If you've got the war info monkey on your back, and debka just isn't doing it for you (where are the updates? Come on! It's not like we expect it to be true...) you can take a stab at this - at first glance - even less credible source from Russia: aeronautics.ru. That front page doesn't really get you into it. Start here for the 03/23/03 update - especially if you're reading this in anything like war time real time.
Most of their reports seem to rely on "intercepted U.S. military comunications". This seems unlikely to me given the theoretical ease of use of high quality encryption. I'm sure the military is using such non trivial encryption. Still, this page would seem to be some sort of explanation about how these military intercepts are possible - and thus, by inference, how they might have information not available otherwise.
Yeah, OK, I'll take what I can get.
I can't really analyze this information. It doesn't seem obviously wrong like so much encryption industry marketing. But I can't really tell. This part, for instance, "sounds" potentially correct to me, in the sense that this is usually how codes actually are cracked:However, security afforded by frequency-hopping methods is very dependant on the strict adherence to protocols for operating such radios. The US troops and other operators of frequency-hopping radio sets frequently disregard these protocols. An example would be an artillery unit passing digital traffic in the frequency-hopping mode, which would enable an unauthorized listener to determine the frequency-hopping algorithm and eavesdrop on the transmission. Anyway, like I say, more junk for the junkie.So far the US was unable to destroy the air defense networks in central Iraq. As before, the Iraqis continue to covertly use their radars and SAM launchers on a limited bases while employing a huge number of decoys designed to imitate radars. This plays into the top unconfirmed story I've been following. Are there Russian technicians on the ground in Baghdad (sorry for the possibly non-direct wapo link) training the Iraqi's in the use of GPS jamming equipment? And maybe more?
Pure speculation. But what else do we have?
Here's some technical background on the wireless encryption used by the military. At the very least, I think you'd be wrong to rule out the possibility that this proprietary (?) implementation of AES could be cracked. The idea that they would even have considered using 128 bit WEP makes me more suspicious that their present method may not be secure.
spying on allies, that hardly seems sporting. is that allowed by the geneva conventions? what about by the godiva confections? and americans tanks destroyed, that couldnt be true. im sure tom brokaw would have told me by now.
Note the updated link to the wapo article on the russian situation in my post. (Most of my stuff is from the agonist, so if you're following there you know most of what I do...)
What do you make of the Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars?
What of the agonist.org's shot against command-post.org? Division in the ranks?
I give the U.S. led economic forces until the market opening on Thursday. If it's not clear by then (not won, but clear) I think we'll start heading downhill...
I've been working tonight, so I'm behind on the Russian site and Moore's speech. But I have been following the Agonist updates. Thanks for the recommendation. I might have something to say in the morning.
I've now read or heard several accounts of how the Moore speech was received. The BBC said mixed applause and boos; Salon said standing ovation with some boos, before somebody cued the orchestra, and the New York Times said immediate, rising chorus of boos until he left the stage. That's a pretty extreme range. Did you see it on TV? Could you tell what was going on? I'm glad to hear he criticized the Administration; I just hope he didn't look bad doing it.
when it was announced that michael moore won, it was the loudest, most sustained standing ovation of the evening. he brought up everyone in his documentary category who was nominated and said they stood in solidarity. then, he said, they all made non-fiction films but that we were living in a fiction, and the fiction was that our president was elected legitimately and that the rationale for the war was ficticious. that statement was met with a mixture of applause and boos at which point the music rose and probably his mic was cut off.
the adrian brody speech was quite good albeit less polemic.
and where was eminem? was that more or less shocking than polanski winning?
also, the agonist is more of a hawkish liberal, while my sense from commandposts links is that they are conservative warbloggers.
yesterday CNN the pres could not make one sentence straight, it was scary....and then they said we lost the land we gained....people all over the world will hate us and take it out on us....impeach the idiot, and beg for global forgiveness??
I'd say there were more boos - or, at least, the boos were louder than the applause - in response to the Moore speech. Although I agree with Dave, when his name was first announced as winner he got a huge ovation. But as soon as it became clear he was really going to say something clear and outright against the war (as opposed to some sort of veiled comment) the crowd turned on him. I'd say unmistakable boos (although again, possibly it was a very vocal minority.)
He didn't look stupid though. He said what he said very quickly, with a smile on his face, and then left the stage before they really had to do anything to get him off. Pretty effective I thought.
Also agree about adrian brody. Not as rabble rousing, but very heartfelt. This was received much better. Like the crowd was against the war, but even more against having anything put in their face.
Skinny, it's too early to tell anything about how the war is going. Although it's clearly not going much better than planned. I think by Thursday we'll have some sense if it might actually turn into a quagmire.
