That website is not science, its a promotion of a book of fiction. The author has a PHD in history, he claims a level of expertise that he does not appear to actually hold. His book is full of inaccuracies about how EMP would affect various electronic and electrical systems and he's a fear monger on the subject. Isn't he the ding dong who co-wrote some other pseudo-science books and articles with Newt Gringrich? I suggest finding links to useful analysis by professional engineers and physicists.
Apparently you don't actually read Greenwald before criticizing him. His posts are supported by verifiable facts. You might disagree with his conclusions, but he doesn't just make up stuff and start pandering it, he uses logic and facts to make his arguements. Some of his conclusions are quite scary: he sees that the US media has abandoned its critical role in our democracy and has become little more than a propaganda channel for the ruling class.
You're right etymxris, AC is full of it. Claiming that Greenwald's 'sock puppetry' undermines his credibility, when the sources for those charges are suspect and Greenwald has convincingly repudiated them demonstrates the AC is a liar and quit possibly a sock puppet herself.
IE6? You're criticizing Microsoft's web browser by looking at IE6??? Its NINE years old! Of course its outdated and slow, try looking at something current, like IE8 or IE9.
How is he a criminal if Wikileaks released this information outside of US jurisdiction?
Also, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the needless deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of American allies, and hundreds of thousands of civilians. People I care about have been maimed and killed 'over there.' Isn't that blood upon the hands of the US government and the American people who put them in power?
Lastly, this undermines your assertions: "An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
I agree, however in the past Wikileaks has countered this risk by releasing the full source materials so that people could base their opinions on the unvarnished truth.
Please explain how what Wikileaks posted could plausibly lead to more lives lost than either the Iraq or Afghan wars? I've seen estimates in the hundreds of thousands civilian deaths for each war.
Also, how do you reconcile your point of view with the fact that "An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
I suspect Wikileaks leaks what whistleblowers provide them. How would they be able to leak embarassing documents from places where there are no whistleblowers submitting things to Wikileaks? Also, are you saying that as long as the USA isn't as bad as North Korea or China its good enough? I thought the USA was a democracy with free speech that was a beacon for all of the world to admire, was I wrong? Is the USA really just trying to stay above the bottom 5% of the world?
Regarding Assange's personality, I think that only someone with a huge ego, big balls, and a desire for publicity would be able to lead Wikileaks. A meaker man wouldn't hold up under the constant scrutiny and criticism. What does it matter whether you like the guy or not? How is the guy's demeanor significant? Who cares if the guy enjoys international attention, if Wikileaks is helping to uncover lies that allow organizations to exploit the masses isn't it doing a public service?
Posting what? I haven't said anything sensitive, and obviously the people I work with know where I reside. My last security interview was with the head security officer at the US embassy in Buenos Aires:)
You must have read a different article, its talking about all kinds of information security in the federal government, not only compartamentalized TS or other work performed in a SCIF.
I have a clearance, bill a generous rate, work from my home in South America, work on high-impact projects, and am always learning new technologies. Maintaining the clearance and flying up to DC every month or two are the biggest hassles.
So much misinformation in the submission and comments that follow. Where in the IE blog does it say that ony H.264 will be supported in IE9? It merely talks about what will be built-in, Flash and other plug-ins will still work, you will still be able to add whatever CODECs you want. Microsoft isn't blocking any of that.
LMAO, go read the Newsweek poll, not one of the right-wing biasted polls. The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions.
All the case you cite proves is that the US government will only take cases to court when they have overwhelming evidence. If they don't they might go through a military tribunal, but if they don't even have enough evidence for that they'll just detain the accused, or assassinate him.
You'd be wrong. Go read about the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, large swaths of civilian infrstructure were destroying including the international airport in Beirut. tens of thousands of residences were destroyed. Now go do some reading about Israelie activities in the occupied territories, the IDF has bulldozed the homes of hundreds of thousands of civilians who had not been suspected of doing anything hostile to Israel. They even ran over a US woman who was protesting nonviolently.
I don't approve of the violent activities by Palestinian militants, nor do I approve of the failed attempts by Arab countries to invade Israel, and I find it ironic that most of the neighboring countries have tried like hell to keep the Palestinians off of their land. But the Israeli responses have only made things much worse and harder to resolve.
And you have 100% confidence in your government's ability to accurately idenfity these combatants? Ever dealt with an IRS audit? The IRS is 100% correct too, right?
Well stated. And such mistakes are already happening. US troops fired on journalists in Bagdad, including reporters sitting on the balcony of their hotel rooms in a hotel that the US had specifically recognized before the invasion as being full of foreign journalists. Whether it was intentional or not is debatable, the fact that a US tank fired on the hotel and killed innocent reporters in 2003 is accepted by all sides. There are a lot of other examples.
Such naivety, you have complete faith in the government's ability to accurately identify people as actively fighting the US when those individuals are not in a battle. So you also have complete faith in the government's ability to tax you fairly? You are ready to hand over 100% of the healthcare system to the US government? You've never had a government employee make a mistake when getting a drivers license, registering to vote, or anything else?
Hmmm, volunteers who are there as part of a non-government agency's effort to provide medical care? Build schools? Install wells and sewage treatment systems?
Slashdot Mirror
That website is not science, its a promotion of a book of fiction. The author has a PHD in history, he claims a level of expertise that he does not appear to actually hold. His book is full of inaccuracies about how EMP would affect various electronic and electrical systems and he's a fear monger on the subject. Isn't he the ding dong who co-wrote some other pseudo-science books and articles with Newt Gringrich? I suggest finding links to useful analysis by professional engineers and physicists.
