I didn't know the definition of "private" has changed to "something you posted on a remote web site you do not control that exists for the specific purpose of sharing information with friends and strangers". That's some wicked "private". In other news - slashdot trolling hits a new low.
'So where is the extra appeal of Android to men coming from?' Oh, sure - so the *default* reasonable mode that the author assumes to be the norm is to prefer the iPhone, as women do. And now author wonders what might have possessed those silly males to prefer Android? Is it the commercials or what?
Not a word about the opposite? What might make iPhone more attractive to women? Is it the effeminate Mac spokesperson in commercials? Is it the round Dove-soap-bar like form?
I don't know, but what I do know is that article has a loaded theme and suggests a way one must use to think about this issue. I think I know who pays their salary:)
I think it is fairly obvious why wikileaks wants to use ssh/push method to mirror their data. They can't use polling because, frankly, with the way they are being pushed around and shut down all the time there is just no way to guarantee that any host, domain name or IP address they provide would be available for an extended period of time.
Push method with a specific public/private key would allow them to push content from anywhere, as they are being chased and forced to change servers and providers.
I thought it was obvious but may be worth clarifying.
Yep, even if it does actually endanger *good* people (and while *good* is a quality judgement, I'll stand by it this time).
Among other information, Wikileaks released documents showing that US got advice from Lebanon defense minister about ways to defeat Hezbollah by Israel and also assurances Lebanese army will not participate in the conflict. Now, I try not to label things "good" or "bad" needlessly - most are neither, but if the label of "bad people" ever has to be used, Hezbollah is it. Not only that, but there is fairly little doubt that Lebanons' defense minister's life is now more in danger, than it was previously (granted Hezbollah probably didn't like him much before - they are kinda big on that).
Is that a document release of which has a value to anyone but Hezbollah supporters? I'd like to know what the legitimate reason would be for anyone not related to the issue to have this information and how it promotes peace, freedom or anything else of use?
Now, I'll grant you - it's one document, but honestly the result of release of this one document may not be worth the rest of it. IMHO
(link to news here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j799Vr28IKzO7Q9ZcakIy5tAb3sg?docId=803fcc9dded74cb4abf7ab3fc52ebc6b)
It's amazing that in the same breath (definitely on the same page) there are posts promoting/demanding immediate/accelerated acceptance/implementation of IPv6 and then this.
People, wake up - there are significant problems running the current, well compacted address space. Things will only get worse when address space becomes extremely sparse and, for all practical purposes, infinite.
Lots and lots of documentation on that. Google for "nat" and "rendezvous".
Here is a first random link I came up with: http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
Basically, rendezvous server (a host with "real" IP out there) punches a "hole" in each NAT for and on behalf of the respective counterparty. Once it made those "holes", parties communicate directly. Done.
:) It's funny how/. discards any opinion that does not really match the accepted local "wisdom":)
I happen to build software and systems that Internet infrastructure depends upon. In fact, I wrote a number of IP handling modules for open source products that you are likely using right this second (perhaps as you were typing that exceptionally intelligent retort:) )
Not true at all. It is possible to establish a direct peer to peer connection between two hosts which are *both* behind NAT. You do need a "rendezvous" server to bounce a few packets - that's not hard to do, and can be easily accommodated as part of any other P2P infrastructure (or even outside of it).
In fact, running P2P in that manner would significantly increase privacy of its participants because to anyone outside a given network there will no longer be a visible single mapping of IP to a "person" (or household etc).
No, there is no such limitation. You are mistaken. Connections can be matched based on both a port and a remote destination, so the same mapped port could be used for multiple connections.
What you wanted to say is that NAT is limited to 65535 unique host mappings (i.e. that many IP's hidden behind one IP). Well, if we can extend IPv4 number of hosts that many times, we should be good for a few thousand years:)
1. There are enough IPv4 addresses available in US to cover pretty much everyone. So no issue here. Since I live in US, frankly, that's all the answer I need.
