Stories like this are strange to me. ("Keep it from blowing?")
My 1991 Volvo has more than 250,000 miles on it. I change the oil more or less when and if I remember to do it. It doesn't run any differently than it did ten years ago. It doesn't look like much, but I easily keep up with the "luxury pack" on the freeway, can accelerate from a freeway cruising speed, it handles corners like the nice European car that it is/was, and to really replace it is going to be a very expensive proposition, because I really don't want to trade down to a lesser car, be it a new car or just newer than my 20 year old Volvo.
Then I hear stories like yours where you have catastrophic failures within a couple of miles, and it kinda makes me scratch my head.
>It sounded like a fascinating job, until they said that the people they hired would be rotating into Iraq and >Afghanistan to work with the military units that were disarming the bombs for six months at a time.
Well, if you are among the ones that comes back with two arms and two legs, you might get to work as a recruiter at swap meets.
>OK, wise guy, tell me the difference between the toy and the bomb.
Someone set up us the toy.
There was no bomb. There's not really a valid reason to suspect that it was a bomb.
"Bomb" is not the issue. The decision process that exists to lead to a conclusion that there *could be a bomb* in that toy, is the single greatest threat that we have to national security today. Stupidity and lack of reasoning ability among authority figures is what makes us weak, and is what makes us unsafe.
Even I, still alive, cannot regain access to my MySpace account, because I lost access to the email address and forgot the password. There is the "salute" process. It doesn't work. They don't even respond.
It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry, and fast methods of getting prints out), but it took longer to get film ready to broadcast because of hard constraints on the processing time required.
Getting 16mm film from the camera to broadcast in a matter of hours was actually a pretty impressive, pretty expensive accomplishment, and would be a significant competitive advantage for one news agency over another.
Now, I personally remember this era of television, but I don't believe I ever heard a newscaster literally say "Film at 11." Any of you other old farts remember this and/or have a reference? I think it's one of those cultural idioms that sounds so good and is fully apropos to many situations, even if it was never really used in its original context. And in English it's an expression with a "nice" meter, a trochee and an iamb. Don't underestimate the appeal of a linguistic idiom based on the niceness of its sound.
I think it's important to note a couple of things:
1. Wikileaks has not as yet released anything that the New York Times has not also released, with the same redactions, and with the informed consent of the State Department.
2. Aside from the "sexual misconduct" accusation in Sweden, Assange has not been accused of breaking any law. He has, however, been tried and convicted in the minds of many people, but even in their minds, of breaking no specific law.
I believe that Assange is a convenient scapegoat that allows government to avoid confrontation with people in the military, the diplomatic corps, the foreign services office, etc.
It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner, and the world would have received the information but never heard the name "Julian Assange" or ever heard of anything called "Wikileaks".
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
If Assange had taken advantage of the myriad ways of distributing information so that we'd never have heard "wikileaks" or "Julian Assange", how would governments be responding to it now?
Thus far, Wikileaks and the New York Times have distributed the same subset of documents with the same redactions. If Wikileaks has committed a crime, the New York Times has committed the same crime with the informed consent of the State Department.
Putting aside the rape charges, Assange has not been accused of any particular crime.
Setting aside the accusations of rape in Sweden, what US law has Assange been accused of breaking?
In the current Wikileaks drama, it's interesting to note that Wikileaks has only presented the exact same documents with the same redactions as the New York Times, who has done so with the cooperation and informed consent of the State Department. As far as I know, he hasn't even been accused of a crime, and has certainly not been convicted of a crime that has a punishment consistent with what Ms. Palin is suggesting.
>No. Copyright is not a "right" in the sense that freedom of speech is a right, or the right of self-defense
Self-defense also isn't a right in the same sense as Freedom of Speech. So I think you are suggesting that only Constitutional Rights and certain other inalienable rights that you pick and choose should be defended, but other civil rights that stem from legislative sources need not be defended.
>These works have been forgotten about a long time ago. They should have been in public domain since nobody is profiting from them anymore.
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about. If I said your rights should be abridged (not only copyright, but any rights) how would you respond? I find your tagline most ironic, because it seems you want other people to pick and choose which of your rights should be defended.
As it should be. Theft deprives another person of his property.
Copyright infringement deprives another person of his rights.
Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.
>Because the architect wasn't commiting a [felony.]
Depending on the state, he was. He had a valid defense, but he still committed homicide. There can be some very subtle aspects to self defense. It's a good idea to learn the laws of your state. Some people make the assumption that "homicide is legal" in certain circumstances (self defense, castle doctrine, etc.) but it really is not that simple. You may be able to persuade a grand jury that your actions were defensible, but that's not the same thing as saying that you didn't commit homicide -- you *did* commit homicide, and your circumstances either amount to a statutory defense or else you convinced a grand jury of reasonable peers not to prosecute you.
