Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Moves To Swiss Domain After DNS Takedown

An anonymous reader writes "Netcraft posted two reports on the movement of the WikiLeaks website today. First the site was taken down by EveryDNS, who terminated the DNS provision for wikileaks.org. A few hours later, WikiLeaks moved to a Swiss domain (wikileaks.ch). Netcraft suggests this move could be because the wikileaks.org domain was registered with a US company, which could be influenced by the US government. The new wikileaks.ch site is hosted in Sweden, but redirects all of its traffic to France. Strangely, WikiLeaks has chosen to use EveryDNS again for their new domain." This follows Amazon's removal of WikiLeaks from their cloud hosting, which has the EFF and others worrying about free speech on the net as various hosting providers receive political pressure to censor certain content. Amazon claims their decision wasn't influenced by a government inquiry, while Tableau Software freely admits that a public request from Senator Joe Lieberman prompted them to take down WikiLeaks data visualizations.

488 comments

  1. First leak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But soon, no more leaks... :(

    1. Re:First leak! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      please. they're just going after source after source. it takes minimal effort for wikileaks to find another host. So no, it's not over.

      this is just the us gov't trying to attack a decentralized solution and failing, as noted that wikileaks is still up today.

    2. Re:First leak! by Threni · · Score: 1

      If only browsers bookmarked the IP address as well as the domain name.

    3. Re:First leak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good old Joe Lieberman. The government needs to see you naked or grope you if you want to fly, but people can't be allowed to read about state department gossip.

    4. Re:First leak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just need the key....

      https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance

    5. Re:First leak! by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      I only have a very basic understanding of the under-the-hood stuff in the internet's DNS system, so maybe I'm missing something... but how would Wikileaks getting DDOS'd affect other customers of anyDNS? Was anyDNS getting DDOS'd?

      Like, maybe every DDOS packet was preceded by a DNS lookup to determine the target IP was correct.... but unless I'm very mistaken about how DNS even works, that shouldn't affect anyDNS....?

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    6. Re:First leak! by devbox · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes. I don't know if it's related, but Namecheap is currently under attack too and I'm personally affected by it. You cannot currently make any changes to DNS records and the domains resolve slowly. That means tens of thousands of customers and businesses.

      What does everyone suggest that they would do? Of course they will have to get the one that causes trouble for so many other customers. anyDNS was also being tolerable about it - they told wikileaks they will cease the service for them after 24 hours. During that time all it would had taken from Wikileaks was to change their nameserver records somewhere else. No domain has been taken down.

    7. Re:First leak! by Tynin · · Score: 4, Informative

      If only browsers bookmarked the IP address as well as the domain name.

      It would be an interesting feature to have, but generally speaking if you've been to the site, odds are pretty good you still have the A record in your local DNS cache. I find it easier to look this up on Windows than Linux. For Windows, you just run "ipconfig /displaydns", for Linux you need to have caching nameserver running, and then either dig or nslookup the site in question against your local caching nameserver.

    8. Re:First leak! by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're all for transparency, as long as it doesn't apply to them...

    9. Re:First leak! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      thanks muchly for linky

    10. Re:First leak! by skarphace · · Score: 1

      Good old Slashdotters. They consider airport body scans to be an intolerable abridgment of privacy, yet they see no problem whatsoever with publishing private diplomatic communications because "information wants to be free".

      Personal Privacy != Government Secrecy

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    11. Re:First leak! by skarphace · · Score: 1

      What does everyone suggest that they would do? Of course they will have to get the one that causes trouble for so many other customers. anyDNS was also being tolerable about it - they told wikileaks they will cease the service for them after 24 hours. During that time all it would had taken from Wikileaks was to change their nameserver records somewhere else. No domain has been taken down.

      It's highly recommended to run nameservers on entirely different subnets for reliability against network outages. I'd extend that and say that you may want to consider using entirely different DNS companies.

      So in your case, if your DNS provider was being DDOSed, your other nameserver could pick up the slack. In Wikileaks' case, I don't know why they aren't running their own nameservers to begin with.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    12. Re:First leak! by Threni · · Score: 1

      I used Firefox and Chrome on Ubuntu. I want it to `just work` - I don't want to dick around with this or that app. I want bookmarks to bookmark a different string, that's all - the one that would work more often than currently. Yes, every few years I'll have the incorrect bookmark because the IP address might change etc, but manifestly this happens less often than the DNS going down.

    13. Re:First leak! by Tynin · · Score: 1

      I used Firefox and Chrome on Ubuntu. I want it to `just work` - I don't want to dick around with this or that app. I want bookmarks to bookmark a different string, that's all - the one that would work more often than currently. Yes, every few years I'll have the incorrect bookmark because the IP address might change etc, but manifestly this happens less often than the DNS going down.

      I didn't disagree with you, I thought it would be an interesting thing to add on. Perhaps even in the form of it first trying what it has as the domain, then if it fails after some timeout, it could try the last known A record that it would keep stored as part of the bookmark.

      I was just tossing out that you could, should you want, recover resolved IP's of places you've been since currently browsers do not offer this feature.

    14. Re:First leak! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Isn't that just normal load balancing, if done properly?

      I may be oversimplifying but figured I'd ask.

  2. Mmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always did like my domains on rye with Swiss. Netcraft confirms it.

  3. Ch Ch Ch Changes by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Informative
    From Scave (1952132) on Friday December 03, @04:36AM (#34428870):

    "WIKILEAKS: Free speech has a number: http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] "

    Wikileaks.ch ch ch changes!

    1. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sounds like you are the one with the miserable life.

    2. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

      Is that you Prince Andrew?

    3. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't give it away! They want to unprotect us from the terrible secret of space! Imagine all the extra work that will be required of the poor pusher and shover robots!

    4. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Scave · · Score: 2

      It's ironic that you wouldn't know details of his assassination unless agents like Wikileaks existed. All you'd read is "Rape suspect dies in tragic staircase accident".

    5. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      wow the hate! did Julian Assange break a condom inside you or something?

    6. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who told Palin how to use a computer, and most of all, why?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Tar-Alcarin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's a shame you posted that as AC, because that truly deserves a "5, Funny".
      Well, perhaps with a "but slightly distasteful" addendum, but what real comedy isn't?

    8. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Who are you?"

      "I am #2".

      "Who is #1?"

      "you are 88.80.13.160."

      "What do you want?"

      "Information."

      "You won't get it."

      "By hook or by crook, we will."

    9. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      It's ironic that you wouldn't know details of his assassination unless agents like Wikileaks existed. All you'd read is "Rape suspect dies in tragic staircase accident".

      First of all, let's remember that we are talking about a purely hypothetical situation.

      Second, lets remember that no intelligence services leaks have occurred (yet?) - I highly doubt that diplomatic cables would contain details of a clandestine CIA operation.

      Third, why the heck would they assassinate him?

