Messages

8776

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 16, 2010, 01:13 PM »

Wraith, I don't really understand your answer. Can you be more direct? How does your answer apply to the case at hand with Assange and Wikileaks as a whole?

-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 12:04 AM)

You didn't ask me about Assange.  You asked me about Ellsberg.  The two cases are completely different, and an answer to one couldn't be applied to the other.

8777

Living Room / Re: How I’d Hack Your Weak Passwords

« on: December 15, 2010, 02:15 PM »

^ That really sucks.  I wish there was some way to hold people responsible for this kind of stuff accountable for their actions.   I've never been really paranoid about my passwords... but I'm getting there.  I just don't want to use a password generator/manager.  I started along that path with 1Password, but just never got to the using it part.    I do like the idea of using a passphrase, though.

8778

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 15, 2010, 10:19 AM »

Wraith, do you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gone to prison for what he did then?

-JavaJones (December 14, 2010, 10:36 PM)

Let me ask a question in return; one that follows my previous statements.  Was there any legal wrongdoing exposed by the Pentagon Papers?  And had he signed any national security agreements?  The answer to those two questions should reveal my stance on the issue.

Spoiler

There was persecutory misconduct on the case to a level that I've not seen much, so I'm glad the trial went the way it did; any other outcome would be a miscarriage of justice.  But once you start weakening the definition of security clearance, and leave it in the hands of individuals to decide, you might as well not have it, IMO.  At the end of the day, the rule of law should prevail.

8779

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 14, 2010, 10:24 PM »

On second thought, I think I will end my input here as it seems to be getting a little too personal for you. Politics and religion and all that; guess it's true!

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

We'll start with this, and my response to an earlier thread.  I don't know where you got the 'personal' slant to things, but to each his own, especially since I said earlier:

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.

-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)

Perhaps you're right.  But I continue to try to see the point.

-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM)

But if this truly was a question, rather than just a rhetorical post as your last part made it seem to be, I'll answer, and you choose to read or not, and continue to debate or not.  I'm having no problems with it, so it's up to you...

By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating.  A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.

From that article:

Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.

-wraith808 (December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM)

There is no such definition of cable classification, in that article or anywhere else. "meant to be" is what the article says, yet federal regulations call for any restricted communication to receive a classification designation. And 15,652 (6%) of the cables were indeed classified as Secret as noted in my last post. The rest were not.

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

That part I quoted was from the article, so to say it's not there is... puzzling.  What a 'cable' (and I put it into quotes for the very reason that it is called into question) is, is a classification (or to make it clearer, a nomenclature, perhaps?) that refers to e-mails that have information in them, and is stored for those that have security clearance to be able to access.  That was the part that I referred to.

And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).  

Hmm..  And here I consider that people have "read" or "perused" the released documents. You seem to be implying that to do so is trolling...

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

What?!?   Ummm... ok.  Maybe it's my fault.  Again, for the sake of clarification, maybe if I had used the word trawled (which indeed is an alternate version of troll?)  I would have thought that context would have made the intent clear, but I guess not?

But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight.  But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?

OK, "nothing as a slight", and yet you call my view "slanted" along with others who report this? Slanted compared to what? Your view? Which I guess is "normal" or "standard"? Please explain.

-J-Mac (December 14, 2010, 09:56 PM)

Slanted as in looking at only one view?  Again, it seems not to be me that is taking things personally.  I consider non-slanted reporting to be unbiased, which I have heard (NPR and other news outlets) that report both sides of the story.  But many outlets are reporting on this as if then ends justify the means, and take any wrongdoing out of this whatsoever.  As I stated on another thread, I don't think that Assange has done anything that he should or could be prosecuted over.  I wouldn't have done it, and I don't think it was right... but it wasn't illegal by any means.  But illegal no.  But laws were broken in obtaining these documents, and I think that whomever was responsible should be held accountable.  And I think that whatever legal remedies can be taken to get this information should be done.

Security clearance is required for a reason, and is not optional.  It's not something that you're forced into- you can choose not to take the position if you don't agree with the agreement.  But once you do, you're bound by it, and should take it seriously- as seriously as any breaches of it should also be taken.

