*sigh*...okay...we're talking about the plausibility of the documents, so we don't need to talk about the alcoholism...I already said "yeah, he may be an alcoholic", so you can leave that alone.
Anyway, "you didn't want anyone to see memos that you wrote that opposed [alcoholic] behavior" was what you said. *Why* in the name of all that's holy would LTC Killian take his notes to Houston to get them typed up, rather than have his secretary (whom he evidently trusted) type them up, regardless of whether he had to wait for her to get back from vacation. Did she need them typed first, for some reason?
That's the part that makes this less than plausible to me. It's not about whether they had to be secretive or who was an alcoholic, it's the assumption that there would have been a passably good reason for him to have had someone other than his sectetary type the memos up for him at all. Again, if your whole goal is to fool people, and you want to pass something off on national TV, it's not laughable to try to impress the people likely to be validating the document. It's sensible, in fact. The fact that you're not the only person who thinks they *look* appropriate (not real) bears that out.
They are atypical of normal typed memos, barring an unusual instance where they were typeset for some nebulous reason by someone other than LTC Killian's secretary, and there isn't anything to indicate that there would be a decent reason for that to have happened, especially because of the nature of the memos.
Well, the issue of whether or not they are forgeries is important to the discussion, here, since if they *are* forged, it implies that someone sought to deliberately present information that doesn't (as far as anyone has said so far) exist anywhere.
You talked about them being plausible, and my response was specific, if sarcastic: If Col. Killian routinely had his secretary type documents of this type (and she said that he did), then why is it plausible that they were sent off to be typeset, when she herself stated that they reflected things she herself had typed.
If these documents were meant to be part of a personal CYA file, and they had already been typed by his secretary (not typeset) why would he bother sending them off to be typeset? We're talking about personal documents that would ostensibly never be viewed by anyone other than himself, and if he did need to show them to someone else, proportional spacing and kerning wouldn't be a big deal...they weren't press releases or some report to be delivered to higher-ups.
These are the two things that make the presented documents seem less than plausible, not from the point of view of whether they might have been typeset, and not from the point of view of whether or not they represent Col. Kilian's point of view, but from the point of view of "why would these documents exist in this form?".
I see interlaced in both of your lengthier posts a lot of comments about alcoholism and the current state of governmental affairs in Iraq. You seem to believe that Bush is an alcoholic (maybe), and that something about the psychological effects that relate to that causing the situation in Iraq and the reputation of the US to be irreparably harmed, at least for the next 50 years.
I don't draw the same conclusions as you. Having been in Iraq for a period of time in early 1991, I have some small insight into how the people who lived there appeared to feel about life with Saddam Hussein, and despite recent statements about how much worse things are now, I didn't meet hordes of people who were happy with either their treatment by him or their conscription into his armies.
There are currently a lot of people in Iraq who would very much like to see any new democratic government fail, so, yes, there is instability. To say that Saddam's rule is preferable to the possibility of representative government in Iraq, though, is nonsensical, unless you presume that the people living there do not wish to have a voice in what happens in their country.
As for the reputation of the US in the world, I would say two things. First, we are far from the only country with mud on its face following Saddam's removal from Iraq. The barely-mentioned (these days) oil-for-food scandal is important, and it appears that while the US tarnished her image by "going it alone" in Iraq, Russia, Germany, France, and even Japan decided that UN sanctions were less important than making a buck, when dealing with Saddam's Iraq...everybody's lost some "shine".
Second, and this is so close to a partisan talking point that I'm hesitant to regurgitate it, our government's first duty is not to be respected in the international community, it's to provide an environment for our citizens to be able to enjoy their respective rights. Part of doing that is making decisions about what and who threatens the safety of all of us who live here.
It's easy to look back and say "the intelligence was wrong, we shouldn't have gone", but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the present reality after doing so, and it doesn't mean that someone else would have made a different decision in the same circumstances.
I'm getting a bit far afield from the post I'm replying to, but I'm also responding to some other things you've mentioned here. Back to that, now.
If you have a lifelong interest in typesetting, and the alleged forger would have impressed you, then they likely would impress others with expertise on that subject. Why would someone want to do that? It's pretty plain to see, I should think. They wanted the documents to pass the smell test and get aired on a major news channel (which they did), and hopefully cause some turmoil during this last bit of election season. I don't know why that would be hard to grasp, but there it is for you.
Ahh, the old "let's pick the least likely scenario just because it's remotely possible that it could explain things" trick.
So, you (or whoever actually wrote this) are saying that the documents are legitimate, even though no-one involved believes the documents to be authentic, and though no-one involved believes that the documents were sent out to be typeset?
I suppose you also believe that when dealing with an alcoholic, it's best to write up a memo yourself and take it to the typesetter, in order to leave a favorable impression on people who will hopefully never read it?