      And finally, eventually any government documentation will get released. Yeah, you'll have to wait until some bureaucrat decides it's time, but eventually it will all be public record.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      And finally, eventually any government documentation will get released. Yeah, you'll have to wait until some bureaucrat decides it's time, but eventually it will all be public record.

      Well, atleast all the documents you know of. All the interresting documents are the once you don't know exist.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    11. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that diplomatic cables would contain details of a clandestine CIA operation.

      Yea the ambassadors usually spill those details at cocktail parties.

    12. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's Sarah Palin.

    13. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you have failed to learn the lessons of history; and are repeating the error of killing the messenger. Since we have determined your DNA profile is not capable of learning, you are not fit to procreate.
      Bailiff, amputate his pee-pee

    14. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      "I'm not a number, I am a free man".

      Well, free 'til he gets arrested or shot.

    15. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

      So when you say a small missile from an unmanned (by your tone, US) drone, you mean it'll take out half a city block, murder two hundred innocent civilians and be in an area where Assange hasn't lived in six months?

    16. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just created http://wikileaks.quelsolaar.com (it will take some time to propagate) If you have a domain, do the same #DontMessWithDNS

    17. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 2

      What, you think something like that would be made to do anything but instill terror?

    18. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. It's Kapo Joe Lieberman.

    19. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah. Sarah would swoop in with a helicopter, causing Julian to stampede, and then take him down with a well placed shot.

    20. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just created http://wikileaks.quelsolaar.com If you have a domain, do the same #DontMessWithDNS

    21. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, she wouldn't use words with so many of them fancy syllables.

    22. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to start world war III by bombing foreign nationals in EUROPEAN cities are we? Idiot.

    23. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The nice thing about governments when it comes to history buffs is that everyone is covering their ass all the time. They cover their ass by documenting what they were told to do when and by whom... otherwise they might someday be accountable for their own actions, or be accused of doing things on their own.

      I do not have high confidence in the desire of government to be open, because government is made up of people and people do not like to be subject to scrutiny. That said, there is so much cover-your-ass (CYA) going on in government that there will always be a paper trail.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ever you wondered why Julian is doing what he is doing, your message is it.

    25. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You assume he gives a fuck about a bunch of "brown skinned atheist pagans".

      Or, if Assange is in Europe, about a bunch of "wussy, nanny-state, freedom-hating, pot-smoking, abortionist lesbian, smelly hippie commies".

    26. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by gorzek · · Score: 1

      In the immortal words of Patrick Henry: "Live free or die hard."

    27. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is a solid reminder that we are becoming too reliant on 'domain names' and not doing enough to track and keep actual IP addresses. Perhaps it's time for a review of some of our habits, bookmarking, browsing history and, address finding. Whilst domain names are a convenience perhaps to protect and save an open internet it might be better to be less reliant upon that convenience and do more to independently and cooperatively track IP addresses.

      Wikileaks provides a service in keeping more of the truth accessible to the general public than would otherwise be the case. Whilst politicians and their cronies, corporate controlled mass media disagree as they obviously want to keep control of the truth in order to distort in with lies and thus control public consciousness for power and profit, every effort must be made to disrupt this inherently corrupt status quo.

      In reality a general review of what secrets governments can keep should be carried out and the public should be the ones to decide what should be secret and for how long it should remain a secret. Especially where those secrets would have a substantive impact upon whether existing elected representatives would be re-elected. Should Government secrets even be allowed to survive a term of office or at the very most one term after that term of office because clearly doing so is a corruption of the democratic process, as it denies the opportunity for the public to learn of the true qualities of their representatives based upon their actual actions whilst in office.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Splab · · Score: 1

      Rather live free or die trying.

    29. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by tibman · · Score: 1

      wow, that would be an impressive drone. I honestly don't think you could kill two hundred with one small missile unless the explosion caused a building to collapse or a very large secondary explosion.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    30. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Neat, I finally get to "whoosh" somebody!

    31. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This smear campaign seems to be working. In the strangest ways

      My Parents have a TV and hooked up to that TV is a computer. They use that computer to stream in movies. Not from Netflix or anything. Just those websites. I knew it would happen sooner or later, they got a nasty virus, I had to go and clean it up. Since I had the drive mounted to another computer in the back room while doing the scan, they had the news on. Of course a little blurb about Wikileaks comes on.

      My mom says something along the lines of "oooh, you shouldn't visit that site!" To my father. What spurred this comment I couldn't quite tell. So I poke myself out of the back room, the scan was started and it would be a while before it was finished anyways. So I pondered. Then I queried "Why would you say that?". She paused, and looked at me. I couldn't quite tell if she had answer ready, so in order to give her time and keep us from an awkward silence I say "Well, I am actually quite informed of the whole situation, but I don't watch the news with any regularity, so I'm just curious what the public opinion is on the situation. Don't worry I'm not going to lecture you or anything."

      To which she slowly spilled, "Well, I don't know anything about the site really. But I know that whenever a site makes it in the news like that, its a target for virus writers to try and put their code on the site and infect a lot of users."

      Which is kind of something I told her earlier, about how people will try and inject malicious code onto an actually innocent website, but I could tell my laymen explanation of it wasn't quite technical enough for her to actually grasp how it works.

      I wanted to respond to her silly logic, because she still visits Facebook, CNN.com, Yahoo, MSN - whatever, and there's no more assurance those sites will be safer than Wikileaks, but I just let my mom believe whatever it is she wants to believe.

      It could have been full well that she doesn't like what Wikileaks is doing, or Julian Assange, or something else, but didn't want to get into a debate with me.

      In any event, my anecdotal evidence is that the negative light the media shows on wikileaks is working on the average joes of North America.

    32. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      No, It's Jango Fett speaking for Senator Palpatine aka Darth Sidious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palpatine1.jpg

    33. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, state mandated murder! I assume you're American?

    34. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. There was a big leak.

    35. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Splab · · Score: 1

      Really, how so?

    36. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by dissy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps this is a solid reminder that we are becoming too reliant on 'domain names' and not doing enough to track and keep actual IP addresses. Perhaps it's time for a review of some of our habits, bookmarking, browsing history and, address finding

      Sounds like what we need is a browser plugin that logs the IP of a website when bookmarked, or perhaps even in history, along with the name.

      In future requests, it could only lookup DNS to check for changes, and prompt for action (update or not)

      If the domain ever disappears, it could use the IP from the log to reach the site, and the original domain name to send as a Host: header (For virtual hosts where just using the IP alone won't get you to the right website)

    37. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Really, how so?

      Um, this?

    38. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by seyyah · · Score: 1

      She calls them Yahoo's and she's been using them since she was governor of Alaska.

    39. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha! :)

    40. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      1) Take a domain->IP translation.
      2) Hash it
      3) Put it in a distributed hash table similar to what most newer Bittorrent clients do with torrents
      4) Congrats! You now have a distributed DNS system with little to no central control.

