As the linked stories point out, the main reason Spc. Manning was able (allegedly) to pack away so much material is because post-9/11, the Federal Government stopped stove-piping the various intel info streams, one of the issues that made 9/11 possible.
This incident points out one of the rationale for stove-piping intel: compartmentalization to reduce the likelihood of giving away the entire store to adversaries. As a result of this case, there has/is/will be reconsideration of the degree of information sharing between departments... hopefully with the result that the benefits are considered worth the risk.
At the same time, there will be reconsideration of how best to discourage future Mannings. Step 1: screw the Specialist up the ass. He will be getting out of Leavenworth about the same time as Jonathan Jay Pollard.
It's unfortunate that an evidently immature Sgt presented such a major data dump on Wikileaks. I think the service has real value, but I don't think they yet enjoy the level of editorial judgement to handle it, and will suffer for it.
Granted, the equipment depicted looks to be a combo of imported (drum scanner), cloned (Apple II), Soviet (tape drive), and in-house (track ball) equipment.
However, I'm going to make a wild-ass guess that the Cyrillic interface photo-editing software was home grown, and that's the significant value-add to the system.
DRM@Work: If someone runs a private webserver, and wants to restrict access to content what ever reason, they can knock themselves out enabling that restriction... but they should at least utilize a fig of authentication. How hard can it be to install basic access authentication and registration?
DRM@Home: If someone sells me media intended for my personal, private use, and then puts limits on my personal, private use, then I'll knock myself out working around the limits.
Organized labor barely matters anymore, except as something for the GOP to point at when they're looking for a way to divide the vote. As such, most working people are economically stuck shopping at Walmart, rather than exercising an option to benefit from cheap chinese stuff.
I should have been more clear: the Libertarian Party may siphon a few votes, but it's selected policies of the Party that are hypocritically used by the GOP. Lacking the deep pockets of libertarian-orient groups (eg. Cato), green organizations don't really factor into the equation.
I know it's second nature to tar both major US political parties with the "whores for business", and I've done it myself. However, in the 30 or so years since I started to pay attention to politics, this much has become crystal clear:
The Democratic Party gets confused, but is usually attentive to the interests of wage-earners.
The Republican Party is utterly attentive to the interests of concentrated wealth.
The Libertarian Party is a tool of the GOP, and always will be.
The only issues that make it onto the public agenda are where there's a balance of money and lobbying. So, the only way to do something that's helpful to 100 million working poor (or at this point, 300 million non-stinking rich) is to make it helpful to some segment of business interests.
<libertarian> If you want a university education, you can enter into contract with the one that best meets your goals. If the terms change, you are free to contract with a school whose terms you can abide by. The schools/faculty contract with the publishers, not you, and therefore it is not your concern. If the publishers and school collude to require temporary etexts, to the exclusion of paper, they are exercising their freedom to contract and associate. You are not required to obtain a college education, and no one is required to hire you if you elect not to obtain one. </libertarian>
Whoa, did I write that out loud? What I MEANT was, what Stallman said.
A social program would probably have to violate your privacy... but to what degree? To know where you live, what you make, what ails you, sure. You'll know that up front, everyone is in the same boat, and if that info is abused too much, there are political, and perhaps criminal, consequences.
Whereas, in the Facebook example (or any number of information aggregating firms) they pretend to not sell you out, but they have every incentive to not only do it, but hide that fact from you. When they abuse your information too much, the consequences are what, while you're getting blackballed for reasons unknown?
Is MySpace going to be any better? Allstate vs. State Farm? Visa v. MasterCard? Sure, most of the ways we individually interact with the economy are "voluntary". But, the practical options are such that, unless you're gonna unplug to the Ted Kaczenski-th degree, it's potaytoes, potahtoes.
"No privacy" coded into Facebook's DNA... so true. Reading Zuck's interview in the Sept 20th New Yorker allows one to better understand this explicit point, beyond the coarse Harvard email zingers. As the writer points out, Mr. Zuckerberg can afford to take the "open book" approach to life, since he's been on the favored side of the US economy - with the means to protect his livelihood - literally since childhood.
Socialism 101: the employees own their place of employment. It could be directly, such as a partnership, or via proxy (ie. shares of stock). Period.
Some people prefer a more indirect proxy (ie. a Socialist government). Obviously, *that* model has had problems.
Social Democratic parties prefer the employee-ownership part. But, rather than require it and overturn the whole apple cart, accept that yer gonna have owners exploiting employees, and use social welfare programs to ameliorate the "getting screwed" parts of capitalism.
