He's talking about Wired's connection to Adrian Lamo who claims to have outed the guy apparently responsible for leaking that video of the civilians being gunned down by a helicopter and perhaps even the latest round of documents. Without getting into the details there is something fishy about the relationship between Lamo and the reporter at wired that wrote (broke?) the story.
That could be a helpful website, but that big graphic with text in a badly rendered font on the front page looks so amateur that it is hard to take them seriously. It just screams "loony in the basement" when they need to appear erudite since they are challenging a wide-spread belief.
Except there are denial of service laws that are being violated here.
Which the jury found, but if you read what some members of the jury have written about the process of making that finding they themselves felt that it was a stretch. A stretch they were prepared to make, apparently, but not one I would have been comfortable with myself given the text of the laws and the context in which they were written.
Eventually it will be *DOT (with the * being your state). Got to come up with some way of taxing electric car users to use the road if they aren't paying for it in fuel taxes.
Because the obvious method of levying taxes based on odometer readings doesn't put big bucks into the pocket of a contractor who will kick it back to the politicians.
And for those of you ready to point out that not all miles driven are on public roads - big deal, no tax system has ever been perfectly fair. It isn't like all those miles are driven with tax-free fuel today either. I'll take a sloppy but cheap and minimally intrusive taxation over an expensive and freedom-killing implementation every day of the week.
If I was HP's board, I would not have let him resign; he would have been fired on the spot.
That's because you aren't his neighbor, don't sit on the boards of any other corps with him, don't drink and play golf with him on a regular basis and don't have your own contract mistresses too.
From an OpSec perspective having a bunch of accesses to specific documents on the wikileaks server is a BAD IDEA. Anyone with access to the logs on the server will be able to correlate the IP addresses doing the accessing with the specific documents of interest. With 75,000+ documents, there are sure to be some really interesting needles in that haystack. The people most qualified to recognize those needles will be military personnel - so one guy finds something "surprising" related to his personal work and forwards the URL to all his buddies who also check it out because its "surprising" to them too and now wikileak's logs have a great big arrow pointing at the document that got an order of magnitude more hits than all the others. Someone decides to investigate and now whatever made that document "surprising" is well known to public and "the enemy" too.
Why this order? Deleting/destroying the stuff could destroy any evidence on HOW the classified got where it was, who put it there, etc...
Furthermore, "deleting" rarely deletes anything, it just makes it harder to properly wipe from the system since its now just a bunch of unrelated sectors on disk that have been contaminated rather than a known file.
It seems to me that US soldiers who'd find tactical use of this material likely already had access to it (re: old news). Any tactical value to this information to be gathered from the leak is going to be gained by those who didn't have access; namely the US military's adversaries.
I can think of at least one example off the top of my head where that's not necessarily true:
Knowing what information has been disclosed is of tactical advantage to the soldiers - for example, if all the brouhaha about informants' names being disclosed is true it will be useful to the people who deal with informants to know if their contacts have been outed or not. Because of the bureaucracy and politics regarding something this high-profile that information is unlikely to make it's way "through channels" to people on the ground in a timely fashion.
(I am serious here. I would be happy if you could give me some advice on how to convince people not to give up their privacy, because I failed at it so far.)
I use the Pandora's Box analogy - you may think you have nothing to hide NOW, but if circumstances change you will never ever be able to put that information back in the box. Then I refer to something like the My Sister Sam murder which was assisted by DMV records as an example of how what someone thought was harmless information was used to kill them.
The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers.
And a certain high-profile scotus judge is well known for saying that the context provided by those writings should never be applied, unless it happens to support his personal biases that is...
What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales?
That was just a dick measuring contest between Jobs and the RIAA. Jobs absolutely would not give up any control over Fairplay DRM - that left the RIAA members having to choose between their DRM luv and whatever restrictions Jobs felt like, or DRM emancipation and their emancipation from Jobs's monopoly control over online distribution. The RIAA choose the later.
Note that if Jobs really gave a damn about DRM he would be pushing to get it off of videos in the itunes store. Yet, because he is now the single largest shareholder of Disney/Buena-Vista/ABC that will never, ever happen. For video, Apple *is* the MPAA.
So, in the case of DRM, any benefit to anyone other Apple Corp - and that includes Apple's customers too, not just outsiders - was just fallout from the battle for control of distribution.
Uh yeah, this isn't the first time around. The computer industry is constantly rediscovering previous designs. Timesharing, batch jobs, client-server, intergrated/distributed processing, etc, etc. Nothing new under the sun, just smaller and faster is all.