    41. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Virtual servers would be beyond your technique, not every site has a unique IP address.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    42. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wikileaks.
      New addresses:

      wikileaks.nl
      wikileaks.fi

    43. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

      Perhaps it will not be a drone, but rather a Vogon Destroyer!

    44. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      where are my points when i need them?

    45. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by agbinfo · · Score: 1

      One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

      Is that you Prince Andrew?

      It's probably Tom Flanagan.

    46. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      "public" in the digital age doesn't necessarily mean "standing uncomfortably close to an open window in a room full of your enemies", or "riding around in an open-top on a sunny Texas day"

    47. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by dissy · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      For a virtual server, you just connect to the shared IP, and send a Host: www.domain.com header to the server so it knows what website you want.

      I clearly addressed that very point in my post.

    48. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by davester666 · · Score: 1

      What's the point for tracking IPv4 addresses, as the internet is about to explode because we only have a few more weeks before the last few addresses get allocated.

      Or so I've been informed by Slashdot articles.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    49. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by alchemy101 · · Score: 1

      indeed if I were braver I would, but the potential for being flame-modded or troll-modded was too high for me; tis' the difference between anonymous and an anonymous coward.

    50. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by budgenator · · Score: 1

      doah and your correct also, I have in the past hand editied my hosts file so wikileaks would resolve when governments were playing games with its DNS also. I believe windows still uses an editable hosts file and I know *nix does.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    51. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh sorry, I thought this was the Fox News forum.

    52. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mother might just want to protect you from similar harm as Assange is facing. Have you taken that into account before reaching to your conclusion?

    53. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by inKubus · · Score: 1

      What about a local DNS cache with version control on the cache dumps. Thus every time you visit a site, you ask the cache, who asks the net. If it's changed, it saves the previous IP for posterity along with a date stamp. Since you only visit 1-2000 sites per year the storage would be miniscule. Plus, you have a local cache which will speed up your browsing. Obviously local DNS caches are present in many operating systems already (such as OS X) but the version control (or incremental saving of the cache) idea is novel, I believe.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    54. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by nwk · · Score: 1

      Windows XP SP3: C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

      Linux: /etc/hosts

      I use the hosts file on Linux and Windows to redirect ad domains to the loopback void.

      e.g.
      127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net

    55. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by dissy · · Score: 1

      That's actually a pretty good idea. Nor can I recall any existing software that does that.

      Like you say, caching servers are common, but they typically expire entries after a short time.
      Even if you bump that expire time up to many years, they still replace older data with current data, so by the time you notice you need the old IP, it is gone.

      Version control and time stamping the changes would do the same trick I was thinking, but being DNS it wouldn't be limited to just the web browser.

      If a host no longer resolves, it can simply revert to the last IP it knew automatically.
      An interface could let you manually change to different IPs or time stamps, in the case of DNS being hijacked and pointed elsewhere (As I hear they do in certain raids lately)

      I really wish I had the time to code something like that up :(

    56. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of months ago, the DNSMADEEASY.COM provider did the very same thing to G-WAN (without any explanation, while G-WAN was paying for the service):

      http://gwan.ch/en_dns.html

      And, here too, G-WAN moved to a SWISS provider.

      G-WAN is not publishing secret Government documents.

      With its ANSI C scripts, G-WAN is just 5.8 MILLION TIMES faster than MICROSOFT IIS 7 and C#.

      That was enought to censor it.

      So much for the FREE and OPEN markets.

    57. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I shiver at the thought for what that Yahoo might be using a computer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brave"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    LOL!

  5. i was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i was first but someone moved my DNS entry, hence the delay

  6. Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    EveryDNS already said that their DNS servers were getting DDoSed, and so they found it a better move to drop one customer and their baggage for the sake of their other thousands of customers.

    1. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So why did they take that customer back?

    2. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      customer service at its finest. remember this next time you think about patronizing everyDNS.

    3. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      So why did they take that customer back?

      3. Profit!

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Who said that they knowingly took them back? Its trivially easy to register a new account with EveryDNS and get them to host a new domain...

    5. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      No shit? I think the leak I'd find most interesting is all the correspondence between wikileaks, congress and their respective providers. lol

    6. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      So basically EveryDNS is admitting that their servers are underpowered, and instead of beefing them up, they will kick off any customer who has significant traffic. What a great advertising campaign!

    7. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by digitalsushi · · Score: 0

      my grandmother is underpowered to handle a gangbang. not much of a woman huh.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    8. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because it's not DDoSed?

      AC

    9. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      Who said that they knowingly took them back? Its trivially easy to register a new account with EveryDNS and get them to host a new domain...

      ...until EveryDNS discovers it and terminates the new domain.

      It would be incredibly stupid of Wikileaks to use the dns provider which has already once terminated one of their domains, unless Wikileaks and that dns provider has some sort of agreement about the new domain.

    10. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      not much of one if she was advertising gang-bang services no!

      seriously: selling a product then telling somebody they're "over using" something without any contracted limits is the worst.

    11. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have used EveryDNS for years. Recently, I made a $20 donation to them, which gave me extended capabilities.

      It appears WikiLeaks was not paying for the service being provided:

      "As with other users of the EveryDNS.net network, this service was provided for free."
      Source: http://www.everydns.com/news

      So, calling WikiLeaks a "customer" is a bit of a reach.

      It also appears that WikiLeaks was using only a single DNS provider. I'd call that a mistake on WikiLeaks part.

    12. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      Why do all of us technophiles act oblivious when it comes to allocating someone else's bandwidth?

      They sold a product, it got attacked and took down everyone else's site in the shared resources, and they got rid of it. If you are supposed to be a profit, and are not, why would they keep you? And their contract allows this.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    13. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by greap · · Score: 1

      RTFM. Underpants gnomes aside EveryDNS is free.

  7. p2p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    futile... http://thepiratebay.org/search/wikileaks/0/7/0

    1. Re:p2p by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but don't forget that all of the internet passes through no more than 300000 routes, many of which are government owned or otherwise covered. So it's conceivable, probably even likely, that there are some people who know everyone who's downloaded the archive. P2P is great but it's not anonymous. And there's no substitute for some LTO4 tapes in an attorney's safe deposit box. True, P2P can distribute wide enough that it's possible to keep the data for ever being deleted, but only if the people who download it actually do something with it themselves, such as burning a few DVDs and sliding them in between books at their campus library or something.

      Anyway, I think the U.S. Government had to respond in some way, even if the data isn't all that important. They can't just stand by and say nothing. That being said, I'm not sure what the law is about information once it's been leaked outside of the government umbrella. Is SECRET just an internal policy classification or is there some legal basis behind the info? I would guess not, judging by the war of words they're waging. If they really could prosecute this and win they would have already for the previous releases.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  8. Free as long as we don't cross our own politicians by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and brave in dictating how we think other people's money should be spent.

    Welcome to the me generation, where the freedom and justice are just buzzwords to drive angst on message boards, but wait Jennifer Anniston has a new boyfriend? I can't believe they allowed that Palin girl to get to the finals, and did you see who the new judges on Idol are going to be?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  9. What next in the arms race? No Google results? by migla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And, ultimately, no more Internet? Or what are the power elites gonna do to hide their shenanigans from the people?