The content of the memos may, indeed, be correct, but those thoughts on it are just plain silly.
I'm not normally one to get all emotional and curse, but I am *extremely* fucking happy to hear this. About half my current spam comes from errant hotmail accounts. Here's to seeing the daily spam-count drop like a rock (until the hotmail vs. perl/wget-spam scripting war commences).
Great, but how do you stop a 12-year-old from trading a few hours use of hus key for booze/cigarettes/drugs/whatever without making him/her identifiable? If the dongle has data inside it, somebody will figure out how to get the data out and/or simulate the device, so you'd pretty much *have* to have an interactive authentication process where the user verifies that they're the rightfu owner of the dongle (just like a server or personal cert is tied to a specific address or person, there'd have to be some kind of identifiable information associated with the dongle, and I think the CPA would be at odds with that).
Then you have the problem of people who know how to extract data from a dongle creating databases of keys from corrupt machines...it's ugly, man. Ugly.
Actually, it only says that it proves age and gender, not identity. Seems pointless to me unless they figure out a way to make duplication impossible (and how likely is *that*?).
Bobby won't get shunned because his USB token isn't tied specifically to him (probably for obvious reasons concerning privacy), so the cigarettes (or beer) for key trade would work just fine.
That's a good question...how many insurgents were polled? Evidently you know, or else you wouldn't mention it.
Then, again, this *is* slashdot...
Seriously, though...assuming (as you appear to) that people in hostile locations weren't polled, how do you accomplish that?
Side-note: I'm not a W supporter, but I'm employed...don't vote Kerry out of stupidity, please. Plenty of presidential alternatives to the awful two big ones at www.vote-smart.org
I didn't miss the point. I understand your frustration. I disagree with your analysis. In our fictional example (where you have to e-mail somebody to get your encrypted data back), you would have agreed to having that happen. I would expect that real-world vendors would also put notices in place before instituting such a system.
If you're saying that, knowing full well that using a hacked key would get your drive's data encrypted, you would go ahead and use it anyway, then I don't understand. Your existing CD's on disk don't apply to this situation, since their vendors aren't going to do anything except sick the BSA on you, if you have deep enough pockets. You're mixing two different scenarios...the legality of you being able to use software for which you have a license for is one thing, violating the terms of an agreement is another.
Here's the problem with this line of reasoning...in your example, you would have signed a contract saying "Please install a 10 ton anvil at the door to break the skull of anyone entering with a key other than the one you gave me, even if it's me". Who's fault is that, again?
The right to use the product (which you purchased) was given to you by the person that created it, based on certain conditions. If one of those conditions is that you face having your data encrypted if you use a hacked key, and you stupidly say "okay, sounds good, whatever", then you get what you deserve.
If the author is encrypting files, and says ahead of time that he/she will do so under certain circumstances, and you're too thick or hurried to read the stuff after "End-user License Agreement:" or "Terms and Conditions of Use:" that says so, you might be surprised, but the situation is not extortion if the remedy is e-mailing the author. Agreements are agreements...read them and decide if they sound good to you before acquiescing.
No, you wrote in the EULA that usage of a hacked key would cause the software to encrypt his data...tit for tat. He agreed to the terms and used a hacked key, so this isn't undue excercise of power or wresting of a thing by force, it's the result of a contractual agreement.
Not extortion (unless the author of the software is stupid enough to not mention what will ahppen to people who use hacked keys in the EULA).
If you can show the expense on the credit card bill, it shouldn't be hard to contact the software vendor and get a new key. Going to a site to get a hacked key is not only illegal, it's lazy and pointless, if you actually paid for it. If you're not savvy enough to have a copy of the serial number somewhere, does that mean the vendor should just say "oh, okay, use a hacked key"? How, exactly is he supposed to know that you bought the software but were too lazy to ask for a replacement key?
Extortion involves the comingling of two things, extraction of something (the person's e-mail address, in this case), and doing so by force, or unfairly.
Since nothing is being forcibly requested (give me your address and I'll give you a key...tit for tat, no preemption), and it's evident to a reasonable person that the request is not unfair, it's highly unlikely that this would be considered extortion.
They said "hacked serial numbers", not "pirated copies". You would have used your (legitimate) serial number and would have been unaffected, presumably.
Or, you could say that it ensures that the workers aren't saddled with union dues, mandatory work stoppages, or the other things that unions require.
Negotiating the terms of my employment is *my* right...I'd rather have a choice in how I do it. You like unions, and that's fine...don't assume that everyone else finds them a perfect fit.
All right...I'll admit it, this one got by me...still not sure what kind of phishing attack a link redirecting me to "www.earthlink.net" would enable, but I guess I'm just not up to snuff on all this phishing stuff.
