Because DNS is fundamentally insecure and there is no way to secure it without a re-write from the ground up. DNSSEC is a bandaid with a limited window of effectiveness. Ultimately, a cache receiving root glue has no way to validate that the glue is the legit root glue. And so they will become poisoned.
So, you are saying that DNS ought to mean Do Not Sniff glue?
These leaks have nothing to do with whistle-blowing to protect the people from the government, but instead hurt the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies.
Wikileaks is not an American organization. It is international. It doesn't have a duty to help the US government do anything.
One of the big disclosures in this set has been middle-eastern war-mongering against Iran. Almost all of the countries in the region have been secretly lobbying the US to attack Iran while publicly grandstanding on the opposite. Anyone in a free country that has been paying attention already knew that this was happening to some degree, but it wasn't publicly documented. Now it is and consequently the citizens of those middle-eastern countries are much better informed about what their leaders have been doing -- look at the state-controlled media there and coverage of this wikileaks disclosure has been extremely sparse - even al-jazeera which has built its reputation on being independent of government control has made little comment on the leak, presumable to protect their host government of Qatar. But the info is spreading via facebook and other social media because unlike the typical rumors and conspiracy theories that dominate middle-eastern discussion, this stuff is nearly indisputable.
So part of it may suck for the US government, but that's not the case for the rest of the human race.
Anybody know why it seems like we've responded with a much greater response this time round? Because these guys are suicide bombers? People worry more? Or did we respond at about the same level last time round?
I think we responded like it idiots because it was an exceptionally climatic event that everyone witnessed and the madness of crowds set in. We've had deadly terrorist attacks on airplanes for decades prior to 9/11. But they were rarely caught on film - at worst we only saw the aftermath in the form of rubble on the ground or debris on the water.
Actually he and his wife have given a couple talks at TED (TED.com) about the foundation he and his wife have setup.
Yeah, he went from being the 800lb gorilla in computers to being the 800lb gorilla in charities. I predict the same level of destruction to that ecosystem too.
Oh well, I guess it's true that when people don't have any useful ideas or comments left, they try name calling as if it's a legitimate debating tactic.
Can you tell the difference between my 'Insignia' brand bottom-of-the-barrel-but-good-enough-to-watch-football-with-my-browskies LCD TV and a top of the line cinemaphile disposable-income-eater of similar size just by the box, from space?)
And part of that regulation would be not providing access to a designated list of websites. Because they could.
Of course that's the wet dream of the MAFIAA and a bunch of other organizations and they are going to try their damndest to get that put into law regardless of net neutrality legislation. Just ask all the congressdroids making a stink about net neutrality, I guarantee they are amendable to that idea if you give it enough flowery words about "protecting" business and security and whatnot.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of americans have died to prevent that from happening.
When did that happen?
Ostensibly every war we've fought has been to preserve the freedom of the republic. If you include the reduction of lifespan due to causalities, that puts the number over a million.
Well dammit, tell him to get the telephoto lens out of his hand...
You jest in grammar. But, as I recall a lot of people thinking that he had deliberately displayed that document.
The first odd thing was that he was walking into the building using the very public front entrance used almost exclusively for photo-ops. The second odd thing was that the document's cover sheet was removed - anyone who has ever seen a classified document knows they have cover sheets to officially label them and prevent accidental disclosure. The third odd thing was that the event was used to justify pulling in the timetable on a bunch of terrorism raids (the document was apparently part of the investigation) - it's pure speculation but perhaps there had been hesitation on making the raids and this event was a internal political move to force someone's hand. I haven't been able to find out what success, if any, there has been with respect to prosecuting the people raided (even then, the standard of evidence in the UK (and the USA) for such things has been lowered to such a point of ridiculousness that a successful prosecution isn't as meaningful as it once was)
Is that really what you want? You are cheering on Wikileaks even when its actions are going to do no good at all, and might even lead to you personally being hurt?
I don't see you doing anything better. It just doesn't get any worse than a government that is no longer accountable to the citizenry. Nothing trumps that because it circumvents the democratic process - we can't vote on what we don't know. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of americans have died to prevent that from happening. Wikileaks is doing their damndest to fix it. Your opinion may be that it doesn't work, their opinion differs and they are doing something about it.
So yeah, even if it does lead to me personally being hurt, that's the price of freedom.
Okay - so say my sensitive online activity includes compulsively looking up pornography. How exactly, are you going to determine that its the kind of activity I don't want you to be inspecting, WITHOUT INSPECTING IT?
Exactly the same way all the other trackers like google's doubleclick let people "opt-out" - they still collect all the information about you, they just defer from showing you advertising that would remind you that you are still being tracked. Seriously the industry's idea of "opt out" is never to opt out of data collection, its just to opt out of obviously skeeving you out.
as you recall both the shoe bomber and captain underpants were young Arab men, as were all the 9/11 terrorists. Easily detected under a simple profiling rule - check all young Arab men.