    If this is what the so-called free and so-called democratic world is, I'd say we must be progressing nicely towards a total worldwide fascist corporate police state and/or a distributed and decentralized revolution to eliminate all hierarchies.

    Anarchism (as in wiki/Anarchism) FTW!

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    1. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Wikileaks' successful movement from the country which it has transgressed* to one of the many countries that are willing to give it safe harbour is a sign of "a total worldwide fascist corporate police state"? It strikes me as a reminder that whistleblowing will survive so long as nations exist and are sometimes unwilling to play by eachother's rules. Heterogeneity for the win.

      *I don't mean this pejoratively, it's just a graceful verb in this instance.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Informative

      Google News is already censoring certain websites (like infowars) that it doesn't like - upto last week Infowars was part of the daily G-News summary but not anymore. And on their youtube site Google is yanking videos "because criticizing the president violates community standards" or "video of US soldiers killing journalists/children is not acceptable". It's censorship. There's no other words for it.
       
      :-|

      How much does it cost to set-up my own Web Hosting Engine? I'd gladly host wikileaks regardless of pressure placed on me by Presidents Bush or Obama or Cheney.

      I switched my default search engine to Yahoo. I'm boycotting MS Bing and Google.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>You listen to the stupid Alex Jones???

      Well what else would I listen to during my work hours? The only streaming audio not blocked are WMP files, so I'm limited in my options. I'm open to alternative suggestions if ye have some.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by migla · · Score: 1

      >Wikileaks' successful movement from the country which it has transgressed* to one of the many countries that are willing to give it safe harbour is a sign of "a total worldwide fascist corporate police state"?

      It's a sign of us not being there yet, but the DNS takedown is a step in that direction.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    5. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      How much does it cost to set-up my own Web Hosting Engine?

      Uh, really? You've never hosted a website, even if just for tests?
      It costs the price of a decent internet connection (upload bandwidth is the most important) that doesn't block port 80 (some ISPs do, others don't) and a PC connected 24/7.

      I switched my default search engine to Yahoo.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4221538.stm

    6. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wikipedia says that all the New World Order stories including those related to the Bilderberg Group are just conspiracy theories, lacking any foundation in fact.

      There are at least four corrupt admins at enwiki (likely more) who patrol the conspiracy pages (most, but crucially not all, of which do contain nonsense, misinformation, and disinformation) and it is an almost open secret they are being paid by powerful foundations who, by an amazing coincidence, espouse the admins' viewpoint (but it is important that the great claim of neutrality and fairness throughout Wikipedia is maintained by all concerned, "we are just enforcing NPOV and WP:DUE" - why of course that's what you would claim you are doing, how very noble of you, "wikipedia is not a soapbox", of course, thank you for your public service). No public naming and shaming, even with attorney certified evidence, because that would be a personal attack. Dare to raise the evidence in private with admins and you'll get spuriously blocked as well. Hah!

    7. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Rizz · · Score: 1

      Good thing Yahoo results come from Bing. The man is watching you, c64!

    8. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, that's not necessary.

      You might have noticed that even Wikileaks was not teh evilz until recently, pretty much until Collateral Murder. Not because of the content, but because of the echo it generated. Suddenly every media outlet tuned in to Wikileaks and the moment they announce something every news network on this planet repeats it. Why? Because it's easy news and cheap dirt. You don't have to browse and search, to research and do journalism work. You glance at Wikileaks and you get everything you need to keep your viewers hooked. A single source for government dirt. Is there anything sweeter? And to make it even sweeter, they even did the fact checking for you, you can simply copy/paste and you have instant news!

      It's pointless to squish google results or even try to keep people from sharing such info through p2p or things like darknet. That has no mass appeal, gets no mass coverage and nobody promises that it's accurate and that you won't burn yourself and your network when you copy it without verifying it. It takes time to research it, you have to verify it, that's "expensive" news.

      Far more expensive than copy/pasting that some American Idiot participant broke his ankle from some news outlet. Not as interesting, granted, and you'd certainly get more people with government dirt. But not THAT many more that it's worth investing time. So if you can't copy/paste it from Wikileaks, you go with the drivel news.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Well what else would I listen to during my work hours?

      Umm... music?

    10. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's a demonstration of the US government's power over US companies, of the construction of a local police state, not a global one. It's no more persuasive evidence of an international police state than pointing to North Korea's equivalent actions.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      (1) blocked

      (2) Would rather listen to information not mindless pap

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google News is already censoring certain websites (like infowars) that it doesn't like - upto last week Infowars was part of the daily G-News summary but not anymore.

      Stormfront and Timecube aren't part of the G-News summary either. It must be a conspiracy! Or maybe someone at Google actually bothered to follow a link to Infowars, perused it for 3 seconds, and concluded that "Don't be crazy" and "Don't be stupid" work well in conjunction with "Don't be evil".

      (2) Would rather listen to information not mindless pap

      And yet you listen to Alex Jones.

    13. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      People spouting off about the lack of freedoms (and lack of democracy?!?!?!) demonstrated by the wikileaks relocations need to go back to 8th, maybe 9th grade Civics-- and relearn that Bill of Rights protections do NOT apply to private entities, and that EveryDNS / Amazon have every right to drop anyone who costs them more money than its worth (unless they signed a contract forbidding that).

      In fact, if youll go back and look at the Amendments again, youll note that theyre "Congress shall not"s, and that Congress HASNT. FURTHER, since Wikileaks isnt governed by US law, its all pretty much irrelevant, since what Congress does has very little to do with what Wikileaks does.

      Im not even sure how to respond to the comment about "so-called democratic", since the private entities involved very patently ARENT democracies.

    14. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by lee1 · · Score: 1

      Google already has a well established record of removing content that is critical of Islam, either in response to demands from Islamic organizations or the Pakistani government. The censorship applies to Google sites (like YouTube) served to the US, not merely to Islamic countries. In these cases Google falsely claims that the content has been removed due to a "terms of use violation" and refuses to discuss the real reasons for the censorship.

    15. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't be able to host a site like Wikileaks on a home connection or even on a commercial connection. Instead of the host terminating the account, it'd be your ISP doing so. Hosting Wikileaks would require you to own an ISP that directly connects to one of the backbones so that shutting you down would be an extremely unlikely possibility.

      Obviously, such a thing costs in the millions of dollars.

    16. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched my default search engine to Yahoo. I'm boycotting MS Bing and Google.

      LOL. You might want to know that Yahoo doesn't actually run a search engine, it's just a Yahoo front end for a Bing back end. You might have noticed it at the bottom of every fucking search you did on Yahoo since August 24th: "Powered by Bing".

    17. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by rumith · · Score: 1

      As user narkoz @ habr.ru put it, "you don't get 200,000 classified documents without making a few enemies"

    18. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yahoo! search is now Bing. You're going to have to find someone else.

