Do you claim to be statistically certain that 0 of those documents pose any risk to America or its allies? If a single person is harmed or there is any negative consequence for releasing all of those documents, then they should probably not be released (which consequently may be why they were classified in the first place).
We provide more direct aid to the Taliban than these documents do. We fund Warlords directly, we fund Pakistan, we fund ISI, we fund parts of the Karzai regime (yes it is a regime), we fund Militant Talibs from the haqqani network to Paki Talibs indirectly.And this is now, today, this does not include the massive amounts of funding and training that not just us but the Sauds et al gave to the mujaheddin in the 80's. We are our own worst enemy.
Even if we are our own worst enemy, that doesn't mean that we should help out the Taliban in any way, shape, or form.
Obama, like Bush, has a horrendous track record of using "States Secrets" to cover the collective asses of this government and shield us from the big bad wars. Things like covering the illegal rendition and torture of innocents, like Maher Arar.
First off, what about all of the cases that these "state secrets" protected information that should be protected? Are you saying that the vast majority of classified or senstitive documents are "State secrets" only to 'cover the asses' of X administration?
The problem is, Wikileaks does not discriminate about what they want. They want people to post any and all classified, sentitive, or otherwise. Hell, why not just post a 'how to build nuclear weapons guide' for North Korea? Maybe all the military strike plans should be posted on wikileaks right before operations because everyone has the right to know? There is a reason for the classification system. It can be abused by the government just as it can be abused by Wikileaks. The difference is that the government has safeguards and oversight that is supposed to fight abuse--does Wikileaks have anything to do this?
I realize that a leak can be for a noble cause. However, the main purpose of classification is to protect items that could be harmful to national security. Their are safeguards to make sure that classification does this. If someone deliberately posts classified material, how can they know what harm it will cause?--Or do they just not care? Is this responsible journalism?
Aiding treason by helping out the Bradley Mannings of the world? What happens when Australian classified documents are posted? I realize that wikileaks has good intentions. However, the sensitive nature of the things that are posted could get people killed...
There is a reason for classification. Releasing classified documents knowingly is treason against the United States. It is written very clearly in laws. His lawyers know that he is breaking the law and are simply advising him as a lawyer should. This is not the US government being awful. This is a matter of this 'media darling' possibly performing treason against the United States of America. What do you think ANY country would do if he released their state secrets? What happens when he crosses a line and gets people killed because of this information that SHOULD? be available?
MLB could benefit from the high resolution available. Has anyone watched the March Madness on Demand from Cbs.sportsline.com? The quality was amazing... much better than any flash video that I have watched. It seems that Flash is way behind in terms of video. Youtube is NOT good quality. Cbs.sportsline.com's video scaled down or up based on the available bandwidth and was an excellent viewing experience. Of course, I am not factoring in the business aspects, but the quality of silverlight's video can be high. further reading http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61563
This is serious... it could blind a pilot so that he/she cannot see and may even crash the aircraft. On certain canopies, there is a blooming effect which can also limit visibility.
The problem is that this article is just ASSUMING that domestic spying occurs... without any justification except a few court cases with unknown details. My question is how do we know DOMESTIC spying is happening? Monitoring primarily local lines does not mean all the lines are monitored. The only lines that would be monitored are those of NON-US PERSONS (though it may be in the United States. It just seemed to me that the NY Times was simply trying to make a big deal out of something that they didn't know all of the facts about. I don't know all of the facts, but I know more than most people, and the NY Times article was poorly researched and showed that they clearly did not understand how the US intelligence service worked.
Why does this post assume that domestic spying happens? Does domestic spying assume spying on US persons (including US citizens, green card holders, etc)? The government isn't allowed to spy on US persons in the US or abroad - see 4th amendment or EO 12333. Even if a US citizen lives in Iraq, NSA cannot monitor their calls. Conspiracy theorists point out that spying centers are in the US, but that doesn't mean they spy on US citizens, and especially not "surveillance" (as the article claims), which is a systematic monitoring. The NY Times article is written with a lot of assumptions and the article also notes that the details are not really known about any of the cases. What does this mean? It means, that the article is based largely on speculation.
