The US public was pulled into the war kicking and screaming. Roosevelt himself couldn't be convinced to go to war until Japan attacked, for all his interest in maintaining the status quo in the world and his buddy-buddy "former naval persons" relationship with Churchill.
Read any history of the period, Churchill was damn near tears going out of the August 12 1941 meeting with Teddy - he had failed again to convince him to intervene directly, for all that had been begging and cajoling and generally making a nuisance of himself for the past two years. All he got was the "Atlantic Charter", a collection of unsigned documents, which was made much of but started to look like the ridiculous bullshit it actually was by the time of the Yalta agreements.
Never underestimate the power of stupid. As for money: knowing USDA data ahead of everyone else can easily translate into advantages in the futures markets.
Bah. Computers skill to hack terminals, armor + ballistic protection aug, the maxed-out spy drone (most underrated augmentation ever), shooting out the sensors if you have enough sniper skill... the options are near-endless. Heck, even crawling works if you're patient enough.
Narrow-gauge light rail might work. This thing is supposed to deal primarily with infiltrators anyway. Not much discretion in blowing something up with a missile.
Well, Brazil chose to prosecute those people for actual crimes, such as murder and drug trafficking, not for made-up ones like terrorism which is best defined as "you did something illegal to make a political statement and that made us scared and angry".
That's a fairly reasonable position, especially from a country that has just recognized Palestine as an independent state within its 1967 borders. I don't see Kuwait or Saudi Arabia chasing down people within their borders who are financing Al Qaeda as accessories to murder.
Exactly the same way that the AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, or the BBC would do.
Yeah, except that they wouldn't. Not in this day and age. Witness the disgusting ballet of the Times, covering selected leaks that toe the party line (the botched Iranian missiles story is the most egregious example) and performing character assassination on Assange at the same time.
Here's my conspiracy theory, for what it's worth:
What Assange is doing, unfortunately, is not info-war, but info-revolution (despite his claims to the contrary).
He is setting himself and his followers up, quite carefully and deliberately, for martyrdom. All he does is calculated to provoke the governments of the world (the US especially) into over-reacting, in the hopes that they will thus mobilize and radicalize enough people for a global Intifada to happen in a generation or so.
Have you considered what would happen if Assange is declared a terrorist by the US? Suddenly anyone who ever helped him, supported him or gave him money will also become a terrorist in the eyes of the US government and so their bodies, property and even identities would be forfeit. We're talking hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who would suddenly find themselves on a no-fly list at the very least. Some will doubtlessly get all-expenses paid trips to Gitmo or sunny Afghanistan.
Most of the people who would be disappeared have families. All those families would start thinking seriously about blowing stuff up and toppling governments.
I have a better question for you: what makes you think the current list isn't longer? The one that's been leaked is from 2007. For all we know, the 20mm grenades for the XM25 are partly made of Upper Borgravian pixie dust.
It's a cheap way to inflict some small amount of financial loss and to assuage one's consciousness by not supporting the guilty. It's better than nothing, iow. What's your problem?
You don't need to be competent to try and bully people. Quite the opposite, in fact. By contrast, keeping secret things secret (and deciding in a cogent manner what should be secret) does require competence.
So... a classified system is used, but no logs of what use it has been put to remain? That's just unbelievable. I'd bet my bottom dollar security policies are better at WalMart.
He was the owner. There is no stated exception to the exception that says you can only move one phone you own to another network. How can selling stuff you legally own to a person that is legally able to buy and own it be illegal?
I believe that when one finds himself killing civilians deliberately, one's conscience should tell him to at least stop and find some other line of work.
The US military, as it now stands, is an all-volunteer force and it's relatively easy to quit, even in-theater, even in the midst of combat operations.
These guys choose to go on, even if they're doing things they must know are wrong ("Shoot unarmed bystanders or not?" is not a complicated moral call) so no, we don't really agree.
Slashdot Mirror
The US public was pulled into the war kicking and screaming. Roosevelt himself couldn't be convinced to go to war until Japan attacked, for all his interest in maintaining the status quo in the world and his buddy-buddy "former naval persons" relationship with Churchill.
