Somehow you managed to either misunderstand or get wrong nearly all the important points you tried to make.
The A & B example I showed wasn't an illustration of terrorism but of the effect of different levels of information and how they could influence choices of action. How did you both miss and misuse that?
The information about terrorist groups changing communications methods has been in the news on multiple occasions. It wasn't "made up on the spot," you are simply uninformed. And for some reason the logic does not occur to you than when the media says the intelligence agencies watch X that terrorists and others might avoid X. I don't see how you can do that.
What we know from reliable sources is that only the highest levels of the terrorist hierarchy, the senior commanders, that provide high level guidance have generally been protected by the more advanced and labor intensive methods, but the lower levels that actually have to get things done according to some sort of schedule not so much. The lower levels have been much more vulnerable to having their communications intercepted, but Snowden has been tutoring them through the media on the things to avoid.
Snowden's leaks only show technical capability for intercepting communications, what they don't show is the machinery of repression and mass active monitoring that 1984 would require.
it's not the bigotry, its the fact they have no zoning laws and some megacorp can build a fertilizer plant next to residential housing and kill people when it explodes or build some oil refinery next to someone's home and poison their air and water
While I'm sure that Texas has totally managed to avoid the scourge of zoning laws, the California approach has its own drawbacks that are becoming apparent, especially as California is now practically speaking a one party state run by Democrats with super majorities able to pass whatever they want.
No, I don't. It wouldn't help if I did. Few people here are up to serious if casual fact based discussions on the matter let alone professional level ones. Fear isn't needed, only an open mind, rational thinking, and knowledge. Many of the threats are already known to various levels but people choose to ignore or disparage them because it suits their purposes, or they aren't up to a serious discussion.
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is one of the most significant high-tech business centers in the United States, with several global leadership brands. With about 3,000 technology companies and nearly 230,000 high-tech employees, DFW is arguably the second-largest technology business center in the country, behind California’s Silicon Valley.
Oh, I see, the only thing that counts is the gravest possible outcome that is also by far the least likely. Lesser outcomes that might kill people by the hundreds, thousand, or tens of thousands don't count? Outcomes that we could not influence that damage friends or allies due to being blinded don't count? Being put at a serious disadvantage to foreign adversaries doesn't count? It's just fine with you that Russia or China seizes territory from whatever other country they care to, and which but for proper warning might have been avoided? Iran getting nuclear weapons to put on top of the missiles they already have that are capable of reaching Europe doesn't count (despite Iranian threats against Europe)? A jihadi from Manchester returning from Syria, evading MI5 and leaving a "little something" in the tube in London doesn't count?
Yes, there is some highly purified BS being peddled here, and you're supplying it. The damage isn't "embarrassment" but rather blinded, now useless intelligence systems, and blueprints to infrastructure and practices to adversaries and enemies that they can exploit for their purposes, including avoiding detection. You don't know what you are talking about.
Your post is a tribute to misunderstanding (or trolling?) and bad moderation. There are detrimental effects from Snowden's leaks. I don't know how you think I said there wasn't.* It is entirely logical that they are spending money to repair the damage caused Snowden's leaks. The mess was caused by Snowden, and you are paying for the clean up. The US will be vulnerable for years or decades to come.
* Well, maybe I do know how you managed to achieve such a "misunderstanding" based on your sig: Fanboy.... Ron Paul.
The only reason that they have the money to spend is because they made a case to Congress, demonstrated the damage, and had their appropriation increased to recover from the damage. They don't get to spend whatever money they want to "just because."
The "many benefits" you see are only the places you look in your narrow view. You aren't looking anywhere near the national security landscape, only the "security landscape" comprised of internet programmers and activists. You avert your eyes from the real damage and see what you choose to. Your view is uninformed and stunted.
The militia laws reflect potential military requirements not social engineering goals. So yes, there are reasons for it, good ones. You could get a hint about some of that if you search your memory for the number of female infantry regiments in the service of Russia or Ukraine at present. I'm pretty sure the number will be close to zero.