2. If there aren't enough IPv4 addresses - take away anything allocated to China, they don't use Internet in a fair or reasonable way anyway. Let them live in their own private little world.
3. NAT - because I only need 1 (one) IP address for my entire household. I decidedly don't want any of my multiple devices to be separately and individually addressable. (By the same token my fridge does not have a separate mailing address or a phone number, you have to call or write to *me* before you get to talk to it - if that's your thing of course)
4. Trading IP addresses and packing. It's a resource - and it will be dealt with as such.
5. If only people that designed IPv6 "by committee" though a bit about real world and technology, IPv6 would have been much easier to implement. 128 bit addresses are a *wrong* size. They should have set the size at 64 bit. 64 bit values are now natively manipulated by much of computer hardware, so just as the new protocol would come into wider use, it would be conveniently supported by many algorithms relying on hardware. Now go build a radix tree for a routing table of 128 bit IPv6 addresses - let's see how well that works.
6. IPv6 in default implementation wants to use your MAC address as part of the IP. I don't know, perhaps a few of those big companies that like tracking people so much may be interested in that. I am not.
In conclusion - I'll wait till stuff begins crashing around. May be then someone will come up with a better solution than a deadborn poorly designed IPv6 we have now.
I know it's late but yes - it was all over Russian news. http://www.newsru.com/russia/27oct2010/wikirus.html [quote]" , ". [/quote]
Literal translation: "You need to understand that if there is a desire and an appropriate team, it/this can be made unavailable forever".
Note that "it" or "he" (or any other pronoun) is implied, so the sentence can be read as a threat both against the information resource and against Assange himself. The double-speak was clearly not coincidental:)
And, coincidentally, Wikileaks quickly stepped back and no longer says anything about "Russian dossier" they plan to publish real-soon-now.
Russia has great many people ready to risk their safety to provide access to variety of information on government corruption and other practices. That information exists and is known even outside Wikileaks.
I have no doubt that Wikileaks has access to such information, in fact Assange claimed to have it just recently.
I also have little doubt that the reason Assange won't release such information is its risk/reward ratio. The rewards of talking about Russia are slim - it's just not fashionable to bash on Russian nowadays, and it won't get anywhere near the news time. The risks are huge - I am ready to make a bet with anyone that, should Wikileaks publish anything that makes Russian powers that be unhappy, mr. Assange will very shortly get a chance to drink some tea with polonium, dioxin or another similarly fun chemical agent added. Russian security services made it known quite publicly that should he do something like that - he *will* be eliminated.
Much easier to release information on US - lots of publicity and little danger to his life.
"Placebo" refers to situation where a patient does not know that the medication is inactive.
I am not sure about everyone, but I happen to know that most "close" buttons on elevators and most street crossing buttons to activate a pedestrian traffic lights do not work (the former by design, they are there for fire control mode, the latter mainly because they are broken:) ). However, I still continue to use them and the reason is very simple: 1. They still work occasionally (as was the case just last week in a hotel elevator, where doors would close immediately by using close button, and stay open for extended periods of time without it, tested many times). It's a "nice surprise" when it works - and nothing is lost when it does not work.
2. They may be required occasionally. I know of a quite a few intersections where pedestrian traffic light won't turn green without the use of a button. It's not worth wasting a few traffic light cycles to find out whether the button is or is not needed. It's easier to just press it - if it works, great, if not - again nothing lost.
So, to conclude, this situation is nothing like placebo.
Well, perhaps except for thermostats, but I haven't worked in the office in years - and when I did, never bothered with these things.
Aside from unicorns(!!) which already should say something about the author's intent, did anyone notice two human feet under the main shield? Based on positioning of those feet, the person behind the shield could only be standing with his/her posterior towards the viewer, bent over with knees squeezed together, perhaps holding tightly not to pee (or ready for something else?)
I think compared to that a random stream of bits is not quite as unusual.
This is such a strange argument. I hear it all the time and I just don't get it.
So dealing with NAT-related design issues of a couple (literally about 3) protocols is "hard" and "should not be done" But dealing with completely new design issues of essentially every single protocol, device and system for IPv6 support *should* be done?
I know IT people need to get paid and grab at any chance of a big project to improve job security, but this one is just out there.
Mod this up +100. As a developer of IP-related applications for the last 20 years or so, I always thought that NAT is a proper way to handle it.
The parallel to "real world" (something CS people need to visit from time to time) is quite clear. We don't have every person or entity (or, worse yet, every item that person or entity owns) assigned it's own global unique "street" address or phone number. There is a country, a city, a street, a house number and may be (gasp) an apartment number too. Why the hell do CS people (who are, otherwise, presumably not into global domination ideas) so inclined to uniquely number every single thing with one flat no-namespace number is something that eludes my understanding.
Only "outward facing" systems need a public IP. My dozen laptops, wireless routers, phones, printers and (promised for the last 20 years) a toaster and a refrigerator not only don't need a public facing IP - they are strictly prohibited from having one. I don't need or want anyone to be able to directly contact these devices (or even simply enumerate them or know they exist) without my explicit consent. The same applies to individual devices and workstations within any single business or other entity.
Assigning individual unique IP addresses to all these entities serves no purpose other than violating user privacy (and, of course helping improve job security of all those "consultants" who will be implementing IPv6 for years to come - and then selling users "add-on" privacy solutions)
Personally, I refuse to promote IPv6 and will continue to do everything in my (small, though they may be) power to prevent its onset, even if by a little bit.
The claim about the island by India/Bangladesh was discussed here on/. recently and was shown to be total bunk.
As of right now no island or territory had sunk due to rising sea levels.
Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes.
As far as Kiribati goes, there is precisely 0 chance of them sinking due to rising sea levels. The real problem is the unregulated phosphate mining that essentially destroyed their island and, likely, undermined (pun intended) the natural strength of island formation. If it disappears beneath the sea - they can only blame themselves.
Good on them for closing their waters to fishing, though. Of course with ever-increasing world population that wants to eat (go figure) that just means some other place will be over-fished.
The choice has to be a choice of applications, and it has to be applied by user. Operating system, working environment, primary configuration features have to be stable, uniform and consistent. As anyone that deals with end users knows, lack of consistency will invariably create confusion, leading to negative perceptions and all that is related to that.
Take an example of Windows. A clean Windows installation (at least as of XP) is a decent system, simple enough with most controls and configuration items in familiar locations. Compare that with "vendor customized" PC as they come out of the box. I just had a misfortune of buying a touch-screen netbook from Lenovo which was "customized" by Lenovo with their own VM that boots first, complete with poorly configured programs in random locations. Then, as you move on to the real Windows 7 operating system (you can reboot into it), there is more customization and crapware. The system has excellent hardware but the OS and software is not usable at all. I am planning to reinstall it with a clean system shortly.
The same is true of Android, however there is no "clean system" that can be installed, resulting in an irreversible "crapware" experience.
I had to re-read this a few times. Are these guys taking their cues from North Korea newspapers? Whoever this guy is he should be 1) reminded of what the 1st amendment is about 2) fired.
As it often seems to be the case on/., the discussion centers around "talking points" conveniently fed by originator based on fairly clear/. views and agenda.
So, I went and began reading these reports. My impression is that these do have operational value, and are probably of some interest to military buffs (and certainly to enemy intelligence, though they probably knew most of that anyway). What I did not find in these reports is 1) any particularly unvarnished picture that differs markedly of what my impression of war in Afghanistan was until now based on otherwise available data 2) any real insight into why the war is going the way it is
I think, in fact, that both these points were answered many times in variety of other media and in other types of discourse.
My personal opinion is that other than sensationalist value, primarily due to the fact that classified information has been released, there isn't much here that will further any decent causes in our world. There is, however, a clear boon to stature of mr. Assange and his site and he is the one that benefits the most.