8780

DC Gamer Club / Re: Humble Indie Bundle (pay what you want sale)

« on: December 14, 2010, 02:31 PM »

I picked it up... knowing me, I probably won't play any of them until/unless they have steam activation. 

8781

Living Room / Re: The minimalist lifestyle. Anyone here successfully implemented it?

« on: December 14, 2010, 01:35 PM »

the market is glutted with tons of self-published technical e-books. About 30% are good. The remaining 70% are pitiful and have had the unfortunate effect of damaging the reputation of the entire tech e-book market.

So unless you can interest a publisher (Que, O'Reilly, SAMS, Wrox, Prentice-Hall, APress, etc.) to sign you on, it's going to be a tough sell to the consumer since they don't know you.

Absolutely true!  I can't tell you how frustrating it is to sift through the thousands of free eBooks (PDF, mobi, Kindle, etc.), only to discover that most of what you've downloaded is rubbish.

-kyrathaba (December 14, 2010, 11:56 AM)

That's why I, for better or worse, only deal with known outlets; your pay for what you get is very much a maxim when applied to technical documentation, I've found.  There are some treasures in there, but the signal to noise ration is quite high, IMO.

8782

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 14, 2010, 01:33 PM »

Most certainly is NOT my opinion. Why are you assuming that? Have you even seen any of the documents? Do you have any idea of what their classifications are? Or are you just extending your "doctor-patient relationship top secret" presumption across all possible leaked documents? (A senseless analogy when in fact the actual classification of the documents is known!)

The 251,287 documents released are classified as follows:

• Just over half of the cables are not subject to classification.
• 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential".
• Only 6 percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret".
• The release contains 4,330 messages which are "not meant for foreigners".

That's why I stated "non-Secret-related but embarrassing documents" in my previous post. That is what many of them are. Definitely more so than are "Secret".

-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 11:26 PM)

By definition, the cables are secret-related, even if not 'classified' rating.  A good write-up on what a cable is was done by Slate.

From that article:

Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance.

And no, I haven't trolled the release, other than a few documents and news media outlets such as NPR and such. (the very nature of the release means that to do so would take a lot of time I don't have, so I leave it to those that do).  But that's what I meant by in your (and the slanted view of those that report this) view- nothing as a slight.  But if the gatherers of the information deemed it to be placed in such regard, then who are we to say that they aren't, not knowing the full picture?

8783

Living Room / Re: DDOS Ethics

« on: December 13, 2010, 10:54 PM »

Gotta fix the quote tags on that last one man, I'm gonna have a hell of a time trying to stitch this back together.

These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.

-wraith808

It's an analogy, not a direct reference. The point being if you don't want to risk being quoted on something, don't say it.

In the interest of full disclosure all internal correspondence are to be stored for a period of time just in case they need to be reviewed by a committee of unknown people. So, tossing derogatory comments about foreign dignitaries around (which was "the rub" according to the main stream news reports) in that atmosphere is really pretty dumb ... As there is no actual expectation-of-privacy.

-Stoic Joker (December 12, 2010, 12:58 PM)

I understand the incorrect analogy (), it's just that it's incorrect.

-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 08:47 AM)

Just because you missed the connection doesn't mean it's not there.

Drunken ramblings tend to be a bit too honest (tactless) - Which the commentary was (according to the story). And they tend to be a bit too sure of their surroundings (as in the-walls-have-ears) - Expectation of privacy being a foolish notion with certain types of information. Like the type of information that may, at some time, need to be read aloud in some committee hearing. Solely because it was available-to-be-read because it was stored electronically, according to policy, for a small eternity.

Never make a record of something that you can't destroy if the situation calls for it.

Now back in the Good Ol' Days, before idiots were allowed to use computers, any truly sensitive information dealing with a confidential source that was written down used a code name for the purpose of protecting said sources identity (Like Deep-Throat from Watergate - What was his real name?) ... Just in case it got found or confiscated.

