Ellsberg surreptitiously copied 7000 pages of stuff and started privately disseminating it to people who generally were not cleared. This started a long time before the issue came before the court. It would be hard to make any kind of argument that his employment with the RAND corporation (by which means he obtained access to the material) somehow entitled him to do this.
In addition, you may be unaware of the contract that those who obtain security clearances sign with the government.
The fact that a panel chose to allow the publication of the data did not declassify it, an Executive Branch function. For instance and for clarification, DoD employees with a security clearance are not permitted to view Assange's leaked data. It is classified material and they have not been cleared for it. Notices went out upon its release to the DoD workforce. I'm avoiding saying the name of the site on purpose.
Therefore, the SCOTUS decision would have had little or no impact on Ellsberg's ultimate conviction - it hardly could have missed, he admitted the release of the data.
Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.
He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.
That isn't going to stop some foolish people from paying the price for their really idiotic actions. Drawing the attention of the government to you as an individual is a surefire way to have a miserable, short life. History would teach that, if people would read it.
The IPv4 exhaustion issue is trumpeted as a reason to provide IPv6 support. But the exhaustion is purely at the NIC level at this point. It hasn't reached a single end user yet. It'll take years for people to start caring about this much. By that time, the current product line will be swapped out for new gear.
It wasn't that simple even in 2001. Yeah, they picked up a lot of timewasters, but few of those even made the trip to Gitmo. I'd venture to say that everyone there either waved a Kalashnikov or was involved in planning something involving said waving.
What truth? He engaged in espionage against the United States - that isn't in dispute. Why not throw the book at him? What's special about Assange besides being outrageously egotistical and rather poor selection in female companions?
I dislike the guy but I think he just realized the domestic political realities that caused Bush to open the camp at Gitmo in the first place. NIMBY is one big issue. No one wants a trial near them, or incarcerations of known Muslim enemy combatants near them. It's not like a camp full of Germans in WWII, these guys haven't given up the desire to fight us. So you put it in Castro's backyard. Another issue is Federal court jurisdiction and pesky lawyers trying to interpose civilian authority over a fundamentally military matter. So you stick it in a purely military reservation overseas. It's about as good a solution as can be arrived at.
If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.
It's a Gordian knot - as long as the ACLU and the Left keep fucking up the system to protest the death penalty, you'll get no progress on this front.
Using the MAC address would be fairly dumb. It has a couple disadvantages:
1) Not visible beyond its local gateway 2) Readily changeable
It would be highly shocking if they weren't using some sort of fingerprint. Said fingerprint should not include the MAC, but include other data embedded in the hardware that isn't as susceptible to tampering.
I am not a soldier either, though I play one on TV. I've been under fire in Iraq. Soldiers, in practice, can't refuse orders. It's not a conspiracy: it's just that no one gives an order that is prima facie illegal. Therefore, if the soldier perceives it as such, there will be disciplinary action and it's unlikely that the situation will be unwound for 2-5 years. During which time, said soldier probably spent some serious military prison time as well as every waking moment defending against charges. Soldiers know this; they are unwilling to disobey orders for this reason.
I come to this conclusion because you fail to recognize the big difference between the 1814 Hartford plotters and the 1861 secessionists in the South. The difference was that the 1814 crew got what they wanted: an end to the war, before they even stopped meeting. Instead, the 1861 crew got nothing: not even the Crittenden Compromise, which would have been small stakes to trade for 618k lives and untold economic destruction. As you note, we're still paying the price for this through Southern nostalgia for antebellum times as well as the actual fighting of the war.
Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. It was about the successful attempt of the abolitionist minority in the North to dictate public policy in the short term. They were responsible for the war far more than the secessionists of the South. First, a series of provocations (think John Brown, though that was hardly the only incident - repeated attempted nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Law were also provocations*), unwillingness to compromise and then a failure to evacuate Moultrie and Sumter on territory that Lincoln knew was considered South Carolinian sovereign territory. He knew what he'd get, and he got it.
How close he came to failure in both 1862 and 1864 is the really interesting part. Through little direct action of his own, he was saved nonetheless - perhaps this was what Washington called "Providence" in similar circumstances a century before. Postwar, the elimination of representative government in large swathes of the country and a lengthy military occupation essentially provided the wherewithal to pass the 13th-15th amendments. Oh yeah, let's not forget the requirement to ratify the amendments as a condition of states being readmitted to the Union. Can you say extortion? Then, a failure of will in the North resulted in the abrupt end of Reconstruction and the onset of Jim Crow, which was probably worse than slavery itself had been, particularly at the nadir in Wilson's administration.