      Infowars isn't being censored that I can see, either. It's very difficult to get into Google News, and top-tier providers bounce in and out all the time.

      As for censorship, Youtube isn't stopping anyone from talking about the issues, only from showing graphic violence. Private site, their policies. It's not hard to start your own site and do it yourself - but it is slightly hard than just whining about it.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    19. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Meh - Infowars is out there, but it isn't equivalent to Stormfront. I've never even heard of Timecube.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    20. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      And on their youtube site Google is yanking videos "because criticizing the president violates community standards" or "video of US soldiers killing journalists/children is not acceptable".

      [citation needed]

    21. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      So now we've watered Espionage down to whistleblowing?

      Last I checked there's nothing illegal in someone pondering if a nation's leader is on drugs, or voicing concern about the security of a nation's weapons of mass destruction. But WikiLeaks putting that on the internet for all to see is seriously damaging to our nation's diplomatic relationships and ... whistleblowing?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    22. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by lee1 · · Score: 1

      Youtube isn't stopping anyone from talking about the issues, only from showing graphic violence

      No, they are banning videos that just talk about the issues.

      Private site, their policies

      Agreed; they have a right to censor anything they want, and even to lie about it, as they do routinely. But Google's empire (YouTube, News, etc.) is so pervasive that their policies influence what people think they know about the world, so I think it's helpful to make their censorship practices better known.

    23. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by migla · · Score: 1

      So, that just means the people are not in power, which should be what democracy means. If the DNS:s aren't neutral, if corporations, or anyone else who isn't "the people" rule the world, it doesn't mean people should go back to class to learn about what rule of the people means, it means that people should take power from those who are not the people but have the power, doesn't it?

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    24. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      While we're on the subject, are there any decent news aggregators dedicated to alternative/independent media? i.e. sites where you don't need to login and set preferences

      I stopped going to Google news because the stories are almost entirely from MSM sources. I don't want to read anything from NYT, CNN, Fox, AP, Retuers, NBC, ABC, CBS or any of the other mainstream propagandists.

    25. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Let's give it a few days and see what influence the US brings to bear oversees, first.

    26. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by NanoGeek · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't know, the DNS host stopped hosting WikiLeaks voluntarily because they didn't want to deal with the DDoS attacks. Also, do you really want Anarchy? Really? It will work fine...until someone wants power and takes it. Then you would have a fascist state.

    27. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by migla · · Score: 1

      Way to partypoop on my philosophical ideal view on the general dialectics of the future with well grounded realism. :)

      But you're possibly right. Even in the longer run, it's likely that the powers that be will not let it come to a revolution. They will continue to disarm discontent with giving enough of us plebs convenience to keep history meh in general.

      That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep dreaming, though.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    28. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      ...I'd say we must be progressing nicely towards a total worldwide fascist corporate police state...

      You mean we're not there already?

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    29. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "And yet you listen to Alex Jones."

      Alex Jones and infowars.com are definitely no worse than Fox News, CNN or any of the other MSM outlets when it comes to credibility or bias.

      When interviewed by one of the major cable TV news outlets regarding his "conspiracy theories", Jones correctly pointed out that it wasn't "Infowars" that promoted the "conspiracy theory" about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. If the MSM outlets were in the business of real investigative journalism instead of swallowing and spreading government propaganda, we might have been able to avert a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

    30. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      And now you resort to defending the US government's actions by appealing to the letter of the law -- the spirit of the law be damned?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    31. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, ultimately, no more Internet? Or what are the power elites gonna do to hide their shenanigans from the people?

      If this is what the so-called free and so-called democratic world is, I'd say we must be progressing nicely towards a total worldwide fascist corporate police state and/or a distributed and decentralized revolution to eliminate all hierarchies.

      And what if wikileaks is run by the government?

      Guess what - it probably is. Leakers will soon be in trouble, and the pentagon now has the excuses they wanted for war with Iran and N. Korea.

    32. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      You know that what DNS root you use is your choice, right? No one is forcing you to use the DNS servers you are using.

      But also, I'd be interested in seeing the society where "the people" are in control of everything and everyone votes on everything. And I mean everything, from the policies at the local diary to the food preparation at the local grocery store to what television shows are produced and what television shows are watched and when to when you take a shit to who you talk to and what you say. Because otherwise "the people" aren't in control, right?

      Btw, did "the people" give you an approval vote on your post?

    33. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I wasn't expecting him to host the main Wikileaks site, just a mirror like those on http://mirror.wikileaks.info/

    34. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Dude, you entirely missed the point-- Im not defending the US gov'ts actions because they havent TAKEN any. EveryDNS and Amazon dropping Wikileaks is presumably because of the DDoS-- the only involvement of the govt here is idle speculation.

      If the government were to try to force Amazon or EveryDNS to drop them, you can be damn sure they would get taken down several notches by the court system, as no charges have as of yet been filed.

      Get this through your head, Amazon=/=US Government.

    35. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      read the terms of use lately?

      eventually any issue will require a judgement call to be made. someone at google made a call. blame them.

    36. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I typically get my news from a firearms enthusiasts' forum, the BBC, and the India Times.

      I tried AlJazeera for a while, but I realized after a while that the English website and the Arabic website have completely different content.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  10. No, they didn't by 68kmac · · Score: 5, Informative

    wikileaks.ch is actually registered by the Swiss Pirate Party. They just happen to have it pointed to the right server anyway. Tweet from the Swiss PP president (in German, sorry): http://twitter.com/#!/SciF0r/status/10641251581829120

    1. Re:No, they didn't by killmenow · · Score: 1

      .info domain names can be bought for around two bucks. I wonder if a bunch of "thissiteisnotwikileaks.info" and "whereswikileaks.info" domains will pop up all pointing to 213.251.145.96.

    2. Re:No, they didn't by Archwyrm · · Score: 1

      Translation: "To clear the confusion: Wikileaks.ch is registered to us, the content is at Wikileaks. It [the domain] is configured for their nameservers."

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
  11. Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So at what line do we consider something as 'free speech' no matter if it is in print, or on the internet?

    If a newspaper gets classified information through regular investigative journalism, they are now NOT allowed to print that information? (see: Pentagon Papers)

    If Joe Lieberman was in power in 1971, would we even know the extent of the corruption of the Johnson and Nixon administrations? Or would all their lies and wrongdoing just be 'swept under the rug' and out of sight, out of mind? Would the New York Times and the Washington Post be threatened and censored from publishing their information?

    Some quotes to contemplate:
    Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. - Potter Stewart
    The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. - George Bernard Shaw
    The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. - John Gilmour
    As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends. - Jeremy Bentham

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Spad · · Score: 2

      It's free speech as long as you agree with it, obviously.

    2. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      If a newspaper gets classified information through regular investigative journalism, they are now NOT allowed to print that information?

      If Joe Lieberman has his way...