The secrets game is just that, a game. And a damn dangerous one at that. It's not a bunch of frumpy old women at a coffee clutch who have to state their sources to lend credence to their tales of gossip. Once you decide to be a source you become a commodity pawn in a large game where you could easily be traded for another more tantalizing piece of information. Or you could just trust the wrong person who doesn't handle your identity in an appropriate fashion and blabs in an indiscreet manner. There is no guarantee of privacy on a corporate network. There are measures in place, there are policies, there are all the best of intentions ... But There Are NO Guarantees.


Now as far as what if anything was gained from said leakage... I've not a clue. It could be nothing, it could be the staff in DC learn that loose lips sink ships in glass houses.

-Stoic Joker (December 13, 2010, 06:12 PM)

Still not a direct analogy.  These people have to share information for the purposes of doing their jobs- it's not just a game of gossip at the company party.  Wasn't that one of the main criticisms that were leveled after 9/11?  That they didn't share information?  And now that they are, we're saying that they're wrong for it?  It's classified for a reason- it's not supposed to be shared.  And as I said, knowing this, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  I don't think that Assange broke this expectation- whomever gave him the documents did.  Once that happened, it was up to his moral compass to decide what to do with it.  But whomever did break the contracts that they signed to allow them to have access to this documentation should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

8784

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 13, 2010, 10:49 PM »

How, specifically, is it a "handicap", and is that only true because of the way politics is conducted today? If so, can that change to remove this "handicap", or do you consider it a fundamental reality of international relations?

-JavaJones (December 13, 2010, 08:19 PM)

It is a handicap because of the way that negotiations are handled on such a scale (from a position of strength... where equal sharing of information is an equalizer), and I don't think there's any realistic way to remove this handicap as long as the conditions that I refer to exist.  People negotiate for their own well being in most cases- selflessness is unfortunately rarer than selfishness.

The thing is, I don't mind leaks if they expose wrong doing that should be made public, after appropriate measures have been taken to take it through proper channels and nothing has been done.  But leaking just because 'information should be free' is complete BS IMO.  Even the openleaks.org will still be a front, because they won't make *everything* public.  There's no way.  Unless they tape everything 24 hours a day while they work (which would then make the information useless because of information overload), there's no way.

-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 09:01 AM)

But would you really leave it up to Assange - or whomever actually leaks documents to him - to separate the wheat from the chaff and "expose wrong doing" only? Just who is the arbiter of wrong vs. right info that "should be made public"? The government that classified non-secret-related but embarrassing documents? Obviously that hasn’t worked.

-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 09:49 PM)

*In your opinion* they are non-secret-related.  But, in the same way that your medical records are secret if you discuss them with your doctor, these diagnoses of the condition of patients- many times from within the patient's 'body', were given with the same expectation of secrecy.  And they can, and indeed probably will have negative effects on delicate national negotiations and situations.

8785

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: For non-programmers: Editpad is the best text editor (for now!)

« on: December 13, 2010, 01:14 PM »

Well, I've always not been a tinker, but one to view them all as tools.  And as long as the implementation of the particular feature and the functions of the tool are efficient and don't get in the way of me using the software, they're fine with me.  Which is the reason I have never shied away from using whatever works, whether it's an iPad or a tablet, an apple product, or something else.  If the configuration file had been some sort of monstrosity of custom scripting or XML configuration, I'd be inclined to agree that there should have been some sort of options dialog... but it's pretty much just straight configuration file settings, commented very well, that looks very much akin to a .INI file, so that's where I'm coming from with it.

8786

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM »

We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.

-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)

Perhaps you're right.  But I continue to try to see the point.

I don't think that there needs to be any "wrong" committed for a leak to be useful. They expose attitudes and actions. Some actions are neither good nor bad, but are of interest as they can have wider implications.

I'm thrilled at the prospect of having a truly open society with transparency in government. We need it. Badly.

-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)

If there were only one government, or if all governments played by one set of rules, or if the people that governed weren't human with human frailties, I'd agree.

But barring one of these occurrences, living in a world with multiple governments run by humans with very real human failings and ambitions, the only way that could happen is to the detriment of the government that adopted this stance.  Not from the people that want to work with the government, but those that do work against it.  What it seems is that people don't realize or conveniently forget when such things come up that naughty men that plan evil deeds still run about.  And that's just to speak of the known enemies; at certain times allies can be worse than our enemies.  And to enter into dealings with such people with everything that you know, and even worse, everything that you don't know in full public view is to handicap yourself.