Since it is clear that he let his original source in US military down (essentially letting him be a fall guy who will probably be charged with various offenses), I think it is safe to say that mr. Assange is in it for himself and himself alone.
For my part, I will not patronize or support his venture. While in theory openness is good, it is only good if it is for the right reason. "Openness" for the sake of personal ulterior motives is just as bad if not worse than what it purports to fight.
Hiring coders out of high school may very well work for some projects, and those kids may be happy to have a "real job". But in the long run the joke will be on them. Unless they plan to spend the rest of their life in that company (unlikely, as they seem intent on using a cheap supply of fresh young kids) they will find that most projects do appreciate (and need) a bit more education. Back to school for them, and not at the time when it's most convenient - it's hard to go back.
On the specific issue of coding vs. education. 20 years ago I started working as a software developer full time before I had any education above high school. I did some useful things that seemed "cool" then and worked out well enough for my employers. 20 years forward and two masters degrees later (Comp. Eng and Comp.Sc./Infosec) I can see that I am by far a better engineer (and coder too, but that's almost secondary), in part due to all the experience and in part due to education. I would have never been able to do what I do now without additional years of studying.
Note that both Google maps and Bing require access through specific API and paid-for licenses specifically for anyone who wants to use their mapping services for "fleet" tracking and similar applications. Yours clearly falls into that area. Since without mapping data a project like that cannot exist - it is unlikely there is a truly free alternative (and, as a consequence, not much open source - I suppose because open source developers don't really find a compelling reason to tie to a proprietary data set).
Incidentally, Bing has somewhat more lenient terms for those who want to do tracking.
Re:Are you serious? Do you even know who phk is?
on
Knuth Got It Wrong
·
· Score: 1
That's PHK. You should have seen him 15 years ago in the FreeBSD core. He's a very smart developer but even more so he's very adept at blowing his own horn.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know the definition of "private" has changed to "something you posted on a remote web site you do not control that exists for the specific purpose of sharing information with friends and strangers". That's some wicked "private".
In other news - slashdot trolling hits a new low.
'So where is the extra appeal of Android to men coming from?' Oh, sure - so the *default* reasonable mode that the author assumes to be the norm is to prefer the iPhone, as women do. And now author wonders what might have possessed those silly males to prefer Android? Is it the commercials or what?
Not a word about the opposite? What might make iPhone more attractive to women? Is it the effeminate Mac spokesperson in commercials? Is it the round Dove-soap-bar like form?
I don't know, but what I do know is that article has a loaded theme and suggests a way one must use to think about this issue. I think I know who pays their salary :)
I think it is fairly obvious why wikileaks wants to use ssh/push method to mirror their data. They can't use polling because, frankly, with the way they are being pushed around and shut down all the time there is just no way to guarantee that any host, domain name or IP address they provide would be available for an extended period of time.
Push method with a specific public/private key would allow them to push content from anywhere, as they are being chased and forced to change servers and providers.
I thought it was obvious but may be worth clarifying.
Btw, the main site seems to be down again.
Yep, even if it does actually endanger *good* people (and while *good* is a quality judgement, I'll stand by it this time).
Among other information, Wikileaks released documents showing that US got advice from Lebanon defense minister about ways to defeat Hezbollah by Israel and also assurances Lebanese army will not participate in the conflict. Now, I try not to label things "good" or "bad" needlessly - most are neither, but if the label of "bad people" ever has to be used, Hezbollah is it. Not only that, but there is fairly little doubt that Lebanons' defense minister's life is now more in danger, than it was previously (granted Hezbollah probably didn't like him much before - they are kinda big on that).
Is that a document release of which has a value to anyone but Hezbollah supporters? I'd like to know what the legitimate reason would be for anyone not related to the issue to have this information and how it promotes peace, freedom or anything else of use?
