You do know that officially 'linux' only refers to the kernel, which is actually a monoculture, though more by choice than anything else.
But then again, Microsoft is a monoculture by choice too.

So is it more likely that people are incompetent than deliberately immoral? My experience is rather more blurred, people tend to be very incompetent in rejecting immoral orders, even if they are fully aware of their immoral nature. But then again not following orders on something as vaguely defined as morality isn't that easy anyway. Or as a drill sergeant of mine used to say; 'It may not be heroic, but living in guilt of an order well executed is still preferable than the prospect of letting your own children starve'. Or as Bertolt Brecht put it: 'Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral'.

About conspiracies in general, I always find it surprising that I generally accept the main stream media as truth, though I am equally surprised every time a subject is brought forward, of which I have expertise, that it is at best presented wrongly, leading to the wrong conclusions but most of the time just plain wrong.

It is in the nature of humans to try to explain their world in alternative terms to suit what ever fits best, that doesn't necessarily has to be that what actually happened. But then again, can you blame the conspiracies theorist in making theories if the official theory itself doesn't fit Occam's razor?

So what has it to to with wiretaps? Well I sure always found it easier to do things when I thought it was necessary than to wait for formal permission/cooperation of the telco, perhaps because strictly speaking I shouldn't be doing it anyway. Although I wasn't in the position to official do wiretaps I was in the position to write up some of the technical requirements of the network itself, which is good enough for all intends and purposes.

Simple solution, it's called chain of command and works pretty well in static, bureaucratic organisations.
Simply put, you only accept commands from the manager in line or his/her superior.
Although your superior superior (etc. )is allowed to break the chain, it is frowned upon and definitely communicated across the chain.

So unless the manager of accounting is one of your superior superiors, though luck, (s)he should contact his/her superior until there is one who shares both chains.

Which End is up? Hmmm I was under the impression that students aren't too familiar with verticality, unless you count the waggle to the next boozer as such. God I miss uni.

I think he just put on the wrong cloak.

Gun & Ammo, water & food if not possible to get on site, the rest is optional.

As soon as Camelus dromedarius looks like Camelus bactrianus Perl starts to make sense. Which usually happens around my tenth pint.

Which makes total sense, they got enough of that random shooting people in their own country usually done by persons that wouldn't know what a chain of command is. I firmly believe that any form of aggression will always result in a less then favourable situation (well at least for one party).
Though I also believe that outlawing guns so that only law-breaker and law-enforcers have them will not result in less criminals but in the creation of a new category; People who can make other people do stuff they don't want to do because they can not defend themselves.

Or in other words the difference between criminal and law-enforcer will be thinning over time.

I hope I am enough off-topic for a /. comment.

I would say because the A in ASCII thought that nobody should ever need the o umlaut (even this bloody site gets confused over Ã), Germans on the other hand who like to comply to any given ridiculous standard (insert Godwin here) responded by thinking oe is close enough.

Tsss you must be an American, Germany was never involved in the war on terror.

Disgusting, naive and no sense of humor is not mutually exclusive to Americans either,nor for Europeans or any other nationality.
Just take my reply for example, my genes are assembled from resources from all over the world and I still fail to see the humorous part of your reply.
Perhaps I am naive in that perspective but I can't help to feel disgusted by your writings.

No I am not kidding you, his death is as important to me as any other death of a person of who I have no emotional bonding with. The people I am bonded or feel related to, well that is another story.

That is some weird reality you live, let me guess you also believe the government is appointed by democratic vote?

All things you give as an argument are actually proven by current establishments to be irrelevant.
- You can hold a country even if your understanding of economics is equal to a pancake.
- You can hold a country even if you have no clue what the advanced technology you have developed can be used for.
- You can hold a country even if you have complete lack of intelligence
- You can hold a country even if you have no command structure

The primary reason he failed is that you will eventually fail holding anything if you can't stand ground, literally, have a person in the vicinity of the spot you want that more or less does what you want him/her to do.

#1
If it is really secret then don't write it down, forget it and never talk about it, not even your colleagues and heavens forbid your superiors.

#2
If it is really secret but also really important that it should be preserved and you are absolutely 'put your life on the line' sure about it then make sure you spread enough 'information'. Preferably related to it but meaning the opposite and meaning the same but unrelated to it, the quantity of misinformation counts the most.
Do so in at least in the main stream languages from every major region.
Involve colleagues and superiors to help you but never mention what is the actual accurate intelligence unless it is the person who is on a need to know basis.

#3
There is no correlation between hard to get information and its accuracy

#4
There is no correlation between hard to get information and easiness to protect it.
Strive for not common known available, create an action plan for when using this information the worsted case scenario happens.

#5
Never assume because it is 'near' impossible to decode information that it is impossible to do so, the future is sooner then later.

#6
You are not special, if you can figure it out then at least one person who is at the moment considered your enemy can find it out too.

If 'it' came from the enemy then treat the content as if it was made available on purpose by the enemy unless proven otherwise.

#7
The walls have ears

#8
So have the ceilings, your car, your phone, the bypassing colleague, the open air and everything else which is not in the silent room, which is inspected by your self for electro-magnetic and sound leakages prior your intend to communicate.

#9
When confronted with an opponent that is prepared to die for their cause, don't let them down but keep well out of their way. History is not written by the dead but by the ones that lived.

#10
Eventually people will defend if they have something to loose.
Eventually people will attack when they having nothing more to loose. Give them just enough to prevent them from defending or more than what your opponents give you, whatever is the least.

So what does this all mean?
The information you get is probably not that interesting or important.