8787

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: For non-programmers: Editpad is the best text editor (for now!)

« on: December 13, 2010, 10:36 AM »

First rule of interface design: why allow only one method of working if you don't have to? Good tools are deep, flexible, and accommodating.

-40hz (December 13, 2010, 09:36 AM)

True, but in the process of making it so, know your audience, and what they want.  If the core audience wants other features other than a nice-to-have interface for options, then go that way.  Maybe one day he will have an options dialog, but is it necessary to the core audience that supports him when what he has works?  Or are there other more pressing issues?

8788

Living Room / Re: The minimalist lifestyle. Anyone here successfully implemented it?

« on: December 13, 2010, 10:33 AM »

skills can be learned (or so I'm told!)

-tomos (December 13, 2010, 09:39 AM)

this might help: How To Make Money on Ebooks

-tomos (December 13, 2010, 10:04 AM)

It's a bit more than skill though (and I know from wanting the same goal... at least to an extent).  That's the discouraging part... that you can do it forever and still never have a break (just like acting and other entertainment arts).  You have to have an audience, and that's daunting.

8789

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: The BitsDuJour Bundle

« on: December 13, 2010, 10:27 AM »

I already have half of these programs,  
but am aware that they never will be updated.  

-Curt (December 13, 2010, 10:05 AM)

Which programs do you have?  What do you think of them?  And why won't they be updated (and for what updates are you waiting)?

8790

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: For non-programmers: Editpad is the best text editor (for now!)

« on: December 13, 2010, 09:10 AM »

I actually don't mind that.  It lets you get to the settings without worrying about a horrendous interface for options, and I wish more would give that option.  I haven't seen any program with a good interface for options that span more than one page.  None!

8791

Found Deals and Discounts / The BitsDuJour Bundle

« on: December 13, 2010, 09:08 AM »

http://www.bitsdujou...ndle/src=day/nfy=61/

10 Apps for $49.99.  Any thoughts or users of the products in question?

I'll start... I have EarthDesk (from a BDJ sale), and it was a cute distraction.  I used it for a few weeks, then moved on, so definitely not must have software.

8792

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 13, 2010, 09:01 AM »

The thing is, I don't mind leaks if they expose wrong doing that should be made public, after appropriate measures have been taken to take it through proper channels and nothing has been done.  But leaking just because 'information should be free' is complete BS IMO.  Even the openleaks.org will still be a front, because they won't make *everything* public.  There's no way.  Unless they tape everything 24 hours a day while they work (which would then make the information useless because of information overload), there's no way.

8793

Living Room / Re: The minimalist lifestyle. Anyone here successfully implemented it?

« on: December 13, 2010, 08:57 AM »

^ +1000 

8794

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: For non-programmers: Editpad is the best text editor (for now!)

« on: December 13, 2010, 08:55 AM »

^ Maybe we can get a DC discount?

8795

Living Room / Re: DDOS Ethics

« on: December 13, 2010, 08:47 AM »

These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.

-Stoic Joker (December 12, 2010, 12:58 PM)

It's an analogy, not a direct reference. The point being if you don't want to risk being quoted on something, don't say it.

In the interest of full disclosure all internal correspondence are to be stored for a period of time just in case they need to be reviewed by a committee of unknown people. So, tossing derogatory comments about foreign dignitaries around (which was "the rub" according to the main stream news reports) in that atmosphere is really pretty dumb ... As there is no actual expectation-of-privacy.
[/quote]

I understand the incorrect analogy (), it's just that it's incorrect.  In one case, there is no expectation of privacy.  In the other case, there is, at least amongst your colleagues, considering the brand of classified.  So you can make frank comments to your colleagues.  Whether they should be is a whole different conversation, and one you have before outing someone's comments that were made under that seal.  It would be like me telling you that I would hold what you say in confidence, then decide after you tell me in confidence that I think that everyone should hear it.  And many of these communiques included information from third parties that were sources in the diplomatic community.  I'm pretty sure that those sources are not very confident in our ability to keep communications private at this point... and for what concrete benefit was this done?  Was there anything that came out of this that was an undeniable benefit to the people that this is supposedly serving?