Do what I do...go on a crusade. The next time a 95-percenter says "man, I got TOTALLY hosed by virus X", ask him if he has an old PC lying around, and set him up.
Up-to-date antivirus software and a hardware firewall will stop most of those machines from ever being used as open proxies or open relays, and you can sell it on the "hey, just buy one of those 'hub' thingies, and you can connect more than one computer to the internet at the SAME time!" (from past experience, try to stand back so when their jaws drop they don't hit your shoes).
Even non-techies are cheap...they'll bite, especially on a pitch made by their personal geek friend.
Where in there did I say I was going to explain what a blow job is to a 7-year old? For that matter, I thought our previous president (with waaaaay to much help from the media) had pushed that particular issue right out into the light of day. No, I'm not informing my kids all about blow jobs, and I'm raising them to know that if they have a question about something they *do* hear from their friends, they should talk about it with mom and dad.
I agree with you, now go back and read my post again, and try to focus on how I was giving an explanation for why the FCC regulates speech in broadcasts.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, "you didn't want anyone to see memos that you wrote that opposed [alcoholic] behavior" was what you said. *Why* in the name of all that's holy would LTC Killian take his notes to Houston to get them typed up, rather than have his secretary (whom he evidently trusted) type them up, regardless of whether he had to wait for her to get back from vacation. Did she need them typed first, for some reason?
That's the part that makes this less than plausible to me. It's not about whether they had to be secretive or who was an alcoholic, it's the assumption that there would have been a passably good reason for him to have had someone other than his sectetary type the memos up for him at all. Again, if your whole goal is to fool people, and you want to pass something off on national TV, it's not laughable to try to impress the people likely to be validating the document. It's sensible, in fact. The fact that you're not the only person who thinks they *look* appropriate (not real) bears that out.
They are atypical of normal typed memos, barring an unusual instance where they were typeset for some nebulous reason by someone other than LTC Killian's secretary, and there isn't anything to indicate that there would be a decent reason for that to have happened, especially because of the nature of the memos.
You talked about them being plausible, and my response was specific, if sarcastic: If Col. Killian routinely had his secretary type documents of this type (and she said that he did), then why is it plausible that they were sent off to be typeset, when she herself stated that they reflected things she herself had typed.
If these documents were meant to be part of a personal CYA file, and they had already been typed by his secretary (not typeset) why would he bother sending them off to be typeset? We're talking about personal documents that would ostensibly never be viewed by anyone other than himself, and if he did need to show them to someone else, proportional spacing and kerning wouldn't be a big deal...they weren't press releases or some report to be delivered to higher-ups.
These are the two things that make the presented documents seem less than plausible, not from the point of view of whether they might have been typeset, and not from the point of view of whether or not they represent Col. Kilian's point of view, but from the point of view of "why would these documents exist in this form?".
I see interlaced in both of your lengthier posts a lot of comments about alcoholism and the current state of governmental affairs in Iraq. You seem to believe that Bush is an alcoholic (maybe), and that something about the psychological effects that relate to that causing the situation in Iraq and the reputation of the US to be irreparably harmed, at least for the next 50 years.
I don't draw the same conclusions as you. Having been in Iraq for a period of time in early 1991, I have some small insight into how the people who lived there appeared to feel about life with Saddam Hussein, and despite recent statements about how much worse things are now, I didn't meet hordes of people who were happy with either their treatment by him or their conscription into his armies.
There are currently a lot of people in Iraq who would very much like to see any new democratic government fail, so, yes, there is instability. To say that Saddam's rule is preferable to the possibility of representative government in Iraq, though, is nonsensical, unless you presume that the people living there do not wish to have a voice in what happens in their country.
As for the reputation of the US in the world, I would say two things. First, we are far from the only country with mud on its face following Saddam's removal from Iraq. The barely-mentioned (these days) oil-for-food scandal is important, and it appears that while the US tarnished her image by "going it alone" in Iraq, Russia, Germany, France, and even Japan decided that UN sanctions were less important than making a buck, when dealing with Saddam's Iraq...everybody's lost some "shine".
Second, and this is so close to a partisan talking point that I'm hesitant to regurgitate it, our government's first duty is not to be respected in the international community, it's to provide an environment for our citizens to be able to enjoy their respective rights. Part of doing that is making decisions about what and who threatens the safety of all of us who live here.
It's easy to look back and say "the intelligence was wrong, we shouldn't have gone", but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the present reality after doing so, and it doesn't mean that someone else would have made a different decision in the same circumstances.
I'm getting a bit far afield from the post I'm replying to, but I'm also responding to some other things you've mentioned here. Back to that, now.