And then the terrorists will switch to arab women. Or non-arab men. Or non-arab women
The other problem with racial profiling is that massive number of false positives. A post-facto analysis like saying that all airplane attackers were arab men ignores the fact well less than 1 in a million arab men are terrorists. So you improve your true positive ratio from say 1 in 40 million to 1 in 1 million, that's still only a 0.00001% accuracy rate which for all intents and purposes is zero.
So, racial profiling equals no effective improvement in security resource utilization but it does come with a heavy price. The best deterrent against radicalization is integration into society, but when society singles people out as "different" it becomes a barrier to integration. That;s not political correctness, that's empirical fact.
Replace with that with "pre-employment drug testing" and your example would be a case of something that has already happened. When the stock boy at Target must pass a drug test to get a job (a job so mind-numbing that you practically need to smoke a dube to unwind after work), all semblance of freedom has gone out the window.
You can't just release them to public domain. The copyright still belongs to the musician, the label just has an exclusive right to distribute the works.
The Eagles are an anomaly because they are megastars. Take a look at the copyright notice on most CDs - the copyright is owned by the label, not the band. They sell it in return for residuals.
and next thing you know you're being menaced by people with machineguns.
Seriously? Have you ever been to America? The number of people killed with machine guns is tiny - you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of cases in the last decade.
By citing such a ridiculous threat you only weaken your own argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Because DNS is fundamentally insecure and there is no way to secure it without a re-write from the ground up. DNSSEC is a bandaid with a limited window of effectiveness. Ultimately, a cache receiving root glue has no way to validate that the glue is the legit root glue. And so they will become poisoned.
So, you are saying that DNS ought to mean Do Not Sniff glue?
These leaks have nothing to do with whistle-blowing to protect the people from the government, but instead hurt the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies.
Wikileaks is not an American organization. It is international. It doesn't have a duty to help the US government do anything.
One of the big disclosures in this set has been middle-eastern war-mongering against Iran. Almost all of the countries in the region have been secretly lobbying the US to attack Iran while publicly grandstanding on the opposite. Anyone in a free country that has been paying attention already knew that this was happening to some degree, but it wasn't publicly documented. Now it is and consequently the citizens of those middle-eastern countries are much better informed about what their leaders have been doing -- look at the state-controlled media there and coverage of this wikileaks disclosure has been extremely sparse - even al-jazeera which has built its reputation on being independent of government control has made little comment on the leak, presumable to protect their host government of Qatar. But the info is spreading via facebook and other social media because unlike the typical rumors and conspiracy theories that dominate middle-eastern discussion, this stuff is nearly indisputable.
So part of it may suck for the US government, but that's not the case for the rest of the human race.
Oops, wrong link.
Anybody know why it seems like we've responded with a much greater response this time round? Because these guys are suicide bombers? People worry more? Or did we respond at about the same level last time round?
I think we responded like it idiots because it was an exceptionally climatic event that everyone witnessed and the madness of crowds set in. We've had deadly terrorist attacks on airplanes for decades prior to 9/11. But they were rarely caught on film - at worst we only saw the aftermath in the form of rubble on the ground or debris on the water.
Actually he and his wife have given a couple talks at TED (TED.com) about the foundation he and his wife have setup.
Yeah, he went from being the 800lb gorilla in computers to being the 800lb gorilla in charities.
I predict the same level of destruction to that ecosystem too.
Is this because you are a bitter jackass
Oh well, I guess it's true that when people don't have any useful ideas or comments left, they try name calling as if it's a legitimate debating tactic.
Lol! You made my day with that.
Perhaps you could clarify a little better.
Use the context Luke.
You should also try not assuming that everyone else is a dumbass.
NONE of the promises the current administration given to get votes, have been fulfilled
Actually, about one out of three have been kept.
They have dies to preserve freedom and democracy,
That's what I said.
It's simply a fallacy to think that our soldiers dies to make sure we knew every little detail of government.
That's your strawman. Make all the hay you want, doesn't change my point.
Can you tell the difference between my 'Insignia' brand bottom-of-the-barrel-but-good-enough-to-watch-football-with-my-browskies LCD TV and a top of the line cinemaphile disposable-income-eater of similar size just by the box, from space?)
If it's a big enough TV, then yes, yes we can.
And part of that regulation would be not providing access to a designated list of websites. Because they could.