      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by tius · · Score: 2

      One of the most interesting comments that I've seen in regards to the wikileaks publications was along the lines: "Now western governments are concerned with privacy?!?"

      Personally, I see this whole thing as an educational reminder of the true nature of our species as a whole. I mean, really, step back. This is not about Americans, it's about humans.

      In the end I suspect the Buddhist's are right in believing that true compassion for one another will be our route to a better (human) world.

    4. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      If you recall your history it wasn't the politicians that guaranteed free speech rights, it was the judges.

      --
      Get a web developer
    5. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Voline · · Score: 4, Funny

      You Have the right to free speech
      So long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it

      -- The Clash, "Know Your Rights"

    6. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      Once that happens, you will NEVER know what is being printed in news outlets is the truth.

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    7. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of press and of meeting, inviolability of home and all the rest, are only respected if the people do not make use of them against the privileged classes. But the day the people begin to take advantage of them to undermine those privileges, the so-called liberties will be cast overboard.

      - Peter Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel -

    8. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If a newspaper gets classified information through regular investigative journalism, they are now NOT allowed to print that information"
      US laws only apply to US citizenss... but the rest of the world does not have to follow US laws.

      If they don't want things to get out, don't document them.

      Don't try to punish wikileaks for someones inability to control their employees or information.

    9. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by I_Voter · · Score: 1

      From the Wikipedia Pentagon Papers page
      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1894524&op=Reply&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=34429666

      "To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds."

      ----------
      IMO The level of free speech in such a limited democracy as the U.S. has always been an anomaly of history. Actually, U.S. free speech is based on money.

      The political power of the citizen, or democracy, as in the rule of the people, is always for me - the primary issue. Freedom of speech can never be the primary issue, because limiting freedom of speech is always about controlling the people. Yes, one group of people in a democracy will often limit the speech of others, particularly for national security issues ( ie anti-fascist laws in Germany ), but in the long run free speech is always in the people's interest. The poor will defend speech, as political issue, as long as they believe the political system benefits them - and no longer.

    10. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by houghi · · Score: 1

      I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between pointing out a crime and identifying informants who will get murdered when they are outed. There's nothing noble about letting the world know we think Pakistan might not be able to secure it's nukes. There's nothing that helps secure us or anyone else in releasing that Hillary Clinton wonders if other nation's leaders are taking medication. Yet those pieces of information certainly damaging to the relationships we rely on around the world.

      You might be able to make a case that a person, or journalist, or even the hacks at WikiLeaks have a right and even a responsibility to bring crimes to the attention of the world. But subverting the relationships between nations "just because" isnt in the same category. It isnt today, it wont be tomorrow, and anyone that wants to try to justify it as such just to see the US govt squirm is intellectually dishonest and moraly corrupt.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    12. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      If a newspaper gets classified information through regular investigative journalism, they are now NOT allowed to print that information? (see: Pentagon Papers)

      The thing is, this leak is not the Pentagon Papers. There is no distinct point to this leak; it is a shotgun of classified material with no distinct purpose. There is no major issue being reported on. The leaks are being covered because of the leaks themselves not because of some horrible revelation brought about by the information published.

      And less I sound too anti-Wikileaks on this (of whom I am critical), I'd like to see the same attitude applied to the leaking of Valerie Plame's name as well. There was no justification for this and stiffer penalties (and more parties facing legal action) should have been involved.

    13. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by NanoGeek · · Score: 1

      No! He's pulling out the quotes. He just won the argument!

    14. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In the end I suspect the Buddhist's are right in believing that true compassion for one another will be our route to a better (human) world.

      What the Bhudda said wasn't that different from what the Christ said. The difference is, most Bhuddists don't secretly worship money above all else, as most American Christians do.

    15. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      MY history said it was the politicians (Jefferson, Madison, etc). Not sure about your country's history. Most countries' free speech came from a gun barrel (including America's).

    16. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Now, how you gonna answer the question Paul Simonon posed here? http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Guns-of-Brixton-lyrics-The-Clash/C2A3732B03DA609A48256D98000F45F6

      (whatever the British equivalent of fantasizing about Second Amendment Remedies is, this makes for one of the great punk songs.)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  12. Enraged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will not give Tablaue any more of my business. The way the choose to conduct business is appalling.

  13. Playing victim (DNS A recs still working) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    put in your /etc/hosts:

    46.59.1.2 wikileaks.org
    91.194.60.112 cablegate.wikileaks.org
    91.194.60.112 cables.wikileaks.org

    source: google robtex

    also, no ddos attacks (supposedly over 10gbps) were ever confirmed by their upstreams (bahnhof/ovh).

    either they're obstructed by their current registrar to change their root zone dns or just playing victim.

    well done, assange, sir.

    1. Re:Playing victim (DNS A recs still working) by matt4077 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that attack directed at their services at amazon from inside S3? I seem to remember a story about someone bragging about that.

    2. Re:Playing victim (DNS A recs still working) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did they tweet out the IP 88.80.13.160 and who controls those IPs?

    3. Re:Playing victim (DNS A recs still working) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean their upstreams not confirmed (or denied) an attack like when under a non disclosure judicial order?

  14. Free speech has been under assault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free speech has been under assault for a long time, but now it seems to be an all out war. Joe Lieberman, you've been threatening my freedoms for decades. How dare you sir. I have half a mind to move to CT just to be able to vote against you next election.

  15. Bah by NetServices · · Score: 1

    Changing IPs and namespace is a bunch of snot. If anything its just a nuisance. The only solution is to make the information they present irrelevant.

  16. Time for a US samizdat? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Joe Lieberman's basic mindset appears to be that the public should know only what the US government wants us to know. He's hardly alone in this - people who want to control access to information want to control thought. However, this gives him and people like him about as much credibility as the Iraqi Information Minister.

    And of course, it's an anathema to democracy, but that never stopped Joe before. I should also mention that given who his financial backers are, you might as well call him the senator for Israel, not the senator for Connecticut (To be clear, I treat corporate-sponsored senators much the same way, for instance "Bob Dole (R-ADM)").

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

    2. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time politicians have to wear the ads of their backers on their suits. You know, like the sports stars. Maybe then people would also wanna look at them some more.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senator for Israel??? You, sir, are a **fucking retard**. Do you even know what we are talking about??
      Israel is ecstatic about the leaks you fucking clown, as confirmed by Assange e.g.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3992959,00.html . The leaks show that the arab leaders hate iran at
      least as much as Israel did! Much of the arab public suspects israel is actually behind the leak!!! See http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/12/2010123144522634458.html and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3992908,00.html .
      I dont know what to conclude from the fact that you were given + 5 insightful.
      Honestly, people as ignorant as you should learn to shut the fuck up.

    4. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by bayankaran · · Score: 1

      This was the jackass Gore took as the VP candidate! Good that Gore lost...what a colossal error of judgement!!

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    5. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "Bob Dole (R-ADM)".

      Odd, ADM already has Kirk and Durbin (both from Illinois, Durbin has been Senator for years and Kirk was just sworn in).

      ADM is in Decatur and anything ADM wants, Illinois politicians give them.

    6. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I picked on Dole because he's retired, but illustrated the point.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, now that the supreme court has ruled that corporations are citizens and can vote for candidates with their pocketbooks, it's only natural that they would band together and send representatives to congress. Corporations are like robots and they are gaining more rights every day. That's why I recommend you buy stock.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    8. Re:Time for a US samizdat? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I should also mention that given who his financial backers are, you might as well call him the senator for Israel, not the senator for Connecticut

      Ah, of course a jab against Israel never harmed anyone. Let's add some actual facts: Israel is not suppressing any information, least of all WikiLeaks. And the leaked diplomatic cables have all been very favorable to Israel. If anything, it would be Turkey, Iran and Iran's arab neighbors who would want WikiLeaks squashed. Along with the US administration, of course.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  17. Bread, circusses and home owners by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The romans had bread and circuses, the conservatives/tories have home owner ship, holland has to mortage deduction and America has the two cars in the drive way.

    What does this do? It is about creating a working "middle" class. A hard working "middle" class. But not a real middle class. Not a middle class that has power but a middle class that have just enough to give them something to loose if they try to gain anything. The principle is VERY simple. Feed the masses just enough to don't make it an issue of starve or riot but rather, eat enough or riot and starve.

    Strike, and you loose your mortage, can't make the monthly car payments and therefor you got to swallow everything, just so you can keep the two cars you so desperately need for the job to pay for the cars because there is no public transport alternative.

    It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

    Forget about letting them eat cake. Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.

    There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The divide between rich and poor has never been so big

      Are you quite sure about this, are you sure the divide between rich and poor was not even bigger in antique Rome or middle ages? I would not bet on that.

    2. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      I wasn't aware that being born to rich parents means you are intelligent. There can only be so many opportunities to exploit during one's lifetime. Sure, there are always brilliant and/or lucky people (usually both) who ride the innovation wave, but most of the "elite" could trace it's money at least a generation back.

    3. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by kurt555gs · · Score: 0

      I wish Slashdot had a [like] button, or I had mod points!

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    4. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The divide between rich and poor has never been so big

      Are you sure about this? I'm sure there was a much bigger difference between a king or duke in the Middle Ages who could order anyone's head chopped off at will, who could seize anyone's land, and who could basically do what he wanted, to people today.

      Nowadays the "ultra rich" may be able to afford many homes and travel often. But unless they fly out of non commercial terminals, they still have to stand in the TSA line line everyone else. They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk. No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      So yeah, there might be more zeroes at the end of the net worth of rich people than there were before, but considering that "poor" people and "middle class" people usually have shelter, television, transport (private or public), food, etc, it's actually the poor who are better off than ever before.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 0

      Amen! Where are my mod points when I really need them?

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    6. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully he means, "the economic divide between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is the largest in recent history", which is more or less true.

      Certainly when the king ostensibly owns everything and is above the law, there is a bigger divide.

    7. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      The romans had bread and circuses, the conservatives/tories have home owner ship, holland has to mortage deduction and America has the two cars in the drive way.

      What does this do? It is about creating a working "middle" class. A hard working "middle" class. But not a real middle class. Not a middle class that has power but a middle class that have just enough to give them something to loose if they try to gain anything. The principle is VERY simple. Feed the masses just enough to don't make it an issue of starve or riot but rather, eat enough or riot and starve.

      Strike, and you loose your mortage, can't make the monthly car payments and therefor you got to swallow everything, just so you can keep the two cars you so desperately need for the job to pay for the cars because there is no public transport alternative.

      It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

      Forget about letting them eat cake. Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      I believe that both sides of the aisle are as corporatist as anyone; however, expecting the answer to be to take from the owners of production and expecting us to remain productive is a pipe dream of the left who DON'T understand economics.

      The answer is promoting self-responsibility in ALL aspects - from rich to poor. Don't bail out either.

    8. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, sure the poor had less. But so had the rich.

      Take the average medieval king. I bet you my bed, my airtight windows, my central heating and my plumbing that I live more comfortably than even Louis XIV. I might not have a thousand lakeys to cook my food and boil my water for a bath, but I have microwave dinners and hot water from the tap. And both of it NOW. Not in 2 hours when my servants are done.

      The divide between rich and poor in older times only seems so big because if you compare the little the rich had to the NOTHING the poor had it looks huge.

      During the plague, rich and poor alike died from it because neither had access to a cure, there was none. The expectancy of life of either group was not really amazing either. Considering the rather deadly "cures" sometimes employed, the poor without medical "aid" were more likely to survive than the rich who were "treated". Today, you can essentially buy your health, provided you can afford it. AIDS cannot be cured, but medication exists that can prolong your life considerably. Provided you can afford it. Cancer can sometimes be cured. Provided you can afford it. You want to tell me that the divide between rich and poor did not open up here?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by AntEater · · Score: 1

      In the US, the divide between rich and poor has grown considerably over the past 30 years. Much of that growth has been in the last 10. In absolute terms I'm sure many other societies, past and present, have greater disparities but those tend to be countries where there is little pretense to the exploitation of the poor - not a "western" nation. The accumulation of wealth by the the upper 1% has increased dramatically. Feel free to google for the statistics - they're pretty easily found. They now hold roughly 1/3rd of the wealth in this country. The lower 40% hold about 1% of the wealth. Over the recent recession this disparity has only increased. Left to itself it will not naturally reverse. How you correct this, or IF you should correct this is topic for another debate (queue the left vs. right dogma stupidity) but the trend is well documented.

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    10. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by RustyShaft · · Score: 2

      Yeah - this one got my britches in a bunch BIG time......

      >> There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      While I agree with the majority of your post - the last statement is just flat incorrect sir!!

      Some are, yes. But how many PhD's are millionaires? Uncle Bill and Microsoft kinda blows you theory to hell and back!! Do you need more examples? Pro athletes, movie stars.........it's a long list.

      A great many "rich people" (and I'm not saying ALL) are nothing more than the equivalent of a pack of butt sniffing dogs....also known as "the Good 'Ol Boys" network. I live in Mayberry USA which is absolutely F-U-L-L of Republicans so I've seen this first hand.

    11. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed.

      Hahahaha. Oh man, you are naive.

      the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only

      They simply control the governments.

      You want change? Start quietly assassinating the rich.

    12. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymusing · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a Congressional speech from Bernie Sanders about this very thing... worth watching, IMO.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    13. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh...

    14. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      The divide between rich and poor has never been so big

      Are you sure about this? I'm sure there was a much bigger difference between a king or duke in the Middle Ages who could order anyone's head chopped off at will, who could seize anyone's land, and who could basically do what he wanted, to people today.


      Too far. I am assuming that GP referred to this century rather than to the history of the world. When the cave-men roamed the earth, there was even less divide between rich and poor. Plus King is not the same as "rich". Kings/Dukes would be closer to President/Senators, while the "rich" are the bankers, etc. Anyway, for most of the 20th century, the GP claim is accurate: See here after cursory search.

