Weapons design is obvious; however much intelligence is about rather ordinary military capability and deployment. We seem to be doing poorly, from the intelligence standpoint responsibly, regarding laser weapons, the "next big thing" I don't think much has been published in public reliable sources, although it showed up today in the NYT.
Fred. > On 8 April 2013 20:06, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> He was talking about challenges. The code certification was >> interesting. >> The Wiki project getting in trouble for having (US classified) Secret, >> Top >> Secret, or Top Secret SCI (Secure Compartmented Information) in the >> "Open-unclassified" category *due to Wikipedia uploads/imports* was >> apparently a major ongoing pain point for the whole organization. > > I have to say, this is a delightful image :-) > > We had some problems in the past on enwiki with this "officially > secret" situation - well-meaning military personnel trying to remove > information from articles citing operational security reasons, even > when the information was definitionally public. Strictly speaking, had > *they* told us the information, they could perhaps have been breaching > operational security; the problem came from not connecting that to the > realisation that not everyone was bound by their specific security > restrictions. > > (I forget the precise pages - a map of military zones in Iraq was > involved in one, and I've also seen someone try and remove mention of > where US divisions were based in Germany, which was perhaps a bit like > trying to hide the proverbial elephant...) > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l