On the contrary, maybe this is a good thing. Its good that it happened to the 800 lb gorilla Microsoft instead of the little companies that can't afford to do anything about it. Microsoft has the money and political clout to lobby congress into getting something like this fixed. The little software companies would be rendered completely ineffective at trying to change something. I just hopes this means Microsoft is going to get this fixed
interesting thing here is that they don't feel they can show these documents to 12 citizens and ask them to keep it quiet for the good of their country
What if they instead selected a jury from a pool of people that already have a clearance? There are hundreds of thousands of people in the US that have some sort of clearance and at least thousands that have a TS/SCI clearance.
If they're charging double the ticket price for a 3D movie and people are actually purchasing the tickets, then I'm pretty sure that is giving the public what they want.
It is hardly about secrets or trying to hide stuff. Its more so that google and other sites are using a parser that removes spaces and shortens the lengths of all the variables so that there are less characters to send across the network. When you're handling billions of page views a day, those characters definitely add up. So rethink your position on that. They aren't trying to hide stuff. Thats just a side effect of them trying to reduce their bandwidth costs.
Considering that Javascript runs on the client side, I don't see how someone couldn't already do that. On top of that, if someone can hack the server side by exploiting a flaw found in client side code, then that is EXACTLY the reason why the unobfuscated source code should be released. Server side could should not be susceptible to an exploit a client can induce by manipulating code or data packets.
What I don't understand is what the hell the FSF is asking for. JavaScript runs on the client side and the source code is already available.
That link has nothing to do with copyright law and I don't even see how that case is at all relevant to Amazon's or Google's service. On top of that, Amazon isn't providing a music sharing service. Its a web based storage service that only you access.
As for the lawyers, I HIGHLY doubt that any of the RIAA members have the financial balls to take on either Amazon or Google. Besides, if they go after either of the two companies, both companies have the financial means to pursue the case, most likely win the case, and set precedent that would bar the RIAA from ever pulling crap like that again. So I HOPE that the RIAA decides to try to sue.
Like standard issue M-4s using 5.56 ammunition, with an effective range of roughly 300 yards being used in Afghanistan
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. First off, the Army standard issue weapon is the M16A2. Some Army units and most marine units carry the M4. On top of that, none of the military rifles are ranged in yards. They're all ranged in meters. In fact, the Marines are required to qualify in their rifle at targets up to 500m away. And for the biggest mistake of them all:
Describe the ranges for the M16/A2 Rifle.
Maximum Range - 3,600 meters Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 550 meters
Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 800 meters
Describe the ranges for the M4 Rifle.
Maximum Range - 3,600 meters Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 500 meters
Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 600 meters
References:
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m16a2/m16a2-study-guide.shtml http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m4/m4-study-guide.shtml
Lets take that blowout idea one step further and imagine the driver in the lead truck somehow losing control, going over the side of a cliff, and a pack full of lemmings following suit. I'm sure that'll be awesome.
just because it hasn't been reported doesn't mean it hasn't happened.... and how does it not cause damage? you're being ridiculous if you think releasing information on how the usg operates in the middle east doesn't possibly hurt their operations. in fact, its already caused lots of foreign relation damages with all the private cables released between our foreign diplomats. very little of that, if any, exposed any wrong doing.
ahh... i remember now. they NEVER offered to hand osama bin laden over to us. they only offered to hand him over to another country to be tried in a muslim court. that was absolutely absurd for us to give in to. of course the united states wouldn't accept that. especially since it is muslim law that allows him perform the atrocities that he did. in fact, after what you said, i decided to do my own research. apparently, the us was negotiating with the taliban for at least 3 years prior to 9/11 to try to secure osama bin laden and the taliban would never comply.
Wow, really? How'd you come up with that conclusion?! It wasn't that they couldn't do it. They refused to do it. If you have evidence showing that the Taliban actually tried to find Bin Laden but couldn't, then please show me as thats new to me.
i don't completely agree with you on the "your move" concept but the point isn't how we get to "your move" or even what north korea would do if it was their move. the point is that in the event of an all out war, north korea would not hesitate to detonate nuclear devices.
i don't understand your logic. them not handing over osama was exactly why we invaded. he was the mastermind behind the attacks and afghanistan was harboring him. if a country harbors someone who kills thousands of people from any country, that entire country is at fault and susceptible to invasion.
