The idea of "equality for all" leads to the brain-damaged ideal of seeking out anyone different and giving them special treatment, whether they're poor or a woman or black or whatever.
Now that people seem to've gotten the idea of how leaking of information can work in the "information century" with almost no risk to them...
That alone is probably the biggest reason they're going to such great lengths to demonize and make an example of Julian Assange and (especially) Bradley Manning. If they can convict either for a serious enough charge, it will cause quite a few people to think twice before leaking documents via Wikileaks, or any other similar website. It's less about what they did, and more about what others might do.
Just as it is Amazon's right to either provide or not provide services to Wikileaks - it is MY right to judge them based on that and make my future spending decisions based on that. They don't want to host Wikileaks anymore? Fine, but they're not going to be getting my dollars either anymore.
I believe that if the US Government wanted to stop Wikileaks, they'd simply bomb the data centers. Electronic attacks like this are not what this government does; It's what its citizens do.
I beg to differ:
"USCYBERCOM plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks; and prepare to, when directed, conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."
Looks like they're "denying the same to their adversaries" (maybe).
I was a little unclear I guess. I was making the point that it indeed could have been "China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed" as posited by the GP.
If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.
I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).
A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.
It's most definitely a US missile of some sort.
Cool theory, except for the part where they evidently weren't caught. So yes, maybe their stealth sub is THAT GOOD that they can fire a missle a few miles off our coast and get away with it.
Countries having the capability of underwater launch include China, Russia, Britain, US, and maybe Iran and India using ex soviet era subs. Maybe a couple others.
France does. India is developing their own sub/missile which should be ready shortly (according to wikipedia). It wouldn't surprise me if Isreal has this capability as well. The one thing that struck me as somewhat odd when reading the wikipedia page on SLBMs was this: The five countries that are known to have SLBM capability are the five permanent members of the UN security council. India, the only other nation listed on that page, is indicated to be developing SLBMs. The other day, wasn't Obama advocating the inclusion of India as a permanent member of the security council? Something seems a little fishy to me.
BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"
They do launch ICBMs. Currently our only SLBM in service (UGM-133) also meets the criteria for an ICBM since its range is 11000km, easily above the 5500km requirement to make it an ICBM. In fact, I'm pretty sure all SLBMs are also ICBMs (with the exclusion of cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk, for example)
Same thing with these machines. They don't actually go into your car with them. They "search" the ambient air, everything within your car is plain view in certain EM frequency ranges. See? The same principle could be argued for these machines as has been done with dogs.
If I were a judge, I wouldn't be any more likely accept evidence obtained through the use of a dog than evidence obtained with the aid of fucking divining rods. Dogs easily can be coaxed into "alerting" by their handler, without raising suspicions of the casual observer. I have seen this happen when a friend of mine got pulled over. No drugs have ever been in his car. He simply has the type of personality where people always think he's stoned, even though he usually isn't. The Grateful Dead bumper sticker couldn't have helped either. Anyway, the cop brings the dog out, walks it around a couple times with no results. Then the officer said something (hard to hear, but sounded something like "get it boy") to the dog, at which point the dog started scratching a bit at the ground/bottom area of the door. This supposedly gave him probable cause, so he searched the vehicle and found nothing.
Here's a couple tips. Put sensitive items inside a package of ground beef. When the dog starts going crazy over the meat, they'll often be put away. Deer urine sprayed on the tires or in the trunk a bit can help too.
If you RTFA you will see that this is all for your benefit. "state privacy laws would prohibit individuals or private companies from abusing the vans, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing the same."
See? Now calm down and get back to work, peasant.
**WHEW**
I was worried - good thing that's all cleared up now. Back to work for me...
If a driver becomes unconscious, then he also becomes a passenger. If he is no longer in control of the vehicle (by virtue of being unconscious), how can you still refer to him as the driver?
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of "equality for all" leads to the brain-damaged ideal of seeking out anyone different and giving them special treatment, whether they're poor or a woman or black or whatever.
That is exactly not equality.
I do it mostly because I'm a cheap bastard.
Now that people seem to've gotten the idea of how leaking of information can work in the "information century" with almost no risk to them...
That alone is probably the biggest reason they're going to such great lengths to demonize and make an example of Julian Assange and (especially) Bradley Manning. If they can convict either for a serious enough charge, it will cause quite a few people to think twice before leaking documents via Wikileaks, or any other similar website. It's less about what they did, and more about what others might do.