I wonder what enlightement will be like, because karma appears to have been a bitch.
It's called retirement - you get out of the loop and eventually you go out like a the flame of a candle.
The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.
It isn't even an accidental lie either - their own procurement specifications require the ability to store and transmit copies in real time. Seems like the only thing keeping the machines doing from what the TSA said they "cannot" do is the flip of a switch. Why should we believe they aren't flipping that switch whenever they feel like it? After all they lied about the machines' capabilities, it ain't no big stretch of the imagination to expect them to lie about using that switch.
Actually we can even see now that ram is obsolete, once SSD catch up in speed (you don't even need current ram speed) why would anyone care about transfering data to ram, work on it then store it back? Just work straight on your data, gone are the days of saving, now will be the days of deleting, temporary working directory...
Don't despair. A girl like that has no use for pretty boy jock types - at least not for anything other than one night stands where she doesn't have to put up with their inane conversation. But she will be at the center of a "circle" of guys all hanging on her every word at pretty much any geek event she might attend which can be annoying as hell.
If I don't believe the badge number on a police officer ID, why would I trust the phone number on it?
If they are fake they probably don't have access to the official database and will probably blindly confirm the ID of anyone calling in since they can't tell who is legit and who is fake. So test them first by asking to confirm some bogus information that you make up on the spot. If they won't confirm your own bogus info then they are probably legit.
Slashdot Mirror
He's talking about Wired's connection to Adrian Lamo who claims to have outed the guy apparently responsible for leaking that video of the civilians being gunned down by a helicopter and perhaps even the latest round of documents. Without getting into the details there is something fishy about the relationship between Lamo and the reporter at wired that wrote (broke?) the story.
That could be a helpful website, but that big graphic with text in a badly rendered font on the front page looks so amateur that it is hard to take them seriously. It just screams "loony in the basement" when they need to appear erudite since they are challenging a wide-spread belief.
Except there are denial of service laws that are being violated here.
Which the jury found, but if you read what some members of the jury have written about the process of making that finding they themselves felt that it was a stretch. A stretch they were prepared to make, apparently, but not one I would have been comfortable with myself given the text of the laws and the context in which they were written.
Eventually it will be *DOT (with the * being your state). Got to come up with some way of taxing electric car users to use the road if they aren't paying for it in fuel taxes.
Because the obvious method of levying taxes based on odometer readings doesn't put big bucks into the pocket of a contractor who will kick it back to the politicians.
And for those of you ready to point out that not all miles driven are on public roads - big deal, no tax system has ever been perfectly fair. It isn't like all those miles are driven with tax-free fuel today either. I'll take a sloppy but cheap and minimally intrusive taxation over an expensive and freedom-killing implementation every day of the week.
If I was HP's board, I would not have let him resign; he would have been fired on the spot.
That's because you aren't his neighbor, don't sit on the boards of any other corps with him, don't drink and play golf with him on a regular basis and don't have your own contract mistresses too.
From an OpSec perspective having a bunch of accesses to specific documents on the wikileaks server is a BAD IDEA. Anyone with access to the logs on the server will be able to correlate the IP addresses doing the accessing with the specific documents of interest. With 75,000+ documents, there are sure to be some really interesting needles in that haystack. The people most qualified to recognize those needles will be military personnel - so one guy finds something "surprising" related to his personal work and forwards the URL to all his buddies who also check it out because its "surprising" to them too and now wikileak's logs have a great big arrow pointing at the document that got an order of magnitude more hits than all the others. Someone decides to investigate and now whatever made that document "surprising" is well known to public and "the enemy" too.
Why this order? Deleting/destroying the stuff could destroy any evidence on HOW the classified got where it was, who put it there, etc...
Furthermore, "deleting" rarely deletes anything, it just makes it harder to properly wipe from the system since its now just a bunch of unrelated sectors on disk that have been contaminated rather than a known file.
It seems to me that US soldiers who'd find tactical use of this material likely already had access to it (re: old news). Any tactical value to this information to be gathered from the leak is going to be gained by those who didn't have access; namely the US military's adversaries.
I can think of at least one example off the top of my head where that's not necessarily true:
Knowing what information has been disclosed is of tactical advantage to the soldiers - for example, if all the brouhaha about informants' names being disclosed is true it will be useful to the people who deal with informants to know if their contacts have been outed or not. Because of the bureaucracy and politics regarding something this high-profile that information is unlikely to make it's way "through channels" to people on the ground in a timely fashion.