Have they used that word yet? Yesterday's phrase was "in the rear." I must have heard that a million times. The day before was "lightning strike." And the day before that was "shock and awe." What will it be today?
It amused me greatly, in a very sad Beavis and Butthead way, to hear all those generals and talking heads keep saying in the rear. "We've got some heavy action in the rear." "Got to watch out we don't take too many hits in the rear." Yeah, I know it's childish, but LOL. I've got to take a smile where I can get one these days.
Heh heh, you said "rear." According to the Agonist, Wolf Blitzer used the Q word yesterday, prompting the Agonist to say "What a dipshit." Last night I read a whole slew of comments on Eschaton about the audience response to Moore, and one thing a lot of people said was that the video enhanced the impression of cheering (applause) and the audio enhanced the impression of booing. What's disturbing is how many mainstream media reported as fact that the sole response was "escalating boos." The status quo must be maintained at all costs!
Calling the bush presideny a fiction--that was thrilling to hear. I very much appreciated Moore's reminder to everyone that bush and the gang stole the election. I've been wondering where that fact got lost along the way this past year. Moore and the other documentarians stayed just long enough, and he spoke with just enough contained rage to have a pinpoint bombing effect.
Brody's speech contained first an impassioned declaration about the degradation and horror of war, and declaration of support for a friend overseas in Kuwait. After he angrily told the orchestra to shut up, that he wasn't through speaking, and then looked straight at the camera and spilled out emotion.
Bernal, the Mexican actor who was in "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "Amores Perros" slipped in an anti-war reference, as he introduced the "best song" nomination for a song from "Frida." Something about the difficulty of the time,
the struggle against the war. "Wa need to remember that in all of this, we are not alone. If Frida were alive, she would be on our side. . ." Calm, sotto voce.
Sarandon, as she walked out and turned, just a look into the camera and a peace sign; given her long history of activism, not trivial.
Almodovar--hair and face like a shocked cartoon character, saying wait, I have this that I have to say, pulling out a little piece of paper from his jacket, substituting the English "ands" with "y's" throughout. Something about human rights must be respected, vaguely anti-war, very short, but obviously he meant it, as he read it, interspersing it with, "i'm sorry--", "thank you very much, i'm sorry." As in, sorry I have to say this, even though you gave me the aware, but I have to say this. .. .
thank you, i'm sorry! i'm sorry for so many typos this morning. in a hurry hurry hurry. Here's a glossary:
aware=award
presideny=presidency
though in bush's case, can't resist the cheap shot, maybe it should read "presiduncy"
it seemed to me more silence and whispering than boos - here's the speech
Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Cool paper on encryption standards -- usually these things get broken when operators get lazy or arrogant and don't keep changing keys. BTW several pages on the aeronautics.ru site are now blank or 404ed. As for Iraq acquiring other gear (night-vision goggles etc), it's not so surprising given Iraq's long trade relations w Russian contractors (going back for decades).
Here's a little background on GPS jammers. Apparently easy to build, but the jury is still out on whether the U.S. has effective anti jamming tech already in place.
The early reports from Baghdad seem to indicate that the bombings have been very accurate so far. This would lead you to believe that either there are no jammers, or they are not working.
I heard many more loud boos than cheers. I instantly thought of the cheer and boo knobs in that Star Trek episode with the Zaion's in the Coleseum. (ok, that would be a conspiricy theory)
While I cheered Moore I also felt that maybe his message may be too easy to dismiss, seemed too crackpot. I think I'd have preferred some other soundbyte, maybe something along the lines of squandered world sympathy, or the 5+ year old plans of Perle, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheny etc. to attack Iraq. I dunno.
I agree with seemed too crackpot about Moore in general. He's got some good message but he's not my favorite liberal voice. It sounded like more boos than cheers to me, although I agree with whoever said the boos were on the audio and the cheers on the video, that's what it seemed like to me too. But along the with the visual cheers there were also several big named stars looking embarrassed or even mildly contemptuous.
I think that Bowling For Columbine got maybe the biggest aplause of the night, but I heard almost nothing but boos after Moore's speech. Audio and audio
A friend of mine was at the Oscars and says that there was much applause with only boos which seemed to be concentrated in one area. Later, when he watched it on tape he was amused by how loud the broadcast boos were.
i read somewhere that stagehands were placed near microphones to increase the booing volume.
You pullin' our leg fink? I'd think SAG would'a had a cow.
"...before I had finished my first sentence about the fictitious president, a couple of men (some reported it was "stagehands" just to the left of me) near a microphone started some loud yelling. Then a group in the upper balcony joined in. What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but, looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing."
|
Most of their reports seem to rely on "intercepted U.S. military comunications". This seems unlikely to me given the theoretical ease of use of high quality encryption. I'm sure the military is using such non trivial encryption. Still, this page would seem to be some sort of explanation about how these military intercepts are possible - and thus, by inference, how they might have information not available otherwise.