To manage a social welfare system requires records of the beneficiaries. On the other hand, large firms selling products purporting to ameliorate the "getting screwed" parts of life require records of the beneficiaries, and may sell those records to other firms.
As you might guess from my previous post, I don't think corporations should enjoy the rights of a natural born person. Unfortunately, when Congress wrote the FOIA, they included language that for the purposes of the Act, a "person" can include a "corporation". See the circuit court's thinking for yourself in Google Scholar. Scroll down to section IV.B, line 501.
So, provided the Supreme Court rules narrowly within the bounds of the case (and considering that the Roberts Court almost always rules for the rights of corporations), I think AT&T is going to win.
A corporation is not a natural person, it is a fictitious entity, and so by definition has no privacy to protect. Each individual can protect their individual privacy. The individuals can band together into an association and protect their freedom of association (to some degree).
A corporation has trade secrets, which it protects as a proxy for the interests of the shareholders. There is already legislation and case law protecting trade secrets. A court should not confuse trade secrets with personal privacy.
Now that my "child" is off to college to figure out the adult living thing, I don't have to deal with the crank fear-mongering first hand, but I know it's out there.
Back in my parent-o-elementary-child days, whether AZ or HI, a new self-published tract warning of the latest insidious threat to our children would make its way as a wave through PTA and school inboxes every month or so.
So, it'll be a given that the SLOC Sheriff's love note will become a small tsunami, stuffing every US (and some Canadian) parent's physical and virtual mail box by Halloween.
Too bad it hasn't rated an entry in snopes.com, yet, so that a few plugged-in parents can get their heads back on straight.
The Prophet White did glimpse the Facebook, and spake: it sounds like a huge waste of time. And comScore found that it was so, that there was no longer a need to search, when what was sought is found.
I've been using MailStewart "Regular", which uses a built-in SQLite engine, and claims to be good for +100k records. The "Pro" version uses MySQL. The initial import and periodic update of the archive couldn't be simpilier.
If Apple had supported Flash on the Touch or Pad, there would have been no choice. YouTube, for instance, would have had no rationale to support Flash-less users. While almost any technology - Flash included - is eventually superseded, Apple's action makes the day I don't need Flash to watch most video, or that NetFlix pop-behinds don't peg my CPU, that much closer. It could be that the alternative will suck even more CPU cycles, but at the moment that doesn't seem likely.
It's too bad Ms. Reeves didn't elect to mount a defense, so that the case could be tried on its merits. If Blizzard elects to distribute a networked game client for free, and users elect not to connect to Blizzard's servers, that sounds like Blizzard's problem, not the 3rd party server admins. Unless Reeves was cut-and-pasting Blizzard's graphics, text, etc, and was referencing "World of Warcraft" without a trademark disclaimer, or was running a purloined copy of Blizzard's server software, I'm not sure where copyright infringement comes into play.
The client EULA applies to the users, not the server admin. Even if the EULA forbid running a server, the admin isn't a party to the contract.
I initially assumed that Blizzard was suing on the basis of the Blizzard v. bnetd, but Blizzard's pages on the subject don't make that clear, and I'm too cheap to pay rfcexpress.com or PACER to find out.
The researchers at the SLAC need to recheck their results, because Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia founder and a Eagle Forum "University" instructor has noted that E=mc^2 is a liberal plot.
Yet more experimental evidence that reality has a "liberal" bias.
Re: not growing v. losing... exactly. If someone wants to see a losing site, surf to kuro5hin.org. Once in a blue moon I'll surf there to see what's up, and find that the leading posts haven't changed in weeks. I could probably host the site on my DSL connection.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The Federal Government wasn't a customer, they were the customer. It didn't just buy products, it specified and directed their contractors efforts all the way back to the basic scientific R&D whose intended and accidental discoveries enabled much of the technological change.
Now, in growing alternative energy auto industry, it repeats the process, funding R&D and (this time indirectly) expanding the market.
How much was earlier US high tech driven by Federal subsidies? Most of it. Who were the early adopters? Bank home offices, process controls at big refineries, and defense/aerospace... lots and lots of defense/aerospace. Even if it was used for commercial aerospace, only by the fat of defense work were Boeing, Bunker Ramo, CDC, Convair, Douglas, HP, Hughes, IBM, Lockheed, Raytheon, TRW, et al, able to fund the purchase and/or development of ever more advanced automated controls, data processing, and networks.