Just as it is Amazon's right to either provide or not provide services to Wikileaks - it is MY right to judge them based on that and make my future spending decisions based on that. They don't want to host Wikileaks anymore? Fine, but they're not going to be getting my dollars either anymore.
I care.
I believe that if the US Government wanted to stop Wikileaks, they'd simply bomb the data centers. Electronic attacks like this are not what this government does; It's what its citizens do.
I beg to differ:
"USCYBERCOM plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks; and prepare to, when directed, conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."
Looks like they're "denying the same to their adversaries" (maybe).
That (and this whole story) reminds me of this lovely bit from Spinal Tap.
Like anyone is going to go into court and say "I was molesting this guy and he beat me up". That really doesn't sound like a case, does it?
Of course not. They'd say "I was conducting a routine pat down search in accordance with the TSA's standard procedure and he assaulted me".
I was a little unclear I guess. I was making the point that it indeed could have been "China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed" as posited by the GP.
If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.
I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).
A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.
It's most definitely a US missile of some sort.
Cool theory, except for the part where they evidently weren't caught. So yes, maybe their stealth sub is THAT GOOD that they can fire a missle a few miles off our coast and get away with it.
Countries having the capability of underwater launch include China, Russia, Britain, US, and maybe Iran and India using ex soviet era subs. Maybe a couple others.
France does. India is developing their own sub/missile which should be ready shortly (according to wikipedia). It wouldn't surprise me if Isreal has this capability as well. The one thing that struck me as somewhat odd when reading the wikipedia page on SLBMs was this: The five countries that are known to have SLBM capability are the five permanent members of the UN security council. India, the only other nation listed on that page, is indicated to be developing SLBMs. The other day, wasn't Obama advocating the inclusion of India as a permanent member of the security council? Something seems a little fishy to me.
I wasn't quite aware of that distinction, thanks for the tip.
It was Nov 9 20:00 GMT? That's in the future. About 1h 20m from now.
BTW Subs do not launch intercontinental ballistic missiles "ICBMs". They launch Sub launched ballistic missiles "SLBMs"
They do launch ICBMs. Currently our only SLBM in service (UGM-133) also meets the criteria for an ICBM since its range is 11000km, easily above the 5500km requirement to make it an ICBM. In fact, I'm pretty sure all SLBMs are also ICBMs (with the exclusion of cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk, for example)
They sound terrible. I certainly hope I never meet one.
I've never met a political party.
"Citation needed" usually gets on my nerves, but in this case, I must say to you: WOOOSH!!
Tip: If you're able to provide documentation of a person or event being "written out of history", then they weren't written out of history.
You'd be written in and out of the "history" books.
Zinoviev died, and was written out.
Trotski was murdered in Mexico, and was written out.
Hundreds and thousands were written out of existence, their tombstones chiseled clean.
[citation needed]
Where's the idiocracy tag when you need it?
About nine keystrokes away.
Trump card: It'll catch them damn moslem terr'ists who are trying to destroy your freedom.
Same thing with these machines. They don't actually go into your car with them. They "search" the ambient air, everything within your car is plain view in certain EM frequency ranges. See? The same principle could be argued for these machines as has been done with dogs.
If I were a judge, I wouldn't be any more likely accept evidence obtained through the use of a dog than evidence obtained with the aid of fucking divining rods. Dogs easily can be coaxed into "alerting" by their handler, without raising suspicions of the casual observer. I have seen this happen when a friend of mine got pulled over. No drugs have ever been in his car. He simply has the type of personality where people always think he's stoned, even though he usually isn't. The Grateful Dead bumper sticker couldn't have helped either. Anyway, the cop brings the dog out, walks it around a couple times with no results. Then the officer said something (hard to hear, but sounded something like "get it boy") to the dog, at which point the dog started scratching a bit at the ground/bottom area of the door. This supposedly gave him probable cause, so he searched the vehicle and found nothing.
Here's a couple tips. Put sensitive items inside a package of ground beef. When the dog starts going crazy over the meat, they'll often be put away. Deer urine sprayed on the tires or in the trunk a bit can help too.
If you RTFA you will see that this is all for your benefit. "state privacy laws would prohibit individuals or private companies from abusing the vans, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing the same." See? Now calm down and get back to work, peasant.
**WHEW**
I was worried - good thing that's all cleared up now. Back to work for me...
I
Am
Not
A
Merkin
You know those wrist watches that measure UV and tell you when you've been in the sun too long?
Nope
If a driver becomes unconscious, then he also becomes a passenger. If he is no longer in control of the vehicle (by virtue of being unconscious), how can you still refer to him as the driver?
Or maybe I'm just high.