You are right on about Iraq not being linked to Al Qaeda. It isn't. Iraq was chosen as a target because they were state supporters of terrorism. They harbored terrorists (when it served their purposes). This is very similar to Libya, Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq was chosen because it was an easy target. Iran was too big, and LOTS of evidence indicated that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. However, the plan backfired in some ways... Iran ended up supporting terrorism even more and terrorist attacks in the middle east rose. However, it is wrong to say that the invasion of Iraq wasn't successful at all. Libya has cleaned up their act. Qaddafi didn't want to be next.
It would also be incorrect to assume that just because someone is rich and powerful, then they are not qualified to be president. Try to have a nice, liberal, open mind.
They would NOT have detonated. The only way for them to detonate is for their detonator to be set off. This is not possible by being dropped ballistically.
I am an american studying in China, and can say that I have not seen a single legal copy of xp, music cds, dvds, software, or in fact, any electronic media. Even Chinese movies are nearly completely ripped off even though they cost about $1.5 USD. My friend bought a laptop here and it came with complimentary copies of photoshop, xp, office, and more. The environment here is nothing like you would picture communism to be. In fact, it isn't communism at all. Chinese communism means something entirely different than Soviet communism meant, just as democracy means something different to every country. The people here don't dislike the US. They are not brainwashed to do so. Most people simply do not care about big issues. There are definitely important international issues though. The Taiwan situation is a significant example. Taiwan is a hot issue here, but most people just want to make enough money to be able to buy more. True capitalists. Furthermore, the laws are completely different than the actual situation. Enforcement is selective, and many laws are not enforced at all.
As to provide insight into the actual story: every major country has information security and warfare as a priority. Why would China not want to? Also, as far as China is concerned, Taiwan is a rogue state... why should security not be important in that context as well? China and the US are MAJOR trading partners. The US and the Soviet Union were not so much. The list goes on...
Symbols without text for interfaces. Most people don't want to have to hover their mouse over every damn button just to figure out what it is. I don't care if it is an animation. I just want to know what the button does. Motorola and Samsung are horrible about this... making animated menus that take forever to navigate because of picture loading time. Favorite phone ever was a Sanyo 8200 that had distinct buttons for the most important features (camera, contacts, etc.) and allowed you to reprogram almost all of the buttons on the phone. Biggest pet peave: phones that have hard coded buttons to optional (only 19.95 a month) features that many people choose not to get. I hope Verizon is listening here, because I don't want 4.99 ring tone shortcut as the biggest button on my phone.
Here is an idea:
Don't sign up for Verizon.
We all know that Verizon is in deep with the federal government. Lobbyists, net-neutrality, etc. Verizon has a lot to gain by betraying us all.
The average income is low, but in cities such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Beijing, people make much more money and can afford to actually buy their software. There is a huge income gap between city dwellers and rural dwellers in China. Think of it this way: if they can afford a computer, they can afford software.
I am running XP on a Pentium 2 -266 and it runs fine with 256 mb ram. I don't think I could run vista on that machine though. However Vista lives in a different world. One thing I must say about it is that it actually MORE STABLE than XP. Yes, it is. I have been using it for a month and it has given me no problems at all. In fact, there is almost an eery absence of weird errors (kind of like a windows 98 -> xp sort of decrease in errors. I almost must conjecture that it is possible that the user experience in XP is so great that nobody really wants to switch to Vista. XP is JUST TOO AMAZING
Slashdot Mirror
++++ This is the most sensible thing that I've heard on the situation. Let's mourn the victims, but not let this be a cause to further erode freedom.
Do you claim to be statistically certain that 0 of those documents pose any risk to America or its allies? If a single person is harmed or there is any negative consequence for releasing all of those documents, then they should probably not be released (which consequently may be why they were classified in the first place).