Of course that's the wet dream of the MAFIAA and a bunch of other organizations and they are going to try their damndest to get that put into law regardless of net neutrality legislation. Just ask all the congressdroids making a stink about net neutrality, I guarantee they are amendable to that idea if you give it enough flowery words about "protecting" business and security and whatnot.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of americans have died to prevent that from happening.
When did that happen?
Ostensibly every war we've fought has been to preserve the freedom of the republic.
If you include the reduction of lifespan due to causalities, that puts the number over a million.
Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?
The summary was correct.
Google has a tag for newspapers that obey UK Defence Advisory Notices which put the brakes on a story.
Well dammit, tell him to get the telephoto lens out of his hand...
You jest in grammar. But, as I recall a lot of people thinking that he had deliberately displayed that document.
The first odd thing was that he was walking into the building using the very public front entrance used almost exclusively for photo-ops.
The second odd thing was that the document's cover sheet was removed - anyone who has ever seen a classified document knows they have cover sheets to officially label them and prevent accidental disclosure.
The third odd thing was that the event was used to justify pulling in the timetable on a bunch of terrorism raids (the document was apparently part of the investigation) - it's pure speculation but perhaps there had been hesitation on making the raids and this event was a internal political move to force someone's hand. I haven't been able to find out what success, if any, there has been with respect to prosecuting the people raided (even then, the standard of evidence in the UK (and the USA) for such things has been lowered to such a point of ridiculousness that a successful prosecution isn't as meaningful as it once was)
Is that really what you want? You are cheering on Wikileaks even when its actions are going to do no good at all, and might even lead to you personally being hurt?
I don't see you doing anything better.
It just doesn't get any worse than a government that is no longer accountable to the citizenry.
Nothing trumps that because it circumvents the democratic process - we can't vote on what we don't know.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of americans have died to prevent that from happening.
Wikileaks is doing their damndest to fix it. Your opinion may be that it doesn't work, their opinion differs and they are doing something about it.
So yeah, even if it does lead to me personally being hurt, that's the price of freedom.
Okay - so say my sensitive online activity includes compulsively looking up pornography. How exactly, are you going to determine that its the kind of activity I don't want you to be inspecting, WITHOUT INSPECTING IT?
Exactly the same way all the other trackers like google's doubleclick let people "opt-out" - they still collect all the information about you, they just defer from showing you advertising that would remind you that you are still being tracked. Seriously the industry's idea of "opt out" is never to opt out of data collection, its just to opt out of obviously skeeving you out.
as you recall both the shoe bomber and captain underpants were young Arab men
I forgot to mention that Richard Reid - the shoe bomber, was a jamaican/white mix.
So even your historical justification for racial profiling doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
as you recall both the shoe bomber and captain underpants were young Arab men, as were all the 9/11 terrorists. Easily detected under a simple profiling rule - check all young Arab men.
And then the terrorists will switch to arab women.
Or non-arab men.
Or non-arab women
The other problem with racial profiling is that massive number of false positives.
A post-facto analysis like saying that all airplane attackers were arab men ignores the fact well less than 1 in a million arab men are terrorists.
So you improve your true positive ratio from say 1 in 40 million to 1 in 1 million, that's still only a 0.00001% accuracy rate which for all intents and purposes is zero.
So, racial profiling equals no effective improvement in security resource utilization but it does come with a heavy price. The best deterrent against radicalization is integration into society, but when society singles people out as "different" it becomes a barrier to integration. That;s not political correctness, that's empirical fact.
surveillance cameras
Replace with that with "pre-employment drug testing" and your example would be a case of something that has already happened. When the stock boy at Target must pass a drug test to get a job (a job so mind-numbing that you practically need to smoke a dube to unwind after work), all semblance of freedom has gone out the window.
yet no flight out of El Al has ever been hijacked in more than half a century.
FYI, that's close, but not quite true.
so 6+million => 1.6 million slide/quote?
Please, p[ease, please, provide a reliable citation for those numbers.
My google-fu is not strong enough.
I promise to use the power wisely and email just about everybody I know with them if they are supportable.
Now we've got three meanings for GB:
1GB = 10^9
1GB = 2^30
1GB = 1 Gram Bacteria
When will the madness end!?
You can't just release them to public domain. The copyright still belongs to the musician, the label just has an exclusive right to distribute the works.
The Eagles are an anomaly because they are megastars. Take a look at the copyright notice on most CDs - the copyright is owned by the label, not the band. They sell it in return for residuals.
and next thing you know you're being menaced by people with machineguns.
Seriously? Have you ever been to America? The number of people killed with machine guns is tiny - you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple of cases in the last decade.
By citing such a ridiculous threat you only weaken your own argument.
What kind of sick & twisted James Bond movie was this in? I can't believe that this dialog was actually spoken.
As if Alex Trebek was ever in a Bond movie.
No, it's from a saturday night live sketch.