Actually, no, its not standard treatment. Its very unusual treatment, especially for someone who is not deemed to pose a physical threat to anyone.
Apparently you don't actually read Greenwald before criticizing him. His posts are supported by verifiable facts. You might disagree with his conclusions, but he doesn't just make up stuff and start pandering it, he uses logic and facts to make his arguements. Some of his conclusions are quite scary: he sees that the US media has abandoned its critical role in our democracy and has become little more than a propaganda channel for the ruling class.
You're right etymxris, AC is full of it. Claiming that Greenwald's 'sock puppetry' undermines his credibility, when the sources for those charges are suspect and Greenwald has convincingly repudiated them demonstrates the AC is a liar and quit possibly a sock puppet herself.
IE6? You're criticizing Microsoft's web browser by looking at IE6??? Its NINE years old! Of course its outdated and slow, try looking at something current, like IE8 or IE9.
Its true you can't in every case, but when the Pentagon confirms it is that good enough? http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_firefight_video_040510/
How is he a criminal if Wikileaks released this information outside of US jurisdiction? Also, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the needless deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of American allies, and hundreds of thousands of civilians. People I care about have been maimed and killed 'over there.' Isn't that blood upon the hands of the US government and the American people who put them in power? Lastly, this undermines your assertions: "An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
I agree, however in the past Wikileaks has countered this risk by releasing the full source materials so that people could base their opinions on the unvarnished truth.
Please explain how what Wikileaks posted could plausibly lead to more lives lost than either the Iraq or Afghan wars? I've seen estimates in the hundreds of thousands civilian deaths for each war. Also, how do you reconcile your point of view with the fact that "An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
I suspect Wikileaks leaks what whistleblowers provide them. How would they be able to leak embarassing documents from places where there are no whistleblowers submitting things to Wikileaks? Also, are you saying that as long as the USA isn't as bad as North Korea or China its good enough? I thought the USA was a democracy with free speech that was a beacon for all of the world to admire, was I wrong? Is the USA really just trying to stay above the bottom 5% of the world? Regarding Assange's personality, I think that only someone with a huge ego, big balls, and a desire for publicity would be able to lead Wikileaks. A meaker man wouldn't hold up under the constant scrutiny and criticism. What does it matter whether you like the guy or not? How is the guy's demeanor significant? Who cares if the guy enjoys international attention, if Wikileaks is helping to uncover lies that allow organizations to exploit the masses isn't it doing a public service?
I find it suspicious that you post a lie. The leaked documents are as recent as December of last year: http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/date/2009_12_0.html
Posting what? I haven't said anything sensitive, and obviously the people I work with know where I reside. My last security interview was with the head security officer at the US embassy in Buenos Aires:)
You must have read a different article, its talking about all kinds of information security in the federal government, not only compartamentalized TS or other work performed in a SCIF.
I didn't say that I work on classifed data from my home, having a clearance does not mean that you work exclusively on classified projects.
I didn't say that I work on classified projects from my home, the purpose of the clearance is as you describe.
I have a clearance, bill a generous rate, work from my home in South America, work on high-impact projects, and am always learning new technologies. Maintaining the clearance and flying up to DC every month or two are the biggest hassles.
So much misinformation in the submission and comments that follow. Where in the IE blog does it say that ony H.264 will be supported in IE9? It merely talks about what will be built-in, Flash and other plug-ins will still work, you will still be able to add whatever CODECs you want. Microsoft isn't blocking any of that.
LMAO, go read the Newsweek poll, not one of the right-wing biasted polls. The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions.
I'm pretty pumped up, its nice when democracy leads to a little social good.
All the case you cite proves is that the US government will only take cases to court when they have overwhelming evidence. If they don't they might go through a military tribunal, but if they don't even have enough evidence for that they'll just detain the accused, or assassinate him.
You'd be wrong. Go read about the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, large swaths of civilian infrstructure were destroying including the international airport in Beirut. tens of thousands of residences were destroyed. Now go do some reading about Israelie activities in the occupied territories, the IDF has bulldozed the homes of hundreds of thousands of civilians who had not been suspected of doing anything hostile to Israel. They even ran over a US woman who was protesting nonviolently. I don't approve of the violent activities by Palestinian militants, nor do I approve of the failed attempts by Arab countries to invade Israel, and I find it ironic that most of the neighboring countries have tried like hell to keep the Palestinians off of their land. But the Israeli responses have only made things much worse and harder to resolve.
And you have 100% confidence in your government's ability to accurately idenfity these combatants? Ever dealt with an IRS audit? The IRS is 100% correct too, right?
Well stated. And such mistakes are already happening. US troops fired on journalists in Bagdad, including reporters sitting on the balcony of their hotel rooms in a hotel that the US had specifically recognized before the invasion as being full of foreign journalists. Whether it was intentional or not is debatable, the fact that a US tank fired on the hotel and killed innocent reporters in 2003 is accepted by all sides. There are a lot of other examples.
Such naivety, you have complete faith in the government's ability to accurately identify people as actively fighting the US when those individuals are not in a battle. So you also have complete faith in the government's ability to tax you fairly? You are ready to hand over 100% of the healthcare system to the US government? You've never had a government employee make a mistake when getting a drivers license, registering to vote, or anything else?
Hmmm, volunteers who are there as part of a non-government agency's effort to provide medical care? Build schools? Install wells and sewage treatment systems?