* These state nullifications of the Federal Fugitive Slave law put the lie to the whole "only the South believed in states' rights" canard you were repeating a few posts ago.
The only reason secession was taken off the table at Hartford was the realization that even suggesting it would be considered treason at the time by the rest of the country and would likely provoke an armed response.
Their attempt to tone down their message opposing the existing government didn't stop many people in New England at the time from talking about secession, and didn't stop the rest of the country from believing that their goal. Hence, the political damage to the Federalists.
As for nullification - Calhoun wasn't the only one that believed in that, either. Jefferson and Madison were the original authors of the nullification theory. Hell, Andrew Jackson himself made a few noises regarding nullification in the 1800-10 period when he was a Tennessee state official. Later, when he was President, his mind changed. Fancy that.
The New England crowd were the ultimate winners in the battle to define the United States. It's no wonder that there isn't any secessionist feeling in that area. Now, contrast what happened to the South - is there any reason why you would expect such feelings to go away? They got beaten soundly and its become their origin myth - the Lost Cause. It'll persist forever at some level.
The entire Northeast was considering secession during the War of 1812, even to the extent of convening a meeting to discuss secession in Hartford in 1814 (closed door) and recommending out a bunch of constitutional amendments making it harder to declare war, etc. Essentially hobbling the Federal Government. Which was funny coming from a party called Federalists.
The pro-British slant of the Federalists of the time (some even considered getting back together with Britain in preference to Madison's Virginian-dominated Democratic-Republican government) essentially made them unelectable from that point forward, hastening the demise of the party. The war ended while the conference was in session, making them look particularly idiotic. Also, Jackson's victory in New Orleans sort of stole their thunder.
Just to point out that the South weren't the only secessionist idiots in the union, and not the only people who believed that states had retained the right to secede.
Julian swore nothing, but his actions were fundamentally the same as a foreign agent controlling a network of spies. It would be hard to imagine a result where a conviction of espionage against the US were not returned, as it ultimately will be. He'll be a fugitive the rest of his life, if not in prison.
To be honest, we don't know at this point if the game will be a success or not.
Of course we do. You answered your own question. MMORPGs are dying. I don't even bother testing them anymore - I know I won't be playing.
It'll require a paradigm shift to make the genre interesting again - a no grind shift, for one. I'm interested to see what kind of stuff the studios that survive will come up with to replace canned MMO after canned MMO.
Sure, it's her site, and she can do what she wants. In response, those of us who dislike censorship in any form - whether performed by ChiComs or PJ - can point it out when the subject comes up. I'm entitled to that freedom and I intend to avail myself of it.
Fanboi worship is nice for the recipient but your position is mindless, simpering and without merit. She deserves appropriate criticism.
In my childhood (think 35 years ago) I heard all these terms:
"Jewing someone down" - negotiating a price down "Jewish lightning" - setting a building on fire to collect the insurance money "Don't be a Jew" - a reaction to being unwilling to lend, negotiating too hard or being cheap
They are less frequent today, but still are heard occasionally. Just yesterday, I had a flashback of people being called Jews for picking up pennies from the ground and left one I had dropped on the floor of a shopping mall.
My point is, whether it's ok or not, it still happens. I probably didn't have to explain at least two of the terms above, i'm sure you have heard them before.
Think about what happens when Seattle and San Francisco cease to exist. Do you think that US public opinion will be mollified by anything short of a parking lot?
This is why I find the left to be contemptible. Against all the evidence of history, they think things can be different than in the past when such an event occurs. Then, you even have the unmitigated gall to call the likely scenario's implementors inhuman. How lame. Nothing could be more human than to respond in kind, but with greater severity. The examples are too obvious to bother listing.
There was an order sent down about 2 months ago to block Wikileaks - even before the current furor. Each individual entity within the DoD did their own thing with this. The simple reason is that some are morons, some are bright. I know of a place that blocked everything with the string "wikileaks" in the url. Really. That blocks ~ 60-70% of the news articles about the subject. Hint: it wasn't intended that way, the implementor is an idiot.
Don't attribute to conspiracy theories what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
Ellsberg surreptitiously copied 7000 pages of stuff and started privately disseminating it to people who generally were not cleared. This started a long time before the issue came before the court. It would be hard to make any kind of argument that his employment with the RAND corporation (by which means he obtained access to the material) somehow entitled him to do this.
In addition, you may be unaware of the contract that those who obtain security clearances sign with the government.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001ph1.pdf
The key point is that the exclusion against dissemination never expires. Only the declassification of the material permits its dissemination.
The fact that a panel chose to allow the publication of the data did not declassify it, an Executive Branch function. For instance and for clarification, DoD employees with a security clearance are not permitted to view Assange's leaked data. It is classified material and they have not been cleared for it. Notices went out upon its release to the DoD workforce. I'm avoiding saying the name of the site on purpose.
Therefore, the SCOTUS decision would have had little or no impact on Ellsberg's ultimate conviction - it hardly could have missed, he admitted the release of the data.
Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.
He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.
That isn't going to stop some foolish people from paying the price for their really idiotic actions. Drawing the attention of the government to you as an individual is a surefire way to have a miserable, short life. History would teach that, if people would read it.
I'll be here with the popcorn, laughing.
I see you drank the Kool-aid.
The IPv4 exhaustion issue is trumpeted as a reason to provide IPv6 support. But the exhaustion is purely at the NIC level at this point. It hasn't reached a single end user yet. It'll take years for people to start caring about this much. By that time, the current product line will be swapped out for new gear.
Please characterize the difference between a rat line run by a foreign intelligence agency, and how Wikileaks acquired their data.
Yeah, no difference.
It wasn't that simple even in 2001. Yeah, they picked up a lot of timewasters, but few of those even made the trip to Gitmo. I'd venture to say that everyone there either waved a Kalashnikov or was involved in planning something involving said waving.
What truth? He engaged in espionage against the United States - that isn't in dispute. Why not throw the book at him? What's special about Assange besides being outrageously egotistical and rather poor selection in female companions?
I dislike the guy but I think he just realized the domestic political realities that caused Bush to open the camp at Gitmo in the first place. NIMBY is one big issue. No one wants a trial near them, or incarcerations of known Muslim enemy combatants near them. It's not like a camp full of Germans in WWII, these guys haven't given up the desire to fight us. So you put it in Castro's backyard. Another issue is Federal court jurisdiction and pesky lawyers trying to interpose civilian authority over a fundamentally military matter. So you stick it in a purely military reservation overseas. It's about as good a solution as can be arrived at.
An Australian citizen charged with espionage would be tried in a civilian court. He's not an enemy combatant.
When he starts waving a cheap AKM copy and firing at US soldiers, then we'll re-evaluate.
If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.
It's a Gordian knot - as long as the ACLU and the Left keep fucking up the system to protest the death penalty, you'll get no progress on this front.
Using the MAC address would be fairly dumb. It has a couple disadvantages:
1) Not visible beyond its local gateway
2) Readily changeable
It would be highly shocking if they weren't using some sort of fingerprint. Said fingerprint should not include the MAC, but include other data embedded in the hardware that isn't as susceptible to tampering.
I am not a soldier either, though I play one on TV. I've been under fire in Iraq. Soldiers, in practice, can't refuse orders. It's not a conspiracy: it's just that no one gives an order that is prima facie illegal. Therefore, if the soldier perceives it as such, there will be disciplinary action and it's unlikely that the situation will be unwound for 2-5 years. During which time, said soldier probably spent some serious military prison time as well as every waking moment defending against charges. Soldiers know this; they are unwilling to disobey orders for this reason.
You just want to criticize southerners.
I come to this conclusion because you fail to recognize the big difference between the 1814 Hartford plotters and the 1861 secessionists in the South. The difference was that the 1814 crew got what they wanted: an end to the war, before they even stopped meeting. Instead, the 1861 crew got nothing: not even the Crittenden Compromise, which would have been small stakes to trade for 618k lives and untold economic destruction. As you note, we're still paying the price for this through Southern nostalgia for antebellum times as well as the actual fighting of the war.
Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. It was about the successful attempt of the abolitionist minority in the North to dictate public policy in the short term. They were responsible for the war far more than the secessionists of the South. First, a series of provocations (think John Brown, though that was hardly the only incident - repeated attempted nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Law were also provocations*), unwillingness to compromise and then a failure to evacuate Moultrie and Sumter on territory that Lincoln knew was considered South Carolinian sovereign territory. He knew what he'd get, and he got it.
How close he came to failure in both 1862 and 1864 is the really interesting part. Through little direct action of his own, he was saved nonetheless - perhaps this was what Washington called "Providence" in similar circumstances a century before. Postwar, the elimination of representative government in large swathes of the country and a lengthy military occupation essentially provided the wherewithal to pass the 13th-15th amendments. Oh yeah, let's not forget the requirement to ratify the amendments as a condition of states being readmitted to the Union. Can you say extortion? Then, a failure of will in the North resulted in the abrupt end of Reconstruction and the onset of Jim Crow, which was probably worse than slavery itself had been, particularly at the nadir in Wilson's administration.