We provide more direct aid to the Taliban than these documents do. We fund Warlords directly, we fund Pakistan, we fund ISI, we fund parts of the Karzai regime (yes it is a regime), we fund Militant Talibs from the haqqani network to Paki Talibs indirectly.And this is now, today, this does not include the massive amounts of funding and training that not just us but the Sauds et al gave to the mujaheddin in the 80's. We are our own worst enemy.
Even if we are our own worst enemy, that doesn't mean that we should help out the Taliban in any way, shape, or form.
Tactics, techniques, procedures, and capabilities are what they are called.
Obama, like Bush, has a horrendous track record of using "States Secrets" to cover the collective asses of this government and shield us from the big bad wars. Things like covering the illegal rendition and torture of innocents, like Maher Arar.
First off, what about all of the cases that these "state secrets" protected information that should be protected? Are you saying that the vast majority of classified or senstitive documents are "State secrets" only to 'cover the asses' of X administration? The problem is, Wikileaks does not discriminate about what they want. They want people to post any and all classified, sentitive, or otherwise. Hell, why not just post a 'how to build nuclear weapons guide' for North Korea? Maybe all the military strike plans should be posted on wikileaks right before operations because everyone has the right to know? There is a reason for the classification system. It can be abused by the government just as it can be abused by Wikileaks. The difference is that the government has safeguards and oversight that is supposed to fight abuse--does Wikileaks have anything to do this?
I realize that a leak can be for a noble cause. However, the main purpose of classification is to protect items that could be harmful to national security. Their are safeguards to make sure that classification does this. If someone deliberately posts classified material, how can they know what harm it will cause?--Or do they just not care? Is this responsible journalism?
Aiding treason by helping out the Bradley Mannings of the world? What happens when Australian classified documents are posted? I realize that wikileaks has good intentions. However, the sensitive nature of the things that are posted could get people killed...
There is a reason for classification. Releasing classified documents knowingly is treason against the United States. It is written very clearly in laws. His lawyers know that he is breaking the law and are simply advising him as a lawyer should. This is not the US government being awful. This is a matter of this 'media darling' possibly performing treason against the United States of America. What do you think ANY country would do if he released their state secrets? What happens when he crosses a line and gets people killed because of this information that SHOULD? be available?
I truly wish that I did not understand this...
MLB could benefit from the high resolution available. Has anyone watched the March Madness on Demand from Cbs.sportsline.com? The quality was amazing... much better than any flash video that I have watched. It seems that Flash is way behind in terms of video. Youtube is NOT good quality. Cbs.sportsline.com's video scaled down or up based on the available bandwidth and was an excellent viewing experience. Of course, I am not factoring in the business aspects, but the quality of silverlight's video can be high. further reading http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61563
Universal Healthcare coverage up to 10000 per person per year... if everyone used their ten thousand = 2.5 trillion. WTF?
This is serious... it could blind a pilot so that he/she cannot see and may even crash the aircraft. On certain canopies, there is a blooming effect which can also limit visibility.
The problem is that this article is just ASSUMING that domestic spying occurs... without any justification except a few court cases with unknown details. My question is how do we know DOMESTIC spying is happening? Monitoring primarily local lines does not mean all the lines are monitored. The only lines that would be monitored are those of NON-US PERSONS (though it may be in the United States. It just seemed to me that the NY Times was simply trying to make a big deal out of something that they didn't know all of the facts about. I don't know all of the facts, but I know more than most people, and the NY Times article was poorly researched and showed that they clearly did not understand how the US intelligence service worked.
Why does this post assume that domestic spying happens? Does domestic spying assume spying on US persons (including US citizens, green card holders, etc)? The government isn't allowed to spy on US persons in the US or abroad - see 4th amendment or EO 12333. Even if a US citizen lives in Iraq, NSA cannot monitor their calls. Conspiracy theorists point out that spying centers are in the US, but that doesn't mean they spy on US citizens, and especially not "surveillance" (as the article claims), which is a systematic monitoring. The NY Times article is written with a lot of assumptions and the article also notes that the details are not really known about any of the cases. What does this mean? It means, that the article is based largely on speculation.