Given how the US economy has been structured since the mid-Depression, I doubt we'd be having this electronic discussion, or even know why we weren't having it, without the Federal intervention that helped get the ball rolling.
It only seems different, this time, because this sort of automotive subsidy isn't driven by a defense or NASA contract.
Slashdot Mirror
As the linked stories point out, the main reason Spc. Manning was able (allegedly) to pack away so much material is because post-9/11, the Federal Government stopped stove-piping the various intel info streams, one of the issues that made 9/11 possible.
This incident points out one of the rationale for stove-piping intel: compartmentalization to reduce the likelihood of giving away the entire store to adversaries. As a result of this case, there has/is/will be reconsideration of the degree of information sharing between departments... hopefully with the result that the benefits are considered worth the risk.
At the same time, there will be reconsideration of how best to discourage future Mannings. Step 1: screw the Specialist up the ass. He will be getting out of Leavenworth about the same time as Jonathan Jay Pollard.
It's unfortunate that an evidently immature Sgt presented such a major data dump on Wikileaks. I think the service has real value, but I don't think they yet enjoy the level of editorial judgement to handle it, and will suffer for it.
If you're a typical Slashdot denizen it's never been used
Au contraire, you're thinking external interface. Typically, the built-in-test mode has been exercised thousands of times.
Granted, the equipment depicted looks to be a combo of imported (drum scanner), cloned (Apple II), Soviet (tape drive), and in-house (track ball) equipment.
However, I'm going to make a wild-ass guess that the Cyrillic interface photo-editing software was home grown, and that's the significant value-add to the system.
DRM@Work: If someone runs a private webserver, and wants to restrict access to content what ever reason, they can knock themselves out enabling that restriction... but they should at least utilize a fig of authentication. How hard can it be to install basic access authentication and registration?
DRM@Home: If someone sells me media intended for my personal, private use, and then puts limits on my personal, private use, then I'll knock myself out working around the limits.
Organized labor barely matters anymore, except as something for the GOP to point at when they're looking for a way to divide the vote. As such, most working people are economically stuck shopping at Walmart, rather than exercising an option to benefit from cheap chinese stuff.
I should have been more clear: the Libertarian Party may siphon a few votes, but it's selected policies of the Party that are hypocritically used by the GOP. Lacking the deep pockets of libertarian-orient groups (eg. Cato), green organizations don't really factor into the equation.
I know it's second nature to tar both major US political parties with the "whores for business", and I've done it myself. However, in the 30 or so years since I started to pay attention to politics, this much has become crystal clear:
Whoa, did I write that out loud? What I MEANT was, what Stallman said.
A social program would probably have to violate your privacy... but to what degree? To know where you live, what you make, what ails you, sure. You'll know that up front, everyone is in the same boat, and if that info is abused too much, there are political, and perhaps criminal, consequences.
Whereas, in the Facebook example (or any number of information aggregating firms) they pretend to not sell you out, but they have every incentive to not only do it, but hide that fact from you. When they abuse your information too much, the consequences are what, while you're getting blackballed for reasons unknown?
Is MySpace going to be any better? Allstate vs. State Farm? Visa v. MasterCard? Sure, most of the ways we individually interact with the economy are "voluntary". But, the practical options are such that, unless you're gonna unplug to the Ted Kaczenski-th degree, it's potaytoes, potahtoes.
"No privacy" coded into Facebook's DNA... so true. Reading Zuck's interview in the Sept 20th New Yorker allows one to better understand this explicit point, beyond the coarse Harvard email zingers. As the writer points out, Mr. Zuckerberg can afford to take the "open book" approach to life, since he's been on the favored side of the US economy - with the means to protect his livelihood - literally since childhood.
Socialism 101: the employees own their place of employment. It could be directly, such as a partnership, or via proxy (ie. shares of stock). Period.
Some people prefer a more indirect proxy (ie. a Socialist government). Obviously, *that* model has had problems.
Social Democratic parties prefer the employee-ownership part. But, rather than require it and overturn the whole apple cart, accept that yer gonna have owners exploiting employees, and use social welfare programs to ameliorate the "getting screwed" parts of capitalism.
To manage a social welfare system requires records of the beneficiaries. On the other hand, large firms selling products purporting to ameliorate the "getting screwed" parts of life require records of the beneficiaries, and may sell those records to other firms.
Potaytoes, potahtoes.
Satellites are also capable of shooting oblique views, too. I have no idea what Google did.
