NY crew thinking? Talk about the wussification of America.
Haven't we seen enough of these paid shills over the years to understand their point of view? They get paid money by Microsoft to influence opinion so that Microsoft can sell more stuff. They are corrupted by the money, so it isn't an honest opinion. Therefore, why pay attention?
I suppose some variety from the usual Florian dreck is nice, though.
Having stood next to a baler last weekend, they're all pretty big.
Most balers nowadays are the round kind. You drive through fields in the Midwest, you'll see more round bales than square ones. I'm told they weigh in at about 800lb when not wet. A new innovation is plastic-wrapping them automagically so you don't waste 6" on the outside of the bale from moisture and decomposition.
Your sentiment is similar to others', so don't think i'm picking on you in particular.
You sound like an anarchist. I assume you know that the ultimate result of such a policy would be a sharp decline in highway tickets and quality of life crime enforcement. The reason why will be that it won't be profitable to pursue such things, and only things that the government can not avoid public pressure on will even be prosecuted. This will make the legal system even more capricious than now, with kangaroo show trials being the only thing that governments will by and large pursue.
Consider the follow-on effects of such a scenario. Unintended (or intended?) consequences will ensue, and significant societal breakdown is not out of the question.
Absent plea deals, the entire system would break down due to lack of enforcement. Just how many trials can the state run? How many courtrooms are really available for said trials? Logistics...
That said, the prosecutorial fiat involved in plea deals is quite scary. Particularly on the receiving end. I just can't think of a good way around it.
I would disagree, but not entirely. Yes, the US military is over-reliant on Windows. That said, Windows gets lots of scrutiny - much more than competing OS. The fact that Windows has an entirely broken security model is not lost on those responsible for CND (computer network defense) within the armed forces. Unfortunately, the means of fixing it is mostly via STIGs, "security and technical implementation guides" produced by NSA. This results in an OS which mostly won't run software and can't communicate over a network. This is why the STIG is supposed to be applied with consciousness of the impact on software, and with some delicacy to preserve capabilities. This does not stop those responsible for purported security scans and IA (information assurance) inspections from mandating the application of said STIGs across the board as a prerequisite for allowing your systems on the network, with the results you'd expect.
Getting an exception to the STIG requires getting a general officer* to sign off on a risk, which is a career-ending move if there is some kind of penetration attributable to the exception. So they aren't really interested in doing that much.
I suppose computers that don't work correctly are "secure", in the sense that it's hard to get data off a computer that isn't used as a resource, but rather a boat anchor. Still, this doesn't say much for the military ultimately achieving much in cyberwarfare or even CND by breaking their systems by default.
The root of the problem is that most people that go into IA or CND in the military are nontechnical or just incompetent. It's not the trade that you'd choose if you were savvy, and being surrounded by a good percentage of idiots can't be pleasant. There are some very, very smart people within the system but I wonder personally how any of them stand the general level of incompetence. I can't get a straight answer out of them except for "duty", which may be the real one.
That said, the whole infrastructure is on the wrong track to gaining true capability. Needs changing.
* Each agency has a "Designated Approving Authority" or DAA. It's usually the highest ranking person at said agency. That is who takes ownership of risk.
There, now I can say the system is COTS based - no specialized platforms. This isn't the bad part. The bad part is the poor engineering. It's very data-transfer oriented - this would make sense, it's a queue database of intel. The data is bulky in some cases. The problem is that armed forces are usually at the end of a long, thin comm pipe - satellite latencies of 600ms and maximum 4mbps down pipes. Less reliable than civilized leased lines, also. The problems with the system revolve around the latter point.
Essentially, to talk about this I have to find an unclassified link for what I am talking about, and that's hard. Imagine writing in Wikipedia-style [citation needed] terms, if you want to understand what it is like.
And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how?
There is danger in giving any government the power to regulate expression. Governments change, and some will use this power for ill. Giving it to a government to prevent something you consider offensive is a poor reason to take that risk.
Also limits on competition?
Competition is the very essence of innovation, where innovation is defined as improving the human condition. Regulating competition limits standard of living on a macro scale. There's a certain Luddite tinge to limiting competition*. "Life is good enough now, we don't need it to get better"
The "more, better" society has its down side, but without it, nearly all of the progress since the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened. We'd have lifespans in the 30s overall and no antibiotics.
* I see the same Luddite theology amongst the environmental movement as generally defined. I use the word theology purposefully.
Quote out a system that will deliver ~ 200kw of power in the middle of a desert that doesn't involve generators. Oh, and make it redundant, too, with a manual transfer switch. Since things break in the field, and repair shops aren't around the corner. Then add up the weight and space. Then tell the Army that they can't set up their stuff in the shade of the north side of a hill.
Look at the casualty statistics for your answer. If you want lots of incapacitated soldiers from illness and death from exposure, stop air conditioning.
The tents are air conditioned with diesel-powered ECUs because people get heat related illnesses when they are not. They aren't kept at 68 degrees F - more like 80-85, but it's better than 105-130F outside. The ECUs also act as heaters in mountainous environments - Afghanistan, for one.