I suggest whether you own a firearm or not, you learn how this works in your state. I think it would surprise you how many people are locked up in prison for decades, who didn't understand how the law works when it comes to self-defense.
Well, at a minimum, someone *in* the government is being less than diligent with regard to secrecy.
The fact that people insist on referring to these messages as "cables" is a strong indicator of how out of touch certain party are. It's too much to expect them to use any kind of modern security measures, or even to know about them. The security of every one of these documents was compromised upon being committed to any medium in clear text.
So far, Wikileaks has only released the same things with the same redactions as the New York Times has released with the informed consent of the State Department.
"Yeah technically they still have that restriction. But realistically you can do whatever you want. No one is going to come after you. They'll be happy if you eventually buy a license, not launch an investigation."
If the OP is the type who needs that assurance in writing, he hasn't gotten anywhere after this thread.
>The government just keeps overstepping it's boundaries.
It doesn't *have* any boundaries, because nobody is asserting any. It can step on anything it wants. So far it hasn't provoked the first shot of the revolution.
Tennessee is one of those places where the best and brightest and most educated will relocate to? Or one of the places where the smartest and most capable people tend to stay?
I'm surprised we aren't hearing from the BPM folks. There's a lot to be said for BPMN and XPDL, which are useful for (A.) communicating with people who understand the basic ideas of flowcharts and (B.) turning those charts into formal workflow definitions that can lead to some confidence that an offshore programming group can return something that resembles your specifications.
There's a school of thought that is firmly committed to the idea that the problems of Big Design Up Front are best solved with Even Bigger Design Up Front. My favorite laugh is when the same people also try to claim that they are doing some sort of "Agile."
My favorite tool for specifying code happens to be a combination of a programming language and the English language.
>Releasing the facts, unaltered and un-commentated, in their original context and form, without any interpretation
If that was the objective, then why have we ever heard the name "Julian Assange?" Why don't we just have the information from some anonymous source? The source gives it a context and adds bias to any interpretation. It also creates a point where control can be asserted.
Slashdot Mirror
Stories like this are strange to me. ("Keep it from blowing?")
My 1991 Volvo has more than 250,000 miles on it. I change the oil more or less when and if I remember to do it. It doesn't run any differently than it did ten years ago. It doesn't look like much, but I easily keep up with the "luxury pack" on the freeway, can accelerate from a freeway cruising speed, it handles corners like the nice European car that it is/was, and to really replace it is going to be a very expensive proposition, because I really don't want to trade down to a lesser car, be it a new car or just newer than my 20 year old Volvo.
Then I hear stories like yours where you have catastrophic failures within a couple of miles, and it kinda makes me scratch my head.
>It sounded like a fascinating job, until they said that the people they hired would be rotating into Iraq and
>Afghanistan to work with the military units that were disarming the bombs for six months at a time.
Well, if you are among the ones that comes back with two arms and two legs, you might get to work as a recruiter at swap meets.
>OK, wise guy, tell me the difference between the toy and the bomb.
Someone set up us the toy.
There was no bomb. There's not really a valid reason to suspect that it was a bomb.
"Bomb" is not the issue. The decision process that exists to lead to a conclusion that there *could be a bomb* in that toy, is the single greatest threat that we have to national security today. Stupidity and lack of reasoning ability among authority figures is what makes us weak, and is what makes us unsafe.
Even I, still alive, cannot regain access to my MySpace account, because I lost access to the email address and forgot the password. There is the "salute" process. It doesn't work. They don't even respond.
It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry, and fast methods of getting prints out), but it took longer to get film ready to broadcast because of hard constraints on the processing time required.
Getting 16mm film from the camera to broadcast in a matter of hours was actually a pretty impressive, pretty expensive accomplishment, and would be a significant competitive advantage for one news agency over another.
Now, I personally remember this era of television, but I don't believe I ever heard a newscaster literally say "Film at 11." Any of you other old farts remember this and/or have a reference? I think it's one of those cultural idioms that sounds so good and is fully apropos to many situations, even if it was never really used in its original context. And in English it's an expression with a "nice" meter, a trochee and an iamb. Don't underestimate the appeal of a linguistic idiom based on the niceness of its sound.
I think it's important to note a couple of things:
1. Wikileaks has not as yet released anything that the New York Times has not also released, with the same redactions, and with the informed consent of the State Department.
2. Aside from the "sexual misconduct" accusation in Sweden, Assange has not been accused of breaking any law. He has, however, been tried and convicted in the minds of many people, but even in their minds, of breaking no specific law.
I believe that Assange is a convenient scapegoat that allows government to avoid confrontation with people in the military, the diplomatic corps, the foreign services office, etc.
It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner, and the world would have received the information but never heard the name "Julian Assange" or ever heard of anything called "Wikileaks".