* These state nullifications of the Federal Fugitive Slave law put the lie to the whole "only the South believed in states' rights" canard you were repeating a few posts ago.
The only reason secession was taken off the table at Hartford was the realization that even suggesting it would be considered treason at the time by the rest of the country and would likely provoke an armed response.
Their attempt to tone down their message opposing the existing government didn't stop many people in New England at the time from talking about secession, and didn't stop the rest of the country from believing that their goal. Hence, the political damage to the Federalists.
As for nullification - Calhoun wasn't the only one that believed in that, either. Jefferson and Madison were the original authors of the nullification theory. Hell, Andrew Jackson himself made a few noises regarding nullification in the 1800-10 period when he was a Tennessee state official. Later, when he was President, his mind changed. Fancy that.
The New England crowd were the ultimate winners in the battle to define the United States. It's no wonder that there isn't any secessionist feeling in that area. Now, contrast what happened to the South - is there any reason why you would expect such feelings to go away? They got beaten soundly and its become their origin myth - the Lost Cause. It'll persist forever at some level.
The entire Northeast was considering secession during the War of 1812, even to the extent of convening a meeting to discuss secession in Hartford in 1814 (closed door) and recommending out a bunch of constitutional amendments making it harder to declare war, etc. Essentially hobbling the Federal Government. Which was funny coming from a party called Federalists.
The pro-British slant of the Federalists of the time (some even considered getting back together with Britain in preference to Madison's Virginian-dominated Democratic-Republican government) essentially made them unelectable from that point forward, hastening the demise of the party. The war ended while the conference was in session, making them look particularly idiotic. Also, Jackson's victory in New Orleans sort of stole their thunder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention
Just to point out that the South weren't the only secessionist idiots in the union, and not the only people who believed that states had retained the right to secede.
Julian swore nothing, but his actions were fundamentally the same as a foreign agent controlling a network of spies. It would be hard to imagine a result where a conviction of espionage against the US were not returned, as it ultimately will be. He'll be a fugitive the rest of his life, if not in prison.
The rest, I can agree with.
To be honest, we don't know at this point if the game will be a success or not.
Of course we do. You answered your own question. MMORPGs are dying. I don't even bother testing them anymore - I know I won't be playing.
It'll require a paradigm shift to make the genre interesting again - a no grind shift, for one. I'm interested to see what kind of stuff the studios that survive will come up with to replace canned MMO after canned MMO.
Sure, it's her site, and she can do what she wants. In response, those of us who dislike censorship in any form - whether performed by ChiComs or PJ - can point it out when the subject comes up. I'm entitled to that freedom and I intend to avail myself of it.
Fanboi worship is nice for the recipient but your position is mindless, simpering and without merit. She deserves appropriate criticism.
Everyone left except the left.
In my childhood (think 35 years ago) I heard all these terms:
"Jewing someone down" - negotiating a price down
"Jewish lightning" - setting a building on fire to collect the insurance money
"Don't be a Jew" - a reaction to being unwilling to lend, negotiating too hard or being cheap
They are less frequent today, but still are heard occasionally. Just yesterday, I had a flashback of people being called Jews for picking up pennies from the ground and left one I had dropped on the floor of a shopping mall.
My point is, whether it's ok or not, it still happens. I probably didn't have to explain at least two of the terms above, i'm sure you have heard them before.
Think about what happens when Seattle and San Francisco cease to exist. Do you think that US public opinion will be mollified by anything short of a parking lot?
This is why I find the left to be contemptible. Against all the evidence of history, they think things can be different than in the past when such an event occurs. Then, you even have the unmitigated gall to call the likely scenario's implementors inhuman. How lame. Nothing could be more human than to respond in kind, but with greater severity. The examples are too obvious to bother listing.
Shhh, you're making sense and being fair. The leftists here can't handle that.
This is stupid.
There was an order sent down about 2 months ago to block Wikileaks - even before the current furor. Each individual entity within the DoD did their own thing with this. The simple reason is that some are morons, some are bright. I know of a place that blocked everything with the string "wikileaks" in the url. Really. That blocks ~ 60-70% of the news articles about the subject. Hint: it wasn't intended that way, the implementor is an idiot.
Don't attribute to conspiracy theories what can adequately be explained by incompetence.