Umm...Slashdot is now open to the highest bidder?
Maybe the editors need to vet the submissions better.
Might want to research intermittent wipers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
So you're saying that this is more like rape than like seduction?
Now, now, now...You said you liked it last time...
Even if it is made public, it has to be declassified under proper authority to legally be declassified. And if it still has valid security implications, it can remain classified. Which means certain people can't legally discuss it, much less process it on their non-classified machinery, while others will openly discuss it.
Leaving in the names of people who are still in danger is a clear violation of law even when properly declassifying information.
If I get you right, you are quoting LEGAL language, not MORAL language
At any rate, none of this information has been declassified by the proper authority, so all of it is still legally considered classified, and anyone accessing it is liable to be charged with a crime.
Which brings up the simple question of moral relativism.
I agree. but not for Wikileaks, because...
Well, we all do, in the end, but for some of us the blood comes with moral authority and a lack of criminal guilt.
You, my friend have just equated morality with legality, and that is why, for the most part, our government has lost all standing to criticize or prosecute Wikileaks. The fact that you have been indoctrinated this much is why Jefferson is probably turning over in his grave.
Sony Executive No. 1: "Let's send out *millions* of Blu-Ray DVDs to all the Wal-Marts in America even though we haven't made our first Blu-Ray player! We'll be rich!!!"
Sony Executive No. 2: "Brilliant!!!"
Then we would have the enterprise-level feature (H)igh (A)vailability and (R)esource (D)istributed (S)cheduler *HARDS*.
That acronym makes no sense *whatsoever*, not like the original summary...
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein