Slashdot Mirror

"portions of sealed transcripts leaked that implicate WikiLeaks and Assange in directing hackers to target governments and corporations."

There are serious charges and would require strong independent verifiable evidence. What exactly is the evidence that Assange in directing hackers to target governments and corporations. An alternative reading of the issue and I produce the evidence below, is that this is part of the strategy by the US deepstate to discredit Wikileaks and Assange:

"The WikiLeaks Threat": An Overview by Palandr Technologies, HBGary Federal, and Berico Technologies

* Security: Need to get to the Swedish document submission server. Need to create doubt about their security and increase awareness that interac6on with WikiLeaks will expose you.

* Feed the fuel between the feuding groups. Disinforma6on. Create messages around ac6ons to sabotage or discredit the opposing organiza6on. Submit fake documents and then call out the error.

* Create concern over the security of the infrastructure. Create exposure stories. If the process is believed to not be secure they are done.

* Cyber attacks against the infrastructure to get data on document submitters. This would kill the project. Since the servers are now in Sweden and France putting a team together to get access is more straightforward.

* Media campaign to push the radical and reckless nature of wikileaks activities. Sustained pressure. Does nothing for the fanatics, but creates concern and doubt amongst moderates.

* Search for leaks. Use social media to profile and identify risky behavior of employees.

* Palantir is broadly deployed throughout the National intelligence and defense communities.

* Comprised of decorated talent with proven analytical expertise from throughout the Armed Forces.

* Traditional responses will fail; we must employ the best investigative team, currently employed by the most sensitive of national security agencies ...

Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount (sic)? If the kid spends his screen time reading books, watching lectures, and discussing thought provoking content, isn't that obviously going to have a very different effect compared to scrolling through instagram all day?

While I suspect that most people will intuitively agree with your question / assertion, I'm not sure that the 'value judgements' that will almost certainly follow will necessarily hold water. You're also brushing over an equally valid question which is: Is the effect of reading paper books or attending a live lecture in person identical to the effect of reading the same book in electronic form or watching a video of the same lecture?

In her book,Mind Change, Susan Greenfield relates that the electronic forms of learning are, or at least tend to be, less effective than learning gained otherwise. This always made a certain amount of sense to me because of the way our brains seem to 'tag' memories, allowing access to them via various different routes. If, for example, all our reading is done on the same computer we're missing out on the 'physical' memories of the books (colour, size, weight, texture, location, smell, etc.) so we can no longer rely on them as individual keys to access the remembered content of those various books, we just have the one key trying to link to all the books we read on that device. Furthermore it's highly likely that we lose a physical sense of location within the books where a particular piece of information was first read. Weaker links lead to weaker memories, and weaker memories are less likely to be retained over time, at least without refreshing, hence strengthening, them.

In fairness, having linked to her book, I feel I should probably also link to a critique of her work and stated opinions, not only in the interests of balance, but also because it's easy to become blinded by what we believe to be true to the point that we no longer question that belief.

Your statement / question seems to me to run a very real risk of falling into this category of belief.

The politics of experience...

Computers cannot lie because they do not deal in truth.

They most certainly do, for many reasonable definitions of "truth". In particular, any definition which does not resort to an appeal to some ineffable essence should be capturable by a computable formal system.

Of course, that will be limited by the limitations of the formal system in question, and any such system is either limited in power (compared to some other describable systems) or limited by incompleteness. Doxastic logic is Gödel-complete, as is any system isomorphic to it, obviously.

Don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?

Or, for the book worms amongst us...

(And it's a damn good read!)

Taleb's 4-part Incerto series (see http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/247576/incerto-4-book-bundle-by-nassim-nicholas-taleb/9780812997699/) is fantastic reading. Changes your perspective on the nature of randomness and how much control we actually have over our system and our environment. Not just control, but how little information we even have about the situation! (it is easy to get "fooled by randomness"). Antifragile is particularly a very good concept we should follow in all of our systems; it occurs to me so often now how fragile our systems are, and many steps we take actually make it more fragile, not less.

I believe Taleb is working on a 5th book, I am looking forward to it.

The most amusing bit about the democrats response isn't the fact they aren't screaming "LIES!" It's the fact that they are pointing at Russia and yelling "Those dicks did that!"

My guess is that if the defense is true - she pissed them off with the reset button!

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

Or not.

According to that she was in bed with Putin.

that does ignore this book

http://www.penguinrandomhouse....

Which tells where the "reset button" was swiped from.

It amazes me that people forget that hillary reset relations and simultaneously screams about hacking.Was she a complete failure back then? Or is she lying now?