Now, I'll grant you - it's one document, but honestly the result of release of this one document may not be worth the rest of it. IMHO
(link to news here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j799Vr28IKzO7Q9ZcakIy5tAb3sg?docId=803fcc9dded74cb4abf7ab3fc52ebc6b)
It's amazing that in the same breath (definitely on the same page) there are posts promoting/demanding immediate/accelerated acceptance/implementation of IPv6 and then this.
People, wake up - there are significant problems running the current, well compacted address space. Things will only get worse when address space becomes extremely sparse and, for all practical purposes, infinite.
Lots and lots of documentation on that. Google for "nat" and "rendezvous".
Here is a first random link I came up with: http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/
Basically, rendezvous server (a host with "real" IP out there) punches a "hole" in each NAT for and on behalf of the respective counterparty. Once it made those "holes", parties communicate directly. Done.
:)"Canonically" in this sense means "we screwed up in protocol design and now we'll just issue some guidelines".
Address is an address. If you can't use part of that address for routing, what you get is *gasp* NAT? Oh no!
:) It's funny how /. discards any opinion that does not really match the accepted local "wisdom" :)
I happen to build software and systems that Internet infrastructure depends upon. In fact, I wrote a number of IP handling modules for open source products that you are likely using right this second (perhaps as you were typing that exceptionally intelligent retort :) )
no such limitation.
you are limited to 65535 *hosts* behind a single NAT IP address.
Not true at all. It is possible to establish a direct peer to peer connection between two hosts which are *both* behind NAT. You do need a "rendezvous" server to bounce a few packets - that's not hard to do, and can be easily accommodated as part of any other P2P infrastructure (or even outside of it).
In fact, running P2P in that manner would significantly increase privacy of its participants because to anyone outside a given network there will no longer be a visible single mapping of IP to a "person" (or household etc).
No, there is no such limitation. You are mistaken. Connections can be matched based on both a port and a remote destination, so the same mapped port could be used for multiple connections.
What you wanted to say is that NAT is limited to 65535 unique host mappings (i.e. that many IP's hidden behind one IP). Well, if we can extend IPv4 number of hosts that many times, we should be good for a few thousand years :)
1. There are enough IPv4 addresses available in US to cover pretty much everyone. So no issue here. Since I live in US, frankly, that's all the answer I need.
2. If there aren't enough IPv4 addresses - take away anything allocated to China, they don't use Internet in a fair or reasonable way anyway. Let them live in their own private little world.
3. NAT - because I only need 1 (one) IP address for my entire household. I decidedly don't want any of my multiple devices to be separately and individually addressable. (By the same token my fridge does not have a separate mailing address or a phone number, you have to call or write to *me* before you get to talk to it - if that's your thing of course)
4. Trading IP addresses and packing. It's a resource - and it will be dealt with as such.
5. If only people that designed IPv6 "by committee" though a bit about real world and technology, IPv6 would have been much easier to implement. 128 bit addresses are a *wrong* size. They should have set the size at 64 bit. 64 bit values are now natively manipulated by much of computer hardware, so just as the new protocol would come into wider use, it would be conveniently supported by many algorithms relying on hardware. Now go build a radix tree for a routing table of 128 bit IPv6 addresses - let's see how well that works.
6. IPv6 in default implementation wants to use your MAC address as part of the IP. I don't know, perhaps a few of those big companies that like tracking people so much may be interested in that. I am not.
In conclusion - I'll wait till stuff begins crashing around. May be then someone will come up with a better solution than a deadborn poorly designed IPv6 we have now.
I know it's late but yes - it was all over Russian news.
http://www.newsru.com/russia/27oct2010/wikirus.html
[quote]" , ". [/quote]
Literal translation: "You need to understand that if there is a desire and an appropriate team, it/this can be made unavailable forever".
Note that "it" or "he" (or any other pronoun) is implied, so the sentence can be read as a threat both against the information resource and against Assange himself. The double-speak was clearly not coincidental :)
And, coincidentally, Wikileaks quickly stepped back and no longer says anything about "Russian dossier" they plan to publish real-soon-now.
Russia has great many people ready to risk their safety to provide access to variety of information on government corruption and other practices. That information exists and is known even outside Wikileaks.