I guarantee you America, South Korea, or any other westernized nation does not think it will lose in a war against North Korea simply because they have nukes. The North is already so starved that another war will probably end up much like the first desert storm: the majority of the soldiers give up as soon as the war starts. The issue is much more complex I think deals mostly with the aftermath of the war. What happens to all those displaced people? Who's going to essentially rebuild this country from scratch? What happens to the economy after critical infrastructure in Seoul is razed by a nuclear weapon?
I'm pretty sure they completely stand behind what they're saying. Its already well known that China has absolutely no interest in supporting N. Korea in a war against S. Korea and the US. This pretty much means that N. Korea is going to lose. And if N. Korea loses, I can promise you that we're not stopping our push at the DMZ. We're going to oust Kim Jong II for good. With the downfall of your empire and convictions of war crimes against you imminent, what do you think you would do, especially if you were a psychopath like him?
On top of that, who the hell downloads a "tool" from a "hacking" group that has malicious intent and installs it on their system? Next thing I know, my computer is part of a botnet. Awesomeness.
Last I checked, the US just sent 30k more soldiers to Afghanistan has UAV's flying all over Afghanistan and Pakistan, is trying to convince other countries to send resources, and needless to say, is spending billions on the effort. How in the world does that show less interest than catching Assanage who they haven't sent a single operative after?
I don't know where you got all that information from, but the quoted article clearly says...
Hrafnsson said that will only come into play if "grave matters" involving WikiLeaks staff occur -- but did not elaborate on what those would be.
It could be what you said or it could be if Assange gets convicted of the rape charges and they don't like the conviction, they're lashing out because of it.
So in other words, he could be trying to hold the US by the balls and say I'm going to break the law and if you try to arrest me for it, I'm going to release more info that will damage you even more.
Although it is laughable how much effort they put into catching this guy, you're just spinning sophistry. Catching Julian Assange is completely different from trying to capture Osama Bin Laden. One is hiding out in a modernized country that has surveillance devices all over the place and the other is hiding in the outskirts of a 3rd world country that doesn't even have paved roads. It doesn't at all show that catching this guy has a higher priority over catching Osama Bin Laden.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, maybe this is a good thing. Its good that it happened to the 800 lb gorilla Microsoft instead of the little companies that can't afford to do anything about it. Microsoft has the money and political clout to lobby congress into getting something like this fixed. The little software companies would be rendered completely ineffective at trying to change something. I just hopes this means Microsoft is going to get this fixed
interesting thing here is that they don't feel they can show these documents to 12 citizens and ask them to keep it quiet for the good of their country
What if they instead selected a jury from a pool of people that already have a clearance? There are hundreds of thousands of people in the US that have some sort of clearance and at least thousands that have a TS/SCI clearance.
And I'm betting Samsung's design missed the lost-reception-feature when you hold the phone incorrectly
Just cause other countries violate treaties doesn't make it ok for Iran to violate treaties
If they're charging double the ticket price for a 3D movie and people are actually purchasing the tickets, then I'm pretty sure that is giving the public what they want.
It is hardly about secrets or trying to hide stuff. Its more so that google and other sites are using a parser that removes spaces and shortens the lengths of all the variables so that there are less characters to send across the network. When you're handling billions of page views a day, those characters definitely add up. So rethink your position on that. They aren't trying to hide stuff. Thats just a side effect of them trying to reduce their bandwidth costs.
Considering that Javascript runs on the client side, I don't see how someone couldn't already do that. On top of that, if someone can hack the server side by exploiting a flaw found in client side code, then that is EXACTLY the reason why the unobfuscated source code should be released. Server side could should not be susceptible to an exploit a client can induce by manipulating code or data packets.
What I don't understand is what the hell the FSF is asking for. JavaScript runs on the client side and the source code is already available.
That link has nothing to do with copyright law and I don't even see how that case is at all relevant to Amazon's or Google's service. On top of that, Amazon isn't providing a music sharing service. Its a web based storage service that only you access.
As for the lawyers, I HIGHLY doubt that any of the RIAA members have the financial balls to take on either Amazon or Google. Besides, if they go after either of the two companies, both companies have the financial means to pursue the case, most likely win the case, and set precedent that would bar the RIAA from ever pulling crap like that again. So I HOPE that the RIAA decides to try to sue.
Like standard issue M-4s using 5.56 ammunition, with an effective range of roughly 300 yards being used in Afghanistan
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. First off, the Army standard issue weapon is the M16A2. Some Army units and most marine units carry the M4. On top of that, none of the military rifles are ranged in yards. They're all ranged in meters. In fact, the Marines are required to qualify in their rifle at targets up to 500m away. And for the biggest mistake of them all:
Describe the ranges for the M16/A2 Rifle.
Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 550 meters
Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 800 meters
Describe the ranges for the M4 Rifle.
Maximum Range - 3,600 meters
Max Effective Range for a Point Target - 500 meters
Max Effective Range for an Area Target - 600 meters
References: http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m16a2/m16a2-study-guide.shtml
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m4/m4-study-guide.shtml
so... what you're saying is my motherboard can now double as lube...
Lets take that blowout idea one step further and imagine the driver in the lead truck somehow losing control, going over the side of a cliff, and a pack full of lemmings following suit. I'm sure that'll be awesome.
i was referring to the leaks about communications between diplomats.
just because it hasn't been reported doesn't mean it hasn't happened.... and how does it not cause damage? you're being ridiculous if you think releasing information on how the usg operates in the middle east doesn't possibly hurt their operations. in fact, its already caused lots of foreign relation damages with all the private cables released between our foreign diplomats. very little of that, if any, exposed any wrong doing.
ahh... i remember now. they NEVER offered to hand osama bin laden over to us. they only offered to hand him over to another country to be tried in a muslim court. that was absolutely absurd for us to give in to. of course the united states wouldn't accept that. especially since it is muslim law that allows him perform the atrocities that he did. in fact, after what you said, i decided to do my own research. apparently, the us was negotiating with the taliban for at least 3 years prior to 9/11 to try to secure osama bin laden and the taliban would never comply.
see this: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm
Wow, really? How'd you come up with that conclusion?! It wasn't that they couldn't do it. They refused to do it. If you have evidence showing that the Taliban actually tried to find Bin Laden but couldn't, then please show me as thats new to me.
i don't completely agree with you on the "your move" concept but the point isn't how we get to "your move" or even what north korea would do if it was their move. the point is that in the event of an all out war, north korea would not hesitate to detonate nuclear devices.
i don't understand your logic. them not handing over osama was exactly why we invaded. he was the mastermind behind the attacks and afghanistan was harboring him. if a country harbors someone who kills thousands of people from any country, that entire country is at fault and susceptible to invasion.
I guarantee you America, South Korea, or any other westernized nation does not think it will lose in a war against North Korea simply because they have nukes. The North is already so starved that another war will probably end up much like the first desert storm: the majority of the soldiers give up as soon as the war starts. The issue is much more complex I think deals mostly with the aftermath of the war. What happens to all those displaced people? Who's going to essentially rebuild this country from scratch? What happens to the economy after critical infrastructure in Seoul is razed by a nuclear weapon?
Some cables were leaked a few weeks back where China clearly does not support and will not support N. Korea in a war against the South and the US.
just finish "liberating" 2 other countries on much flimsier pretexts than this.
Surely you meant 1. Unless, of course, you thought 9/11 was a flimsy pretext to invade Afghanistan.
I'm pretty sure they completely stand behind what they're saying. Its already well known that China has absolutely no interest in supporting N. Korea in a war against S. Korea and the US. This pretty much means that N. Korea is going to lose. And if N. Korea loses, I can promise you that we're not stopping our push at the DMZ. We're going to oust Kim Jong II for good. With the downfall of your empire and convictions of war crimes against you imminent, what do you think you would do, especially if you were a psychopath like him?
On top of that, who the hell downloads a "tool" from a "hacking" group that has malicious intent and installs it on their system? Next thing I know, my computer is part of a botnet. Awesomeness.
Last I checked, the US just sent 30k more soldiers to Afghanistan has UAV's flying all over Afghanistan and Pakistan, is trying to convince other countries to send resources, and needless to say, is spending billions on the effort. How in the world does that show less interest than catching Assanage who they haven't sent a single operative after?
I don't know where you got all that information from, but the quoted article clearly says...
Hrafnsson said that will only come into play if "grave matters" involving WikiLeaks staff occur -- but did not elaborate on what those would be.
It could be what you said or it could be if Assange gets convicted of the rape charges and they don't like the conviction, they're lashing out because of it.
So in other words, he could be trying to hold the US by the balls and say I'm going to break the law and if you try to arrest me for it, I'm going to release more info that will damage you even more.
Although it is laughable how much effort they put into catching this guy, you're just spinning sophistry. Catching Julian Assange is completely different from trying to capture Osama Bin Laden. One is hiding out in a modernized country that has surveillance devices all over the place and the other is hiding in the outskirts of a 3rd world country that doesn't even have paved roads. It doesn't at all show that catching this guy has a higher priority over catching Osama Bin Laden.