If you have a lifelong interest in typesetting, and the alleged forger would have impressed you, then they likely would impress others with expertise on that subject. Why would someone want to do that? It's pretty plain to see, I should think. They wanted the documents to pass the smell test and get aired on a major news channel (which they did), and hopefully cause some turmoil during this last bit of election season. I don't know why that would be hard to grasp, but there it is for you.
So, you (or whoever actually wrote this) are saying that the documents are legitimate, even though no-one involved believes the documents to be authentic, and though no-one involved believes that the documents were sent out to be typeset?
I suppose you also believe that when dealing with an alcoholic, it's best to write up a memo yourself and take it to the typesetter, in order to leave a favorable impression on people who will hopefully never read it?
The content of the memos may, indeed, be correct, but those thoughts on it are just plain silly.
Friended you, since I don't have mod points today.
I'm not normally one to get all emotional and curse, but I am *extremely* fucking happy to hear this. About half my current spam comes from errant hotmail accounts. Here's to seeing the daily spam-count drop like a rock (until the hotmail vs. perl/wget-spam scripting war commences).
Then you have the problem of people who know how to extract data from a dongle creating databases of keys from corrupt machines...it's ugly, man. Ugly.
Oh, sure...just discount the obvious attraction of zero-gee sex...
Bobby won't get shunned because his USB token isn't tied specifically to him (probably for obvious reasons concerning privacy), so the cigarettes (or beer) for key trade would work just fine.
Somebody kill him. Kill him now.
Then, again, this *is* slashdot...
Seriously, though...assuming (as you appear to) that people in hostile locations weren't polled, how do you accomplish that?
Side-note: I'm not a W supporter, but I'm employed...don't vote Kerry out of stupidity, please. Plenty of presidential alternatives to the awful two big ones at www.vote-smart.org
If you're saying that, knowing full well that using a hacked key would get your drive's data encrypted, you would go ahead and use it anyway, then I don't understand. Your existing CD's on disk don't apply to this situation, since their vendors aren't going to do anything except sick the BSA on you, if you have deep enough pockets. You're mixing two different scenarios...the legality of you being able to use software for which you have a license for is one thing, violating the terms of an agreement is another.
The right to use the product (which you purchased) was given to you by the person that created it, based on certain conditions. If one of those conditions is that you face having your data encrypted if you use a hacked key, and you stupidly say "okay, sounds good, whatever", then you get what you deserve.
If the author is encrypting files, and says ahead of time that he/she will do so under certain circumstances, and you're too thick or hurried to read the stuff after "End-user License Agreement:" or "Terms and Conditions of Use:" that says so, you might be surprised, but the situation is not extortion if the remedy is e-mailing the author. Agreements are agreements...read them and decide if they sound good to you before acquiescing.
Not extortion (unless the author of the software is stupid enough to not mention what will ahppen to people who use hacked keys in the EULA).
If you can show the expense on the credit card bill, it shouldn't be hard to contact the software vendor and get a new key. Going to a site to get a hacked key is not only illegal, it's lazy and pointless, if you actually paid for it. If you're not savvy enough to have a copy of the serial number somewhere, does that mean the vendor should just say "oh, okay, use a hacked key"? How, exactly is he supposed to know that you bought the software but were too lazy to ask for a replacement key?
Extortion involves the comingling of two things, extraction of something (the person's e-mail address, in this case), and doing so by force, or unfairly.
Since nothing is being forcibly requested (give me your address and I'll give you a key...tit for tat, no preemption), and it's evident to a reasonable person that the request is not unfair, it's highly unlikely that this would be considered extortion.
They said "hacked serial numbers", not "pirated copies". You would have used your (legitimate) serial number and would have been unaffected, presumably.
Negotiating the terms of my employment is *my* right...I'd rather have a choice in how I do it. You like unions, and that's fine...don't assume that everyone else finds them a perfect fit.
Like internet explorer does? Hell, where do you think Verisign got the idea?
*sigh*
Seems a moot point. I found a site a little while back that already sells countermeasures for this type of snooping...
Either that, or I'm right and they're wrong.
Up-to-date antivirus software and a hardware firewall will stop most of those machines from ever being used as open proxies or open relays, and you can sell it on the "hey, just buy one of those 'hub' thingies, and you can connect more than one computer to the internet at the SAME time!" (from past experience, try to stand back so when their jaws drop they don't hit your shoes).
Even non-techies are cheap...they'll bite, especially on a pitch made by their personal geek friend.
Nobody said it was, and if you read the post you replied to carefully, you'd realize that "remove all tags" isn't likely to make it moreso.
Look here and here.
This is slashdot...if you're here, you're probably a geek, and cheap to boot...build your own.
First link is for control freaks, second link is for putterers.
I agree with you, now go back and read my post again, and try to focus on how I was giving an explanation for why the FCC regulates speech in broadcasts.