By the way, that reply you made to me about Castro not being a communist at the beginning is essentially irrelevant. Castro apparently spoke out against capitalism and for collectivization while in school. After school he used his legal training to defend communists. He also took part in revolutionary activities overseas years before he did in Cuba. This was all before Batista returned to power, and before he met up with Guevara. He may not have been a communist by membership, but the handwriting was on the wall.
It is pretty unlikely that women would be excluded from 2nd Amendment rights since the trend has been broadening the rights and clarifying that it is an individual right.
The militia clause isn't equal because the demands of the military aren't equal. That has been tested in court and upheld many times.
If you think that the US hasn't been a close ally of the UK then you are either uninformed or misinformed, or perhaps simply wrongheaded. Do you realize that the US and UK cooperated on some of the programs that were leaked? Do you realize that Snowden was leaking GCQH material?
Snowden could have gone to Congress, or in UK terms to Parliament. Surely you can imagine that it would be preferable in a disagreement over defense plans that it would be better for the country if the dissident goes to Parliament instead of stealing millions of documents of whatever sort he can get his hands on and flees to China to publish them under questionable circumstances?
Even if you assume he wasn't a spy, the problem isn't that he didn't have a chance to do the right thing, but that he made an anti-democratic decision against public policy.
Your grateful that he damaged the security of your country, the UK? Sad.
No, as far as I know the only Russian ground combat forces stationed in Crimea prior tot he crisis were a regiment of marines, only about 2,000 men. The Russians moved in attack helicopters, airborne infantry, spetsnaz commando units, and possibly others.
That isn't actually true. The contractor protections were not as firm, but they apparently existed. (And from what I've read that has been addressed now.) And I'm pretty sure that would be a moot question if he had gone to Congress.
A) Someone somewhere in the city would like to harm you.
B) Your neighbor Bob plans to throw five Molotov cocktails now in his garage through several of your windows tonight at 2:00 AM and shoot your family as they come screaming out the door.
Do you think there is a useful difference in specificity there? Details matter. The claim that the terrorists "just knew already" is bullshit and a whitewash. Terrorist groups have changed their communication methods since Snowden's leaks and intelligence has been lost because of it.
Really? What legal measures could he have tried while remaining in the US?
He could have gone to Congress. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but under the US Constitution the Congress has special powers that are quite useful in situations like this.
He would have been arrested faster than SSD read times, and never heard from again for "national security" reasons.
Not if he had gone to Congress, no.
The government's first response was to label him a traitor
He stole ~ 1.7 million highly classified intelligence documents, fled the country, and started leaking them to whomever wanted a copy - at least as far as we have direct proof. He could have covertly done far worse. The description doesn't seem unreasonable.
I guess you don't count the fact that the US Federal government is spending billions of dollars to try to repair some of the damage from Snowden's theft and leaks as detrimental. You'll be helping to pay for that since you live in the US. No doubt GCHQ will be paying some bills as well.
There has certainly been other fallout from that, but apparently we can count on you to never go looking for it.
Unfortunately for your argument the intelligence business does not operate according to the prescriptions of technical information theory. Secondary and alternate sources of information are important as part of judging the reliability of other sources, adding context, and evaluating it. Those sorts of considerations don't really apply in trying to move bits from here to there, do they? You also seem to be committing the common fallacy of assuming that the Russians and Chinese already knew everything that Snowden took before he stole it without any proof of that, and probably because it whitewashes Snowden's crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that really the best you can do in understanding the issue? Or are you simply trolling?
Somehow you managed to either misunderstand or get wrong nearly all the important points you tried to make.
The A & B example I showed wasn't an illustration of terrorism but of the effect of different levels of information and how they could influence choices of action. How did you both miss and misuse that?
The information about terrorist groups changing communications methods has been in the news on multiple occasions. It wasn't "made up on the spot," you are simply uninformed. And for some reason the logic does not occur to you than when the media says the intelligence agencies watch X that terrorists and others might avoid X. I don't see how you can do that.
What we know from reliable sources is that only the highest levels of the terrorist hierarchy, the senior commanders, that provide high level guidance have generally been protected by the more advanced and labor intensive methods, but the lower levels that actually have to get things done according to some sort of schedule not so much. The lower levels have been much more vulnerable to having their communications intercepted, but Snowden has been tutoring them through the media on the things to avoid.
