Recent Posts
I just opened up a new Firefox instance and managed to get this:
(see attachment in previous post)
WTF?
I like my about:blank page...-Renegade (December 23, 2010, 09:43 PM)
Germany is an interesting case. Incidentally, they just finished paying back WWI reparations a little while ago.Well, I'm not saying it could have been stopped. But what I'm saying is the damage could have been mitigated somewhat, had people acted first, and especially dealt with Germany on a different level, rather than as everyone else. Like you said, they were given a lot of latitude. Germany knew its plans- no one else did.
But WWI was sparked by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and not much would have stopped that. But there was no "right" or "wrong" in WWI, unlike WWII where Germany was simply evil. For Germany, WWII was justified as getting back for WWI injustices, and nothing would have stopped Germany then. Yalta was a mess. But it laid the foundation for half a century of tenuous peace.
In WWII, Hitler would not allow the use of chemical weapons on the battle field as he thought it was inhumane/dishonorable/whatever. Kind of messed up as he had no problems using it elsewhere.
Nobody wanted another war, and letting Germany run all over Austria and the east (until Poland) was a lot of slack. (Austria welcomed Germany, so there was no real issue there.) The sitzkrieg wasn't really by choice as the allies had no real power to do anything at the time (debatable, but close enough).-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)
"Up to now we have succeeded in leaving the enemy in the dark concerning Germany's real goals, just as before 1932 our domestic foes never saw where we were going or that our oath of legality was just a trick... They could have suppressed us. They could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. That's exactly how it was in foreign policy, too... In 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): 'The new Reich Chancellor [Hitler] is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!' But they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!"
I'm rambling there, and I'm not really seeing the relevance of WWI & II there. Are you suggesting that Wikileaks could spark something like another world war? I can't see anyone letting that happen. There's too much at stake. Chemical and biological weapons are in play, and they would be used by someone. Nobody wants to see that, except for the lunatics that would use them.Nothing like that... just that dealing with other countries that don't have the same goals as you in the open way described hoping that they will follow suit is folly to the highest degree.-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)
But espionage is always ongoing and never stops. THIS time the espionage is for EVERYONE and not just for a "side", though it is against a side, the US. I hope there is more of it against other "sides" for everyone.I'll agree with the always ongoing and unstopping nature of espionage, but I will say that the espionage was not for everyone as stated. It was for everyone other than the United States government. Just because you release the findings, doesn't reduce the harm it does to the country in question. To an extent it also was not for some of those mentioned, as it hurt their ties, or made them take public action to save face when perhaps they wouldn't have, and undermined efforts (especially in Russia) to the detriment of those working for more normalized relationships. It lent authenticity to the 'See, there's no use in trying a different approach' crowd.-Renegade (December 18, 2010, 06:20 AM)
Battery life is not its strong suit, however...Battery life is one of the most important issues with smartphones, as they are made for mobility, right?-Darwin (December 17, 2010, 09:01 AM)-Tuxman (December 17, 2010, 09:04 AM)
You mean the *ends* don't justify the means? How many laws do you know of that you perceive to be unnecessary, unfair, or downright morally wrong? I can think of quite a few. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right". Does it need to be followed? Yes, if you don't want to be arrested and prosecuted. This is tricky stuff though, because legality doesn't equate to morality or "rightness"; legality should not be a universal shield behind which any wrong or right can be obscured. A right can still be right, even if illegal, and a wrong can certainly still be wrong even if legal. What is anyone to do when they see a right being punished or a wrong going unpunished due to issues in the current legal system? Petition their congressman? Good luck with that. When the system has a selfish interest in the status quo and maintenance of power, it's hard to trust it to enact meaningful change. So what options are left?...-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 03:01 PM)
I never said that all laws were right, nor that legality equates to morality. I only said that the Rule of Law must be maintained, or what is the use of having laws? And I said that legal channels should be followed whenever possible. The reason that people that bring the true wrongdoings that cannot be taken through correct channels are termed 'heroes' are for having the fortitude to risk everything standing against injustice- and they do so in pursuit of that same Rule of Law. To apply it without regard cheapens the risks and sacrifices those that expose true criminality make, IMO.The similarities are in how the government is responding. I'm more trying to just understand what your perspective is though. It *seemed* like you were against people breaking their national security agreements to reveal confidential information. Is that correct? If so does that hold true in the case of Ellsberg? I don't think we'll ever totally agree here, I just want to understand what your actual position is, and it seems rather murky at present to me. Maybe just a summary of your stance.-JavaJones (December 16, 2010, 02:34 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)
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.Wraith, do you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gone to prison for what he did then?-JavaJones (December 14, 2010, 10:36 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 probably never see eye-to-eye on this.Perhaps you're right. But I continue to try to see the point.-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)-wraith808 (December 13, 2010, 11:04 AM)
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.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)
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?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)
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)
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)
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: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".
- 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".
-J-Mac (December 13, 2010, 11:26 PM)
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.
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 (-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)
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)
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)
We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this.Perhaps you're right. But I continue to try to see the point.-Renegade (December 13, 2010, 09:25 AM)
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)
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)
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)