Read any history of the period, Churchill was damn near tears going out of the August 12 1941 meeting with Teddy - he had failed again to convince him to intervene directly, for all that had been begging and cajoling and generally making a nuisance of himself for the past two years. All he got was the "Atlantic Charter", a collection of unsigned documents, which was made much of but started to look like the ridiculous bullshit it actually was by the time of the Yalta agreements.
Never underestimate the power of stupid. As for money: knowing USDA data ahead of everyone else can easily translate into advantages in the futures markets.
No need to use a tank. A mortar should be enough.
Bah. Computers skill to hack terminals, armor + ballistic protection aug, the maxed-out spy drone (most underrated augmentation ever), shooting out the sensors if you have enough sniper skill... the options are near-endless. Heck, even crawling works if you're patient enough.
Narrow-gauge light rail might work. This thing is supposed to deal primarily with infiltrators anyway. Not much discretion in blowing something up with a missile.
Oh, I'm sure Chavez would like nothing better than brag that he's the defender of freedom of speech worldwide.
Man up, Charlie.
Well, Brazil chose to prosecute those people for actual crimes, such as murder and drug trafficking, not for made-up ones like terrorism which is best defined as "you did something illegal to make a political statement and that made us scared and angry".
That's a fairly reasonable position, especially from a country that has just recognized Palestine as an independent state within its 1967 borders. I don't see Kuwait or Saudi Arabia chasing down people within their borders who are financing Al Qaeda as accessories to murder.
Yeah. Where "yy action" is "do not prosecute criminals in the employ of CIA who have kidnapped one of your innocent countrymen"
In essence, it's a trade embargo on a rogue nation.
In Swiss Bank, account saves YOU!
Yet MasterCard did not see fit to block the credit cards of NYT journalists. Fun times.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20023951-261.html
It is nasty stuff.
Thermite.
What names? Name one informant that has been put in danger.
Lamo is a snitch for snitching on Manning, the content of the documents notwithstanding. A rose by any other name...
Exactly the same way that the AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, or the BBC would do.
Yeah, except that they wouldn't. Not in this day and age. Witness the disgusting ballet of the Times, covering selected leaks that toe the party line (the botched Iranian missiles story is the most egregious example) and performing character assassination on Assange at the same time.
Here's my conspiracy theory, for what it's worth:
What Assange is doing, unfortunately, is not info-war, but info-revolution (despite his claims to the contrary).
He is setting himself and his followers up, quite carefully and deliberately, for martyrdom. All he does is calculated to provoke the governments of the world (the US especially) into over-reacting, in the hopes that they will thus mobilize and radicalize enough people for a global Intifada to happen in a generation or so.
Have you considered what would happen if Assange is declared a terrorist by the US? Suddenly anyone who ever helped him, supported him or gave him money will also become a terrorist in the eyes of the US government and so their bodies, property and even identities would be forfeit. We're talking hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who would suddenly find themselves on a no-fly list at the very least. Some will doubtlessly get all-expenses paid trips to Gitmo or sunny Afghanistan.
Most of the people who would be disappeared have families. All those families would start thinking seriously about blowing stuff up and toppling governments.
I have a better question for you: what makes you think the current list isn't longer? The one that's been leaked is from 2007. For all we know, the 20mm grenades for the XM25 are partly made of Upper Borgravian pixie dust.
It's a cheap way to inflict some small amount of financial loss and to assuage one's consciousness by not supporting the guilty. It's better than nothing, iow. What's your problem?
Assange is neither, at this point in time.
You don't need to be competent to try and bully people. Quite the opposite, in fact. By contrast, keeping secret things secret (and deciding in a cogent manner what should be secret) does require competence.
So... a classified system is used, but no logs of what use it has been put to remain? That's just unbelievable. I'd bet my bottom dollar security policies are better at WalMart.
It was, in that he slipped out reams of data, undetected. He was only stupid in bragging to known snitch Lamo.
He was the owner. There is no stated exception to the exception that says you can only move one phone you own to another network. How can selling stuff you legally own to a person that is legally able to buy and own it be illegal?
I believe that when one finds himself killing civilians deliberately, one's conscience should tell him to at least stop and find some other line of work.
The US military, as it now stands, is an all-volunteer force and it's relatively easy to quit, even in-theater, even in the midst of combat operations.
These guys choose to go on, even if they're doing things they must know are wrong ("Shoot unarmed bystanders or not?" is not a complicated moral call) so no, we don't really agree.