8796

Living Room / Re: The minimalist lifestyle. Anyone here successfully implemented it?

« on: December 10, 2010, 09:19 AM »

I actually like my job   But we've started paring down our lifestyle.  I found a nice place to live with a job I loved that paid as a salary 25%+ less than what I was making.  But we've made it work, and we're a lot happier.  And we've been paring down further, in order to decrease the stress of dealing with money matters, and the stress of the economy.  I recommend it to anyone in that capacity... it has definitely increased the quality of my life.  I just wish I had embraced this at a younger age.

8797

General Software Discussion / Re: Liquid Story Binder: Excellent

« on: December 10, 2010, 09:17 AM »

I used to own a copy of LSB some time ago. I got it as a free one-day promo from the GOTD website. Unfortunately, I didn't realize the license was only for that version. So when I innocently upgraded it to the new edition that came out a few weeks later, I lost the free license.

-40hz (December 10, 2010, 07:04 AM)

Actually, iirc, the GOTD promo also gave a lifetime license. He changed the license code system soon after and you had to send an email to get a new code. Really good guy and deserves the support from people buying the prog.

-Dormouse (December 10, 2010, 08:30 AM)

As far as I know, all of his license are lifetime... just as dormouse said, you have to e-mail him if there is a problem.  There is also an active yahoo group that he frequents.  As dormouse said, a really good guy, and one I don't mind supporting at all.

8798

Living Room / Re: DDOS Ethics

« on: December 10, 2010, 08:22 AM »

But in these cases, the information is of questionable use, while causing real concern about diplomatic ties and future effectiveness.  I think it's pretty dangerous, personally.

-wraith808 (December 09, 2010, 11:08 AM)

Really? Why? Because some self important blow hard got caught popping off in an internal memo about a foreign dignitary? How about in the interest of professionalism (which isn't too much to expect given what they're paid...) they just kept the snide comments to themselves instead of documenting them on government servers where they're supposed to be archived forever?

It is absolutely no different then two IT pros leaving a location and (after accidentally butt-dialing said client) running the client into the ground. End result? somebody looses a client, and/or gets fired. Quite simple really, don't say anything that you're not willing to stand behind.

...This is the core premise behind why drunken ramblings are bad.

-Stoic Joker (December 09, 2010, 05:54 PM)

These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.

To take your analysis further, that's like me sending an analysis of a competing software design and the designers and our plans to compete with them to a colleague with my notes about it that we're going to use in the market, and then someone intercepting those and deciding that to level the playing field, they need to distribute the analysis.

At what point is that scenario drunken ramblings that I should have kept to myself?  At what point was my communicating with a co-worker something that I should have expected to be disseminated?

Then you make it worse by disseminating things that were given in confidence from a competitor... do you think that you will be able to get any intelligence about competitors in the future?

8799

Living Room / Re: DDOS Ethics

« on: December 09, 2010, 11:08 AM »

But is that for wikileaks to decide?  There are legitimate reasons why some of those ideas were classified, and legitimate concerns about a) the effects that the leaks themselves will have, b) about the effects on relations between said countries, and c) the effect on the ability to effectively gain intelligence in the wake of said leaks.  In the case of exposing corruption and/or crimes, I see use, though I still think that legal channels should be the first recourse.  But in these cases, the information is of questionable use, while causing real concern about diplomatic ties and future effectiveness.  I think it's pretty dangerous, personally.

8800

Living Room / Re: WikiLeaks: Important petition for all Australians and supporters of free speech

« on: December 09, 2010, 11:05 AM »

I don't support an organization trying to force a government outside of the systems set in place by the citizens of said country to be more 'transparent'.  In the case of whistle blowing or foul play, there is some leeway.  But these latest leaks?  There's really no excuse, especially considering the amount of damage that could be caused.  It might not happen, but is that really worth the risk for questionable gain?