I have no doubt that Wikileaks has access to such information, in fact Assange claimed to have it just recently.
I also have little doubt that the reason Assange won't release such information is its risk/reward ratio. The rewards of talking about Russia are slim - it's just not fashionable to bash on Russian nowadays, and it won't get anywhere near the news time. The risks are huge - I am ready to make a bet with anyone that, should Wikileaks publish anything that makes Russian powers that be unhappy, mr. Assange will very shortly get a chance to drink some tea with polonium, dioxin or another similarly fun chemical agent added. Russian security services made it known quite publicly that should he do something like that - he *will* be eliminated.
Much easier to release information on US - lots of publicity and little danger to his life.
"Placebo" refers to situation where a patient does not know that the medication is inactive.
I am not sure about everyone, but I happen to know that most "close" buttons on elevators and most street crossing buttons to activate a pedestrian traffic lights do not work (the former by design, they are there for fire control mode, the latter mainly because they are broken :) ).
However, I still continue to use them and the reason is very simple:
1. They still work occasionally (as was the case just last week in a hotel elevator, where doors would close immediately by using close button, and stay open for extended periods of time without it, tested many times). It's a "nice surprise" when it works - and nothing is lost when it does not work.
2. They may be required occasionally. I know of a quite a few intersections where pedestrian traffic light won't turn green without the use of a button. It's not worth wasting a few traffic light cycles to find out whether the button is or is not needed. It's easier to just press it - if it works, great, if not - again nothing lost.
So, to conclude, this situation is nothing like placebo.
Well, perhaps except for thermostats, but I haven't worked in the office in years - and when I did, never bothered with these things.
Aside from unicorns(!!) which already should say something about the author's intent, did anyone notice two human feet under the main shield? Based on positioning of those feet, the person behind the shield could only be standing with his/her posterior towards the viewer, bent over with knees squeezed together, perhaps holding tightly not to pee (or ready for something else?)
I think compared to that a random stream of bits is not quite as unusual.
This is such a strange argument. I hear it all the time and I just don't get it.
So dealing with NAT-related design issues of a couple (literally about 3) protocols is "hard" and "should not be done"
But dealing with completely new design issues of essentially every single protocol, device and system for IPv6 support *should* be done?
I know IT people need to get paid and grab at any chance of a big project to improve job security, but this one is just out there.
Mod this up +100. As a developer of IP-related applications for the last 20 years or so, I always thought that NAT is a proper way to handle it.
The parallel to "real world" (something CS people need to visit from time to time) is quite clear. We don't have every person or entity (or, worse yet, every item that person or entity owns) assigned it's own global unique "street" address or phone number. There is a country, a city, a street, a house number and may be (gasp) an apartment number too. Why the hell do CS people (who are, otherwise, presumably not into global domination ideas) so inclined to uniquely number every single thing with one flat no-namespace number is something that eludes my understanding.
Only "outward facing" systems need a public IP. My dozen laptops, wireless routers, phones, printers and (promised for the last 20 years) a toaster and a refrigerator not only don't need a public facing IP - they are strictly prohibited from having one. I don't need or want anyone to be able to directly contact these devices (or even simply enumerate them or know they exist) without my explicit consent. The same applies to individual devices and workstations within any single business or other entity.
Assigning individual unique IP addresses to all these entities serves no purpose other than violating user privacy (and, of course helping improve job security of all those "consultants" who will be implementing IPv6 for years to come - and then selling users "add-on" privacy solutions)
Personally, I refuse to promote IPv6 and will continue to do everything in my (small, though they may be) power to prevent its onset, even if by a little bit.
The claim about the island by India/Bangladesh was discussed here on /. recently and was shown to be total bunk.
As of right now no island or territory had sunk due to rising sea levels.
Any islands that have disappeared in the last 100 years or so did so due to erosion - either natural and slow or, on occasion, due to storms and hurricanes.