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
If Assange had taken advantage of the myriad ways of distributing information so that we'd never have heard "wikileaks" or "Julian Assange", how would governments be responding to it now?
Thus far, Wikileaks and the New York Times have distributed the same subset of documents with the same redactions. If Wikileaks has committed a crime, the New York Times has committed the same crime with the informed consent of the State Department.
Putting aside the rape charges, Assange has not been accused of any particular crime.
Setting aside the accusations of rape in Sweden, what US law has Assange been accused of breaking?
In the current Wikileaks drama, it's interesting to note that Wikileaks has only presented the exact same documents with the same redactions as the New York Times, who has done so with the cooperation and informed consent of the State Department. As far as I know, he hasn't even been accused of a crime, and has certainly not been convicted of a crime that has a punishment consistent with what Ms. Palin is suggesting.
>Only for the loosest definition of 'right.'
And, in this case, for any meaningful definition of Copyright.
You are suggesting that the rights reserved under Copyright are not rights. Or they don't meet your personal definition of "real rights."
We cannot have this conversation if you do not acknowledge copyrights as being rights.
>No. Copyright is not a "right" in the sense that freedom of speech is a right, or the right of self-defense
Self-defense also isn't a right in the same sense as Freedom of Speech. So I think you are suggesting that only Constitutional Rights and certain other inalienable rights that you pick and choose should be defended, but other civil rights that stem from legislative sources need not be defended.
I'm *so* glad you don't make the rules.
>These works have been forgotten about a long time ago. They should have been in public domain since nobody is profiting from them anymore.
That's your opinion, but it's someone else's rights you are talking about. If I said your rights should be abridged (not only copyright, but any rights) how would you respond? I find your tagline most ironic, because it seems you want other people to pick and choose which of your rights should be defended.
As it should be. Theft deprives another person of his property.
Copyright infringement deprives another person of his rights.
Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.
Or like a Web N.0 thing where sites construct whatever information you're supposed to want to see based on your search.
>Because the architect wasn't commiting a [felony.]
Depending on the state, he was. He had a valid defense, but he still committed homicide. There can be some very subtle aspects to self defense. It's a good idea to learn the laws of your state. Some people make the assumption that "homicide is legal" in certain circumstances (self defense, castle doctrine, etc.) but it really is not that simple. You may be able to persuade a grand jury that your actions were defensible, but that's not the same thing as saying that you didn't commit homicide -- you *did* commit homicide, and your circumstances either amount to a statutory defense or else you convinced a grand jury of reasonable peers not to prosecute you.
I suggest whether you own a firearm or not, you learn how this works in your state. I think it would surprise you how many people are locked up in prison for decades, who didn't understand how the law works when it comes to self-defense.
Well, at a minimum, someone *in* the government is being less than diligent with regard to secrecy.
The fact that people insist on referring to these messages as "cables" is a strong indicator of how out of touch certain party are. It's too much to expect them to use any kind of modern security measures, or even to know about them. The security of every one of these documents was compromised upon being committed to any medium in clear text.
So far, Wikileaks has only released the same things with the same redactions as the New York Times has released with the informed consent of the State Department.
... and the value less deductible of the insured replacement cost of the server, right?
"Yeah technically they still have that restriction. But realistically you can do whatever you want. No one is going to come after you. They'll be happy if you eventually buy a license, not launch an investigation."
If the OP is the type who needs that assurance in writing, he hasn't gotten anywhere after this thread.
>The government just keeps overstepping it's boundaries.
It doesn't *have* any boundaries, because nobody is asserting any. It can step on anything it wants. So far it hasn't provoked the first shot of the revolution.
>it would take half a day of exposure to become acutely ill
Of course you're trying to reassure people, but the very people you're trying to reach will find this information as more reason to panic.
Tennessee is one of those places where the best and brightest and most educated will relocate to? Or one of the places where the smartest and most capable people tend to stay?
I'm surprised we aren't hearing from the BPM folks. There's a lot to be said for BPMN and XPDL, which are useful for (A.) communicating with people who understand the basic ideas of flowcharts and (B.) turning those charts into formal workflow definitions that can lead to some confidence that an offshore programming group can return something that resembles your specifications.
There's a school of thought that is firmly committed to the idea that the problems of Big Design Up Front are best solved with Even Bigger Design Up Front. My favorite laugh is when the same people also try to claim that they are doing some sort of "Agile."
My favorite tool for specifying code happens to be a combination of a programming language and the English language.
>Releasing the facts, unaltered and un-commentated, in their original context and form, without any interpretation
If that was the objective, then why have we ever heard the name "Julian Assange?" Why don't we just have the information from some anonymous source? The source gives it a context and adds bias to any interpretation. It also creates a point where control can be asserted.