Yeah, OK, I'll take what I can get.
I can't really analyze this information. It doesn't seem obviously wrong like so much encryption industry marketing. But I can't really tell. This part, for instance, "sounds" potentially correct to me, in the sense that this is usually how codes actually are cracked:Anyway, like I say, more junk for the junkie.This plays into the top unconfirmed story I've been following. Are there Russian technicians on the ground in Baghdad (sorry for the possibly non-direct wapo link) training the Iraqi's in the use of GPS jamming equipment? And maybe more?
Pure speculation. But what else do we have?
- jim 3-24-2003 7:46 am
Here's some technical background on the wireless encryption used by the military. At the very least, I think you'd be wrong to rule out the possibility that this proprietary (?) implementation of AES could be cracked. The idea that they would even have considered using 128 bit WEP makes me more suspicious that their present method may not be secure.
- jim 3-24-2003 8:10 am
spying on allies, that hardly seems sporting. is that allowed by the geneva conventions? what about by the godiva confections? and americans tanks destroyed, that couldnt be true. im sure tom brokaw would have told me by now.
- dave 3-24-2003 8:22 am
Note the updated link to the wapo article on the russian situation in my post. (Most of my stuff is from the agonist, so if you're following there you know most of what I do...)
What do you make of the Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars?
What of the agonist.org's shot against command-post.org? Division in the ranks?
I give the U.S. led economic forces until the market opening on Thursday. If it's not clear by then (not won, but clear) I think we'll start heading downhill...
- jim 3-24-2003 8:31 am
I've been working tonight, so I'm behind on the Russian site and Moore's speech. But I have been following the Agonist updates. Thanks for the recommendation. I might have something to say in the morning.
- tom moody 3-24-2003 8:42 am
I've now read or heard several accounts of how the Moore speech was received. The BBC said mixed applause and boos; Salon said standing ovation with some boos, before somebody cued the orchestra, and the New York Times said immediate, rising chorus of boos until he left the stage. That's a pretty extreme range. Did you see it on TV? Could you tell what was going on? I'm glad to hear he criticized the Administration; I just hope he didn't look bad doing it.
- tom moody 3-24-2003 10:02 am
when it was announced that michael moore won, it was the loudest, most sustained standing ovation of the evening. he brought up everyone in his documentary category who was nominated and said they stood in solidarity. then, he said, they all made non-fiction films but that we were living in a fiction, and the fiction was that our president was elected legitimately and that the rationale for the war was ficticious. that statement was met with a mixture of applause and boos at which point the music rose and probably his mic was cut off.
the adrian brody speech was quite good albeit less polemic.
and where was eminem? was that more or less shocking than polanski winning?
also, the agonist is more of a hawkish liberal, while my sense from commandposts links is that they are conservative warbloggers.
- dave 3-24-2003 10:23 am
yesterday CNN the pres could not make one sentence straight, it was scary....and then they said we lost the land we gained....people all over the world will hate us and take it out on us....impeach the idiot, and beg for global forgiveness??
- Skinny 3-24-2003 4:47 pm
I'd say there were more boos - or, at least, the boos were louder than the applause - in response to the Moore speech. Although I agree with Dave, when his name was first announced as winner he got a huge ovation. But as soon as it became clear he was really going to say something clear and outright against the war (as opposed to some sort of veiled comment) the crowd turned on him. I'd say unmistakable boos (although again, possibly it was a very vocal minority.)
He didn't look stupid though. He said what he said very quickly, with a smile on his face, and then left the stage before they really had to do anything to get him off. Pretty effective I thought.
Also agree about adrian brody. Not as rabble rousing, but very heartfelt. This was received much better. Like the crowd was against the war, but even more against having anything put in their face.
- jim 3-24-2003 5:14 pm
Skinny, it's too early to tell anything about how the war is going. Although it's clearly not going much better than planned. I think by Thursday we'll have some sense if it might actually turn into a quagmire.
Have they used that word yet? Yesterday's phrase was "in the rear." I must have heard that a million times. The day before was "lightning strike." And the day before that was "shock and awe." What will it be today?
It amused me greatly, in a very sad Beavis and Butthead way, to hear all those generals and talking heads keep saying in the rear. "We've got some heavy action in the rear." "Got to watch out we don't take too many hits in the rear." Yeah, I know it's childish, but LOL. I've got to take a smile where I can get one these days.