As you might guess from my previous post, I don't think corporations should enjoy the rights of a natural born person. Unfortunately, when Congress wrote the FOIA, they included language that for the purposes of the Act, a "person" can include a "corporation". See the circuit court's thinking for yourself in Google Scholar. Scroll down to section IV.B, line 501.
So, provided the Supreme Court rules narrowly within the bounds of the case (and considering that the Roberts Court almost always rules for the rights of corporations), I think AT&T is going to win.
A corporation is not a natural person, it is a fictitious entity, and so by definition has no privacy to protect. Each individual can protect their individual privacy. The individuals can band together into an association and protect their freedom of association (to some degree).
A corporation has trade secrets, which it protects as a proxy for the interests of the shareholders. There is already legislation and case law protecting trade secrets. A court should not confuse trade secrets with personal privacy.
Now that my "child" is off to college to figure out the adult living thing, I don't have to deal with the crank fear-mongering first hand, but I know it's out there.
Back in my parent-o-elementary-child days, whether AZ or HI, a new self-published tract warning of the latest insidious threat to our children would make its way as a wave through PTA and school inboxes every month or so.
So, it'll be a given that the SLOC Sheriff's love note will become a small tsunami, stuffing every US (and some Canadian) parent's physical and virtual mail box by Halloween.
Too bad it hasn't rated an entry in snopes.com, yet, so that a few plugged-in parents can get their heads back on straight.
The Prophet White did glimpse the Facebook, and spake: it sounds like a huge waste of time. And comScore found that it was so, that there was no longer a need to search, when what was sought is found.
I've been using MailStewart "Regular", which uses a built-in SQLite engine, and claims to be good for +100k records. The "Pro" version uses MySQL. The initial import and periodic update of the archive couldn't be simpilier.
If Apple had supported Flash on the Touch or Pad, there would have been no choice. YouTube, for instance, would have had no rationale to support Flash-less users. While almost any technology - Flash included - is eventually superseded, Apple's action makes the day I don't need Flash to watch most video, or that NetFlix pop-behinds don't peg my CPU, that much closer. It could be that the alternative will suck even more CPU cycles, but at the moment that doesn't seem likely.
It's too bad Ms. Reeves didn't elect to mount a defense, so that the case could be tried on its merits. If Blizzard elects to distribute a networked game client for free, and users elect not to connect to Blizzard's servers, that sounds like Blizzard's problem, not the 3rd party server admins. Unless Reeves was cut-and-pasting Blizzard's graphics, text, etc, and was referencing "World of Warcraft" without a trademark disclaimer, or was running a purloined copy of Blizzard's server software, I'm not sure where copyright infringement comes into play.
The client EULA applies to the users, not the server admin. Even if the EULA forbid running a server, the admin isn't a party to the contract.
I initially assumed that Blizzard was suing on the basis of the Blizzard v. bnetd, but Blizzard's pages on the subject don't make that clear, and I'm too cheap to pay rfcexpress.com or PACER to find out.
For future reference, attempt to "get" the punchline.
The researchers at the SLAC need to recheck their results, because Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia founder and a Eagle Forum "University" instructor has noted that E=mc^2 is a liberal plot.
Yet more experimental evidence that reality has a "liberal" bias.
Re: not growing v. losing... exactly. If someone wants to see a losing site, surf to kuro5hin.org. Once in a blue moon I'll surf there to see what's up, and find that the leading posts haven't changed in weeks. I could probably host the site on my DSL connection.
And while I'm on this point, there was an entrenched base: the entire infrastructure of the existing Federal Government, armed forces included.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The Federal Government wasn't a customer, they were the customer. It didn't just buy products, it specified and directed their contractors efforts all the way back to the basic scientific R&D whose intended and accidental discoveries enabled much of the technological change.
Now, in growing alternative energy auto industry, it repeats the process, funding R&D and (this time indirectly) expanding the market.
How much was earlier US high tech driven by Federal subsidies? Most of it. Who were the early adopters? Bank home offices, process controls at big refineries, and defense/aerospace... lots and lots of defense/aerospace. Even if it was used for commercial aerospace, only by the fat of defense work were Boeing, Bunker Ramo, CDC, Convair, Douglas, HP, Hughes, IBM, Lockheed, Raytheon, TRW, et al, able to fund the purchase and/or development of ever more advanced automated controls, data processing, and networks.
Given how the US economy has been structured since the mid-Depression, I doubt we'd be having this electronic discussion, or even know why we weren't having it, without the Federal intervention that helped get the ball rolling.
It only seems different, this time, because this sort of automotive subsidy isn't driven by a defense or NASA contract.