You are right on about Iraq not being linked to Al Qaeda. It isn't. Iraq was chosen as a target because they were state supporters of terrorism. They harbored terrorists (when it served their purposes). This is very similar to Libya, Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq was chosen because it was an easy target. Iran was too big, and LOTS of evidence indicated that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. However, the plan backfired in some ways... Iran ended up supporting terrorism even more and terrorist attacks in the middle east rose. However, it is wrong to say that the invasion of Iraq wasn't successful at all. Libya has cleaned up their act. Qaddafi didn't want to be next.
It would also be incorrect to assume that just because someone is rich and powerful, then they are not qualified to be president. Try to have a nice, liberal, open mind.
How can you know their motivation?
They would NOT have detonated. The only way for them to detonate is for their detonator to be set off. This is not possible by being dropped ballistically.
I am an american studying in China, and can say that I have not seen a single legal copy of xp, music cds, dvds, software, or in fact, any electronic media. Even Chinese movies are nearly completely ripped off even though they cost about $1.5 USD. My friend bought a laptop here and it came with complimentary copies of photoshop, xp, office, and more. The environment here is nothing like you would picture communism to be. In fact, it isn't communism at all. Chinese communism means something entirely different than Soviet communism meant, just as democracy means something different to every country. The people here don't dislike the US. They are not brainwashed to do so. Most people simply do not care about big issues. There are definitely important international issues though. The Taiwan situation is a significant example. Taiwan is a hot issue here, but most people just want to make enough money to be able to buy more. True capitalists. Furthermore, the laws are completely different than the actual situation. Enforcement is selective, and many laws are not enforced at all. As to provide insight into the actual story: every major country has information security and warfare as a priority. Why would China not want to? Also, as far as China is concerned, Taiwan is a rogue state... why should security not be important in that context as well? China and the US are MAJOR trading partners. The US and the Soviet Union were not so much. The list goes on...
Symbols without text for interfaces. Most people don't want to have to hover their mouse over every damn button just to figure out what it is. I don't care if it is an animation. I just want to know what the button does. Motorola and Samsung are horrible about this... making animated menus that take forever to navigate because of picture loading time. Favorite phone ever was a Sanyo 8200 that had distinct buttons for the most important features (camera, contacts, etc.) and allowed you to reprogram almost all of the buttons on the phone. Biggest pet peave: phones that have hard coded buttons to optional (only 19.95 a month) features that many people choose not to get. I hope Verizon is listening here, because I don't want 4.99 ring tone shortcut as the biggest button on my phone.
Here is an idea: Don't sign up for Verizon. We all know that Verizon is in deep with the federal government. Lobbyists, net-neutrality, etc. Verizon has a lot to gain by betraying us all.
The average income is low, but in cities such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Beijing, people make much more money and can afford to actually buy their software. There is a huge income gap between city dwellers and rural dwellers in China. Think of it this way: if they can afford a computer, they can afford software.
Apparently the only car they will actually be able to copy is an Element since it is about 98% plastic. I don't want a "rapid-prototyped" car part!
I am running XP on a Pentium 2 -266 and it runs fine with 256 mb ram. I don't think I could run vista on that machine though. However Vista lives in a different world. One thing I must say about it is that it actually MORE STABLE than XP. Yes, it is. I have been using it for a month and it has given me no problems at all. In fact, there is almost an eery absence of weird errors (kind of like a windows 98 -> xp sort of decrease in errors. I almost must conjecture that it is possible that the user experience in XP is so great that nobody really wants to switch to Vista. XP is JUST TOO AMAZING
It seems that Microsoft didn't make XP bad enough. If it was, people would want to upgrade. See windows 98 for example.