- jim 3-24-2003 5:20 pm
Heh heh, you said "rear." According to the Agonist, Wolf Blitzer used the Q word yesterday, prompting the Agonist to say "What a dipshit." Last night I read a whole slew of comments on Eschaton about the audience response to Moore, and one thing a lot of people said was that the video enhanced the impression of cheering (applause) and the audio enhanced the impression of booing. What's disturbing is how many mainstream media reported as fact that the sole response was "escalating boos." The status quo must be maintained at all costs!
- tom moody 3-24-2003 5:41 pm
Calling the bush presideny a fiction--that was thrilling to hear. I very much appreciated Moore's reminder to everyone that bush and the gang stole the election. I've been wondering where that fact got lost along the way this past year. Moore and the other documentarians stayed just long enough, and he spoke with just enough contained rage to have a pinpoint bombing effect.
Brody's speech contained first an impassioned declaration about the degradation and horror of war, and declaration of support for a friend overseas in Kuwait. After he angrily told the orchestra to shut up, that he wasn't through speaking, and then looked straight at the camera and spilled out emotion.
Bernal, the Mexican actor who was in "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "Amores Perros" slipped in an anti-war reference, as he introduced the "best song" nomination for a song from "Frida." Something about the difficulty of the time,
the struggle against the war. "Wa need to remember that in all of this, we are not alone. If Frida were alive, she would be on our side. . ." Calm, sotto voce.
Sarandon, as she walked out and turned, just a look into the camera and a peace sign; given her long history of activism, not trivial.
Almodovar--hair and face like a shocked cartoon character, saying wait, I have this that I have to say, pulling out a little piece of paper from his jacket, substituting the English "ands" with "y's" throughout. Something about human rights must be respected, vaguely anti-war, very short, but obviously he meant it, as he read it, interspersing it with, "i'm sorry--", "thank you very much, i'm sorry." As in, sorry I have to say this, even though you gave me the aware, but I have to say this. .. .
- bunny (guest) 3-24-2003 5:50 pm
thank you, i'm sorry! i'm sorry for so many typos this morning. in a hurry hurry hurry. Here's a glossary:
aware=award
presideny=presidency
though in bush's case, can't resist the cheap shot, maybe it should read "presiduncy"
- bunny (guest) 3-24-2003 5:53 pm
it seemed to me more silence and whispering than boos - here's the speech
Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
- linda 3-24-2003 5:54 pm
Cool paper on encryption standards -- usually these things get broken when operators get lazy or arrogant and don't keep changing keys. BTW several pages on the aeronautics.ru site are now blank or 404ed. As for Iraq acquiring other gear (night-vision goggles etc), it's not so surprising given Iraq's long trade relations w Russian contractors (going back for decades).
- bruno 3-24-2003 8:06 pm
Here's a little background on GPS jammers. Apparently easy to build, but the jury is still out on whether the U.S. has effective anti jamming tech already in place.
The early reports from Baghdad seem to indicate that the bombings have been very accurate so far. This would lead you to believe that either there are no jammers, or they are not working.
- jim 3-24-2003 9:11 pm
I heard many more loud boos than cheers. I instantly thought of the cheer and boo knobs in that Star Trek episode with the Zaion's in the Coleseum. (ok, that would be a conspiricy theory)
While I cheered Moore I also felt that maybe his message may be too easy to dismiss, seemed too crackpot. I think I'd have preferred some other soundbyte, maybe something along the lines of squandered world sympathy, or the 5+ year old plans of Perle, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheny etc. to attack Iraq. I dunno.
- steve 3-25-2003 6:05 am
I agree with seemed too crackpot about Moore in general. He's got some good message but he's not my favorite liberal voice. It sounded like more boos than cheers to me, although I agree with whoever said the boos were on the audio and the cheers on the video, that's what it seemed like to me too. But along the with the visual cheers there were also several big named stars looking embarrassed or even mildly contemptuous.
- jimlouis 3-25-2003 6:40 am
I think that Bowling For Columbine got maybe the biggest aplause of the night, but I heard almost nothing but boos after Moore's speech. Audio and audio
- steve 3-25-2003 7:14 am
A friend of mine was at the Oscars and says that there was much applause with only boos which seemed to be concentrated in one area. Later, when he watched it on tape he was amused by how loud the broadcast boos were.
- steve 3-29-2003 7:39 am
i read somewhere that stagehands were placed near microphones to increase the booing volume.
- dave 3-29-2003 8:18 am
You pullin' our leg fink? I'd think SAG would'a had a cow.
- steve 3-29-2003 8:31 am
"...before I had finished my first sentence about the fictitious president, a couple of men (some reported it was "stagehands" just to the left of me) near a microphone started some loud yelling. Then a group in the upper balcony joined in. What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but, looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing."
- steve 3-29-2003 9:04 pm