They have cameras at airports that can take a photo with HUNDREDS of people on them and identify their faces from a database within seconds.
Total bullshit. All trials of such systems have been utter and total failures.
(I am serious here. I would be happy if you could give me some advice on how to convince people not to give up their privacy, because I failed at it so far.)
I use the Pandora's Box analogy - you may think you have nothing to hide NOW, but if circumstances change you will never ever be able to put that information back in the box.
Then I refer to something like the My Sister Sam murder which was assisted by DMV records as an example of how what someone thought was harmless information was used to kill them.
The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers.
And a certain high-profile scotus judge is well known for saying that the context provided by those writings should never be applied, unless it happens to support his personal biases that is...
But urinating in public in most places will NOT get one a sex offender charge. Usually it's a disorderly, or a public decency charge.
Most places perhaps, but the places were it is true are big enough to affect a LOT of people:
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire , Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Vermont.
What about the pressure Jobs has put on the music industry to allow DRM-free online music sales?
That was just a dick measuring contest between Jobs and the RIAA. Jobs absolutely would not give up any control over Fairplay DRM - that left the RIAA members having to choose between their DRM luv and whatever restrictions Jobs felt like, or DRM emancipation and their emancipation from Jobs's monopoly control over online distribution. The RIAA choose the later.
Note that if Jobs really gave a damn about DRM he would be pushing to get it off of videos in the itunes store. Yet, because he is now the single largest shareholder of Disney/Buena-Vista/ABC that will never, ever happen. For video, Apple *is* the MPAA.
So, in the case of DRM, any benefit to anyone other Apple Corp - and that includes Apple's customers too, not just outsiders - was just fallout from the battle for control of distribution.
Has usage 1. gone out of use in North America or something? It's quite normal here, if slightly old-fashioned.
That's precisely the point. Saying "wholly sterile" implies that something can be partially sterile. It can't.
Uh yeah, this isn't the first time around. The computer industry is constantly rediscovering previous designs. Timesharing, batch jobs, client-server, intergrated/distributed processing, etc, etc. Nothing new under the sun, just smaller and faster is all.
I wonder what enlightement will be like, because karma appears to have been a bitch.
It's called retirement - you get out of the loop and eventually you go out like a the flame of a candle.
No further elaboration needed...
Human urine is quite sterile, believe it or not.
Pedant says: It's either sterile or it's not.
Piss is sterile ... but it is a very fertile breeding ground for all kinds of little bugs, so it doesn't stay sterile very long outside of the bladder.
The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.
It isn't even an accidental lie either - their own procurement specifications require the ability to store and transmit copies in real time. Seems like the only thing keeping the machines doing from what the TSA said they "cannot" do is the flip of a switch. Why should we believe they aren't flipping that switch whenever they feel like it? After all they lied about the machines' capabilities, it ain't no big stretch of the imagination to expect them to lie about using that switch.
Actually we can even see now that ram is obsolete, once SSD catch up in speed (you don't even need current ram speed) why would anyone care about transfering data to ram, work on it then store it back? Just work straight on your data, gone are the days of saving, now will be the days of deleting, temporary working directory...
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
You must be new to teh internets.
No, make it bigger! Bring back 5.25" form factor drives!
If they made them cheap enough, I would buy 6TB quantum bigfoots for archival purposes.
To be fair, not many people are used to writing GB yet. After a decade of writing GB getting them to start using the abbreviation GB will take time.
I see what you did there,
Don't despair. A girl like that has no use for pretty boy jock types - at least not for anything other than one night stands where she doesn't have to put up with their inane conversation. But she will be at the center of a "circle" of guys all hanging on her every word at pretty much any geek event she might attend which can be annoying as hell.
If I don't believe the badge number on a police officer ID, why would I trust the phone number on it?
If they are fake they probably don't have access to the official database and will probably blindly confirm the ID of anyone calling in since they can't tell who is legit and who is fake. So test them first by asking to confirm some bogus information that you make up on the spot. If they won't confirm your own bogus info then they are probably legit.
Um, they held back 15,000 documents. I think their actions speak for themselves. Clearly, they didn't release everything.
Which they've also said they will be releasing. It isn't the first time that they've said they will be releasing something in the future.
What are you, a politician and think words speak louder than actions?
No, just someone who actually tries to apply critical thinking to words and actions rather than drawing simplistic, self-validating conclusions.
WikiLeaks isn't for complete 100% open government. They are pretty clear in that they recognize that there are some secrets worth keeping,
I would like to see this referenced in a policy statement or something of the like, please.