A TOC (command post) is a tent complex surrounded by concrete barriers and/or concertina wire. It's powered by generators. The wire and barriers are to stop potshots from firearms and to offer some protection against mortars/grenades/rockets. The wire isn't intended to harm, it mostly sticks to your skin and clothing and prevents you from going inside the post. The generators are used because they fit inside the perimeter.
Reflective blankets aren't used because the reflective blankets stick out like a sore thumb from the air, or the ground.
Insulation is not sprayed on the tents because they, you know, move...
Solar panels - envision putting a solar panel outside the perimeter. Envision carrying around solar panels and setting them up where you operate. Impractical from a logistical standpoint and could not be secured efficiently against attack without extending the perimeter to perhaps double or triple the circumference, with all the associated costs in additional manning for force protection. A nonstarter.
The same arguments apply to LSA - the places soldiers live - but with some modification. Some are fixed and might be amenable to alternative power sources, but the perimeter guard issue rears its head again. You can't beat generators for portability.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not true. Extraditions regularly happen for offenses which are not criminal in the source country. The only caveat is that the person has to be already in custody in the source country. This could be for any offense.
Also, let's examine Assange's current status. He's currently stuck in Great Britain, awaiting extradition to Sweden. He's sought asylum in at least two places - Ecuador and Switzerland, and one said a flat out "no", the other does not seem highly interested. Australia has stated that they don't want him back.
Do you wish to lay odds on his arrival on US shores?
The release of the whole batch means that any negotiation to avoid the worst criminal penalties for Assange and others has failed. These people know they are going to be seeing little but the cinderblock walls of a detention facility for many years. They're giving up.
The public at large knows better. The Anon and its supporters are an insular box. When the prison terms start coming and there is little sympathy out in the general public, maybe people will wise up.
Actually, they'd probably do both, ala the Internet Settings.
Chain of events as follows:
1) Fraudulent issue of certificate
2) Revocation of certificate
3) Clients find out...how?
As an example, I downloaded the cert Google offered up on encrypted.google.com. It had no OCSP specified, but it did have a CRL specified. Now, is Firefox checking the CRL embedded in the cert or not? I think it is, but the only way to confirm would be to actually try to hit a site with a revoked cert. FF by default is configured to only use OCSP if the cert has the information embedded in it, which this Google cert didn't. Which doesn't give me the warm fuzzy about other certs, either. I checked a few others. The Verisign sites, including RapidSSL, have an OCSP URI embedded. So that's better.
My point is that the whole revocation business remains slipshod and saying that you 'revoked' the certificate doesn't mean a hell of a lot in reality.
FFS, finally someone said this. I lived through at least two Cat 3 storms hitting the Jersey Shore in 76 and 85, I think. A Cat 2 was mixed in there. It was just not that big a deal. WTF is Bloomberg and the NY crew thinking? Talk about the wussification of America.
Haven't we seen enough of these paid shills over the years to understand their point of view? They get paid money by Microsoft to influence opinion so that Microsoft can sell more stuff. They are corrupted by the money, so it isn't an honest opinion. Therefore, why pay attention?
I suppose some variety from the usual Florian dreck is nice, though.
Acting like religious zealots is pretty much the modus operandi of the professional Left. Except i'm not so sure about the act...
At least the right wing freaks admit they are religious.
After reading your comment, I wonder about why we would want to encourage city life, since it seems to breed ignorance and hatred.
Having stood next to a baler last weekend, they're all pretty big.
Most balers nowadays are the round kind. You drive through fields in the Midwest, you'll see more round bales than square ones. I'm told they weigh in at about 800lb when not wet. A new innovation is plastic-wrapping them automagically so you don't waste 6" on the outside of the bale from moisture and decomposition.
Example baler
And a traitor. Don't forget that part.
Your sentiment is similar to others', so don't think i'm picking on you in particular.
You sound like an anarchist. I assume you know that the ultimate result of such a policy would be a sharp decline in highway tickets and quality of life crime enforcement. The reason why will be that it won't be profitable to pursue such things, and only things that the government can not avoid public pressure on will even be prosecuted. This will make the legal system even more capricious than now, with kangaroo show trials being the only thing that governments will by and large pursue.
Consider the follow-on effects of such a scenario. Unintended (or intended?) consequences will ensue, and significant societal breakdown is not out of the question.
Absent plea deals, the entire system would break down due to lack of enforcement. Just how many trials can the state run? How many courtrooms are really available for said trials? Logistics...
That said, the prosecutorial fiat involved in plea deals is quite scary. Particularly on the receiving end. I just can't think of a good way around it.