Snowden's leaks only show technical capability for intercepting communications, what they don't show is the machinery of repression and mass active monitoring that 1984 would require.
I'll be direct: there is nothing wrong with Dallas, it is a fine city. This is about your choice and personal values, not about Dallas.
it's not the bigotry, its the fact they have no zoning laws and some megacorp can build a fertilizer plant next to residential housing and kill people when it explodes
or build some oil refinery next to someone's home and poison their air and water
While I'm sure that Texas has totally managed to avoid the scourge of zoning laws, the California approach has its own drawbacks that are becoming apparent, especially as California is now practically speaking a one party state run by Democrats with super majorities able to pass whatever they want.
California: CEOs Rate It Worst U.S. Business Climate For 8 Years Running
Hundreds of Thousands Flee Democrat-Run California
Just How Bad is California’s Business Climate?
California, a bad bet for business - Why would new enterprises come to a state like this?
Texas v. California: The Real Facts Behind The Lone Star State's Miracle
State leaders closely watch migrating millionaires
No, I don't. It wouldn't help if I did. Few people here are up to serious if casual fact based discussions on the matter let alone professional level ones. Fear isn't needed, only an open mind, rational thinking, and knowledge. Many of the threats are already known to various levels but people choose to ignore or disparage them because it suits their purposes, or they aren't up to a serious discussion.
I would have to credit that as yet another of Dallas' charms.
I would die first before moving to texas. most of my friend also feel the same.
That would certainly cut down on your living expenses, and I think most Texans would appreciate the gesture.
The "progressive" techies in Texas gravitate to the most "progressive" parts of Texas.
FTFY
How the Dallas-Fort Worth Tech Sector Has Roared Back
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is one of the most significant high-tech business centers in the United States, with several global leadership brands. With about 3,000 technology companies and nearly 230,000 high-tech employees, DFW is arguably the second-largest technology business center in the country, behind California’s Silicon Valley.
Oh, I see, the only thing that counts is the gravest possible outcome that is also by far the least likely. Lesser outcomes that might kill people by the hundreds, thousand, or tens of thousands don't count? Outcomes that we could not influence that damage friends or allies due to being blinded don't count? Being put at a serious disadvantage to foreign adversaries doesn't count? It's just fine with you that Russia or China seizes territory from whatever other country they care to, and which but for proper warning might have been avoided? Iran getting nuclear weapons to put on top of the missiles they already have that are capable of reaching Europe doesn't count (despite Iranian threats against Europe)? A jihadi from Manchester returning from Syria, evading MI5 and leaving a "little something" in the tube in London doesn't count?
Yes, there is some highly purified BS being peddled here, and you're supplying it. The damage isn't "embarrassment" but rather blinded, now useless intelligence systems, and blueprints to infrastructure and practices to adversaries and enemies that they can exploit for their purposes, including avoiding detection. You don't know what you are talking about.
Your post is a tribute to misunderstanding (or trolling?) and bad moderation. There are detrimental effects from Snowden's leaks. I don't know how you think I said there wasn't.* It is entirely logical that they are spending money to repair the damage caused Snowden's leaks. The mess was caused by Snowden, and you are paying for the clean up. The US will be vulnerable for years or decades to come.
* Well, maybe I do know how you managed to achieve such a "misunderstanding" based on your sig: Fanboy .... Ron Paul.
The only reason that they have the money to spend is because they made a case to Congress, demonstrated the damage, and had their appropriation increased to recover from the damage. They don't get to spend whatever money they want to "just because."
The "many benefits" you see are only the places you look in your narrow view. You aren't looking anywhere near the national security landscape, only the "security landscape" comprised of internet programmers and activists. You avert your eyes from the real damage and see what you choose to. Your view is uninformed and stunted.
The militia laws reflect potential military requirements not social engineering goals. So yes, there are reasons for it, good ones. You could get a hint about some of that if you search your memory for the number of female infantry regiments in the service of Russia or Ukraine at present. I'm pretty sure the number will be close to zero.