As far as Kiribati goes, there is precisely 0 chance of them sinking due to rising sea levels. The real problem is the unregulated phosphate mining that essentially destroyed their island and, likely, undermined (pun intended) the natural strength of island formation. If it disappears beneath the sea - they can only blame themselves.
Good on them for closing their waters to fishing, though. Of course with ever-increasing world population that wants to eat (go figure) that just means some other place will be over-fished.
The choice has to be a choice of applications, and it has to be applied by user.
Operating system, working environment, primary configuration features have to be stable, uniform and consistent. As anyone that deals with end users knows, lack of consistency will invariably create confusion, leading to negative perceptions and all that is related to that.
Take an example of Windows. A clean Windows installation (at least as of XP) is a decent system, simple enough with most controls and configuration items in familiar locations. Compare that with "vendor customized" PC as they come out of the box. I just had a misfortune of buying a touch-screen netbook from Lenovo which was "customized" by Lenovo with their own VM that boots first, complete with poorly configured programs in random locations. Then, as you move on to the real Windows 7 operating system (you can reboot into it), there is more customization and crapware. The system has excellent hardware but the OS and software is not usable at all. I am planning to reinstall it with a clean system shortly.
The same is true of Android, however there is no "clean system" that can be installed, resulting in an irreversible "crapware" experience.
I had to re-read this a few times. Are these guys taking their cues from North Korea newspapers? Whoever this guy is he should be 1) reminded of what the 1st amendment is about 2) fired.
As it often seems to be the case on /., the discussion centers around "talking points" conveniently fed by originator based on fairly clear /. views and agenda.
So, I went and began reading these reports. My impression is that these do have operational value, and are probably of some interest to military buffs (and certainly to enemy intelligence, though they probably knew most of that anyway). What I did not find in these reports is 1) any particularly unvarnished picture that differs markedly of what my impression of war in Afghanistan was until now based on otherwise available data 2) any real insight into why the war is going the way it is
I think, in fact, that both these points were answered many times in variety of other media and in other types of discourse.
My personal opinion is that other than sensationalist value, primarily due to the fact that classified information has been released, there isn't much here that will further any decent causes in our world. There is, however, a clear boon to stature of mr. Assange and his site and he is the one that benefits the most.
Since it is clear that he let his original source in US military down (essentially letting him be a fall guy who will probably be charged with various offenses), I think it is safe to say that mr. Assange is in it for himself and himself alone.
For my part, I will not patronize or support his venture. While in theory openness is good, it is only good if it is for the right reason. "Openness" for the sake of personal ulterior motives is just as bad if not worse than what it purports to fight.
Hiring coders out of high school may very well work for some projects, and those kids may be happy to have a "real job". But in the long run the joke will be on them. Unless they plan to spend the rest of their life in that company (unlikely, as they seem intent on using a cheap supply of fresh young kids) they will find that most projects do appreciate (and need) a bit more education. Back to school for them, and not at the time when it's most convenient - it's hard to go back.
On the specific issue of coding vs. education. 20 years ago I started working as a software developer full time before I had any education above high school. I did some useful things that seemed "cool" then and worked out well enough for my employers. 20 years forward and two masters degrees later (Comp. Eng and Comp.Sc./Infosec) I can see that I am by far a better engineer (and coder too, but that's almost secondary), in part due to all the experience and in part due to education. I would have never been able to do what I do now without additional years of studying.
YMMV
Note that both Google maps and Bing require access through specific API and paid-for licenses specifically for anyone who wants to use their mapping services for "fleet" tracking and similar applications. Yours clearly falls into that area. Since without mapping data a project like that cannot exist - it is unlikely there is a truly free alternative (and, as a consequence, not much open source - I suppose because open source developers don't really find a compelling reason to tie to a proprietary data set).
Incidentally, Bing has somewhat more lenient terms for those who want to do tracking.
That's PHK. You should have seen him 15 years ago in the FreeBSD core. He's a very smart developer but even more so he's very adept at blowing his own horn.