I would disagree, but not entirely. Yes, the US military is over-reliant on Windows. That said, Windows gets lots of scrutiny - much more than competing OS. The fact that Windows has an entirely broken security model is not lost on those responsible for CND (computer network defense) within the armed forces. Unfortunately, the means of fixing it is mostly via STIGs, "security and technical implementation guides" produced by NSA. This results in an OS which mostly won't run software and can't communicate over a network. This is why the STIG is supposed to be applied with consciousness of the impact on software, and with some delicacy to preserve capabilities. This does not stop those responsible for purported security scans and IA (information assurance) inspections from mandating the application of said STIGs across the board as a prerequisite for allowing your systems on the network, with the results you'd expect.
Getting an exception to the STIG requires getting a general officer* to sign off on a risk, which is a career-ending move if there is some kind of penetration attributable to the exception. So they aren't really interested in doing that much.
I suppose computers that don't work correctly are "secure", in the sense that it's hard to get data off a computer that isn't used as a resource, but rather a boat anchor. Still, this doesn't say much for the military ultimately achieving much in cyberwarfare or even CND by breaking their systems by default.
The root of the problem is that most people that go into IA or CND in the military are nontechnical or just incompetent. It's not the trade that you'd choose if you were savvy, and being surrounded by a good percentage of idiots can't be pleasant. There are some very, very smart people within the system but I wonder personally how any of them stand the general level of incompetence. I can't get a straight answer out of them except for "duty", which may be the real one.
That said, the whole infrastructure is on the wrong track to gaining true capability. Needs changing.
* Each agency has a "Designated Approving Authority" or DAA. It's usually the highest ranking person at said agency. That is who takes ownership of risk.
I use the chooser and it points me to Gentoo.
I've been using Gentoo for about 10 years now, so I guess that makes sense.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/dcgs.htm
There, now I can say the system is COTS based - no specialized platforms. This isn't the bad part. The bad part is the poor engineering. It's very data-transfer oriented - this would make sense, it's a queue database of intel. The data is bulky in some cases. The problem is that armed forces are usually at the end of a long, thin comm pipe - satellite latencies of 600ms and maximum 4mbps down pipes. Less reliable than civilized leased lines, also. The problems with the system revolve around the latter point.
It's less capable than the system it replaced, ASAS.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/asas.htm
Essentially, to talk about this I have to find an unclassified link for what I am talking about, and that's hard. Imagine writing in Wikipedia-style [citation needed] terms, if you want to understand what it is like.
Having worked with the system in question, I agree with the analysts quoted: the system is a dud.
I wish I could say more about this, but I can't.
I'd be shocked if money laundering wasn't already in play here. That'll be the justification.
Wikileaks is an intelligence agency, by Assange's own admission a few years back. What did they expect? Anything other than being crushed and jailed?
The money is never coming.
Pud gave up on it after his experiments in selling porn on the site didn't work out.
And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how?
There is danger in giving any government the power to regulate expression. Governments change, and some will use this power for ill. Giving it to a government to prevent something you consider offensive is a poor reason to take that risk.
Also limits on competition?
Competition is the very essence of innovation, where innovation is defined as improving the human condition. Regulating competition limits standard of living on a macro scale. There's a certain Luddite tinge to limiting competition*. "Life is good enough now, we don't need it to get better"
The "more, better" society has its down side, but without it, nearly all of the progress since the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened. We'd have lifespans in the 30s overall and no antibiotics.
* I see the same Luddite theology amongst the environmental movement as generally defined. I use the word theology purposefully.
Quote out a system that will deliver ~ 200kw of power in the middle of a desert that doesn't involve generators. Oh, and make it redundant, too, with a manual transfer switch. Since things break in the field, and repair shops aren't around the corner. Then add up the weight and space. Then tell the Army that they can't set up their stuff in the shade of the north side of a hill.
Look at the casualty statistics for your answer. If you want lots of incapacitated soldiers from illness and death from exposure, stop air conditioning.
Things are done like they are for a reason.
The tents are air conditioned with diesel-powered ECUs because people get heat related illnesses when they are not. They aren't kept at 68 degrees F - more like 80-85, but it's better than 105-130F outside. The ECUs also act as heaters in mountainous environments - Afghanistan, for one.
A TOC (command post) is a tent complex surrounded by concrete barriers and/or concertina wire. It's powered by generators. The wire and barriers are to stop potshots from firearms and to offer some protection against mortars/grenades/rockets. The wire isn't intended to harm, it mostly sticks to your skin and clothing and prevents you from going inside the post. The generators are used because they fit inside the perimeter.
Reflective blankets aren't used because the reflective blankets stick out like a sore thumb from the air, or the ground.
Insulation is not sprayed on the tents because they, you know, move...
Solar panels - envision putting a solar panel outside the perimeter. Envision carrying around solar panels and setting them up where you operate. Impractical from a logistical standpoint and could not be secured efficiently against attack without extending the perimeter to perhaps double or triple the circumference, with all the associated costs in additional manning for force protection. A nonstarter.
The same arguments apply to LSA - the places soldiers live - but with some modification. Some are fixed and might be amenable to alternative power sources, but the perimeter guard issue rears its head again. You can't beat generators for portability.
Excuses can't save a bad sentence,