By the way, that reply you made to me about Castro not being a communist at the beginning is essentially irrelevant. Castro apparently spoke out against capitalism and for collectivization while in school. After school he used his legal training to defend communists. He also took part in revolutionary activities overseas years before he did in Cuba. This was all before Batista returned to power, and before he met up with Guevara. He may not have been a communist by membership, but the handwriting was on the wall.
It is pretty unlikely that women would be excluded from 2nd Amendment rights since the trend has been broadening the rights and clarifying that it is an individual right.
The militia clause isn't equal because the demands of the military aren't equal. That has been tested in court and upheld many times.
If you think that the US hasn't been a close ally of the UK then you are either uninformed or misinformed, or perhaps simply wrongheaded. Do you realize that the US and UK cooperated on some of the programs that were leaked? Do you realize that Snowden was leaking GCQH material?
Snowden could have gone to Congress, or in UK terms to Parliament. Surely you can imagine that it would be preferable in a disagreement over defense plans that it would be better for the country if the dissident goes to Parliament instead of stealing millions of documents of whatever sort he can get his hands on and flees to China to publish them under questionable circumstances?
Even if you assume he wasn't a spy, the problem isn't that he didn't have a chance to do the right thing, but that he made an anti-democratic decision against public policy.
Your grateful that he damaged the security of your country, the UK? Sad.
It was my understanding that the "little green men" were simply Russian servicemen already stationed there ...
Putin admits Crimea involvement
No, as far as I know the only Russian ground combat forces stationed in Crimea prior tot he crisis were a regiment of marines, only about 2,000 men. The Russians moved in attack helicopters, airborne infantry, spetsnaz commando units, and possibly others.
Like Count Chocula?
That isn't actually true. The contractor protections were not as firm, but they apparently existed. (And from what I've read that has been addressed now.) And I'm pretty sure that would be a moot question if he had gone to Congress.
You are on much better ground when you discuss 2nd Amendment issues then on this one.
Contrast these two statements:
A) Someone somewhere in the city would like to harm you.
B) Your neighbor Bob plans to throw five Molotov cocktails now in his garage through several of your windows tonight at 2:00 AM and shoot your family as they come screaming out the door.
Do you think there is a useful difference in specificity there? Details matter. The claim that the terrorists "just knew already" is bullshit and a whitewash. Terrorist groups have changed their communication methods since Snowden's leaks and intelligence has been lost because of it.
Really? What legal measures could he have tried while remaining in the US?
He could have gone to Congress. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but under the US Constitution the Congress has special powers that are quite useful in situations like this.
He would have been arrested faster than SSD read times, and never heard from again for "national security" reasons.
Not if he had gone to Congress, no.
The government's first response was to label him a traitor
He stole ~ 1.7 million highly classified intelligence documents, fled the country, and started leaking them to whomever wanted a copy - at least as far as we have direct proof. He could have covertly done far worse. The description doesn't seem unreasonable.
I guess you don't count the fact that the US Federal government is spending billions of dollars to try to repair some of the damage from Snowden's theft and leaks as detrimental. You'll be helping to pay for that since you live in the US. No doubt GCHQ will be paying some bills as well.
There has certainly been other fallout from that, but apparently we can count on you to never go looking for it.
Unfortunately for your argument the intelligence business does not operate according to the prescriptions of technical information theory. Secondary and alternate sources of information are important as part of judging the reliability of other sources, adding context, and evaluating it. Those sorts of considerations don't really apply in trying to move bits from here to there, do they? You also seem to be committing the common fallacy of assuming that the Russians and Chinese already knew everything that Snowden took before he stole it without any proof of that, and probably because it whitewashes Snowden's crime.
Rumours circulate that most if not all of the hard drives that Snowden had with him upon his flight to Hong Kong were decoys.
That would be a very useful rumor to spread for a spy planning to engage in a scheme of political warfare. Truly a masterpiece.
Unfortunately it doesn't pass the smell test. Why bring all that extra equipment if you are fleeing?
I'm pretty sure I can correct false statements in the posts I respond to regardless of the framing of the story.
Maybe you haven't noticed that Snowden leaked a LOT more material than just that. And that is assuming that the Russians don't have everything he had.