    15. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by AntEater · · Score: 2

      I listened to that speech last night. He lays out the situation for what it is pretty well. I almost linked to that youtube clip in my previous comment.

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    16. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      You want change? Start quietly assassinating the rich.

            Oh, here's that socialist delusion again. If you assassinate the rich, you will merely end up with other people who take their things and then are rich.

            Isn't it funny how all revolutions end up with a new super-class (be it the Party, or the "monarchy" like in N. Korea) that subjugates the rest?

            Killing the rich is not the answer. If I have a single dollar more than everyone else, I am rich and therefore you are all poor. What a sensible answer is to allow fairness, to discourage wealth being used to destroy men, and rather to promote the use of said wealth to finance new development and economic growth. That way everyone benefits.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I think you're underestimating the difference between rich and poor in Rome. The very poorest were slaves - they could be raped or killed by their owners without any legal redress. They could be flogged (sometimes killed) simply for showing disrespect to any member of the Patrician class, although if this person was not the owner then they might be expected to make some financial restitution (to the owner, not the slave). Meanwhile, the Patricians were waited on hand and foot, had access to good food, entertainment, and very little trouble. They had the best medical care that their society could provide (admittedly, very primitive by modern standards), and often lived to a similar age to the rich today, largely due to a good diet. In times of plague, they would retire to their country estates, where they were effectively quarantined (any slaves near them showing signs of illness were killed and the bodies burned immediately) until the infection ceased to be a problem in the city.

      The gap between rich and poor is large in America today, but certainly not the largest that it's ever been. Even if you confine yourself to American history, I think you'll find that the gap between a typical black slave working on a plantation and his owner was larger than any gaps you'd find today. Just compare their average lifespans...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I liked the comment, but a few nits:

      just enough to give them something to loose

      Touluse, as in "No Time Touluse". ;)

      Strike, and you loose your mortage

      You just said "Strike, and you set your mortage
      free".

      Loose and lose are both verbs, but they have very different meanings. If you loose your money you're unwise, if you lose your money you're unlucky. I'm assuming English isn't your 1st language.

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter than the poor people. (ftfy)

      No, just more fortunate. I've known smart poor people and incredibly stupid rich people. The rich, however, do have a lot of tricks up their sleeve -- like owning the media outlets so they can spoon-feed your information/misinformation to you. The poor aren't stupid, they're deliberately misinformed.

      The rich aren't rich because they're smarter than you -- there are MENSA members driving taxicabs. They're rich because they were in the right place at the right time -- like in a private school rather than a public school. Like not being born to a crackhead. Like having connections that the poor can't and never will have.

    19. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      In the US, the divide between rich and poor has grown considerably over the past 30 years.

      Um, so what? When you can explain to me how Steve Jobs getting rich has prevented me from getting rich, this might be something to worry about. But it's not like all of those yuppie swipples would have given their money to me if they hadn't bought an iPhone.

      Word of advice: it's more helpful to concern yourself with what you earn, rather than what the guy next to you is earning.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    20. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nowadays the "ultra rich" may be able to afford many homes and travel often. But unless they fly out of non commercial terminals, they still have to stand in the TSA line line everyone else. They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk. No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      If you can't afford at least a charted jet for your travels, you are not "ultra rich" but merely relatively well-off.

    21. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

      And to that, a big fat "So what?". Explain to me how somebody else getting rich prevents me from getting rich. My income is predicated on what my employer is willing to pay me, and what I'm willing to accept, not what Bill Gates' net worth is on any particular day.

      And there's a very good reason for me to vote to protect Bill Gates' wealth - if even he can't be assured of being secure in his property, how can I be assured of being secure in mine?

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    22. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The GP didn't say the poor were worse off. He said they were given just enough that they'd fear losing it if they tried to get more. He also said the gap between rich and poor is increasing. It means the poor won't starve, but also means the poor can't effect any change in their situation (they always be poor).

      So while it's not horrible, it's more insidious. Placate the poor just enough to keep them from making any meaningful change in their situation (crap education, crap health care, crap police force / TSA, etc).

      Argue what was said, not the words you put in his mouth.

    23. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      The divide between rich and poor has never been so big

      Absolute bullshit. For centuries it was royalty/aristocracy and pretty much everyone else living in the dirt. The ideas of free markets and property rights are what eventually granted you whiney, pampered, angst ridden, panty-wetting, fist-shaking, Western brats the ability to moan and bellyache about how horrible your tiny, petty little existences are.

      Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.

      Sweet smoking Jesus, you really are mainlining the cherry Kool-Aid, aren't you?

    24. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by AntEater · · Score: 1

      So what??? In the western world: Money == Power. Consolidation of power in a handful of entities (individuals and corporations) yields other other disparities. Why do you think we have such ridiculous copyright laws? How about business method and software patents on obvious things? How fair to the individual do you think laws are when they are directly written by lobbyists for various congressional subcommittees? Why do you think that it is primarily the wealthy who succeed in getting in high office? Who do you think is paying for the campaign expenses of these critters? Do you think big campaign contributors expect nothing in return? Who do you think are making the laws for the rest of us? Why do you think nobody has been prosecuted for the obvious fraud that occurred in the mortgage mess in this country? There are many, many other issues where the interests of the money holders bears more influence than any other factor. The deeper you look into how things run in our country the more you will see the few money holders who are either at the helm or giving the directions.

      Beyond that, I don't care what the guy next to me is earning (as long as he isn't going hungry). I have enough for myself.

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    25. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nice strawman argument in the video... "The erosion of the middle class"

      It always amazes me how people fixate on the disparity of the distribution of wealth. Let me say this a distinctly as I can... SO WHAT! It shouldn't matter that so-in-so makes $10 billion and I only make $30,000. Ask yourself this, what is your standard of living? Could it improve? If so, then take responsibility and improve it. Stop worrying about the Jones and start worrying about your own situation. Do you find yourself in a career path that doesn't lead to promotion? Change it. Can't find a job in your chosen profession? Change it. Take responsibility for your own life and stop worrying about others.

      Every time I make this argument, I always get a response to the effect of: We should help those who need a leg up... I say BAH! There are plenty of resources to help those in need already. Giving handouts (redistribution of wealth?) does nothing more than encourage the poor to stay poor.

      Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime - Lao Tzu

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    26. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by KillAllNazis · · Score: 1

      If the top 10% or can influence the economy more by trading amongst themselves than the other 90% then that is the problem. The politicians care about the GDP first and foremost.

    27. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      people voted to protect the rights of rich people

      If slashdot is to be believed, Obama wasnt supposed to do that-- I thought it was the republicans who were the fat cats?

    28. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by jonescb · · Score: 2

      There is a direct correlation between education and wealth. Meaning the more education you have the more money you will make in your life. If only people who are wealthy to begin with are capable of going to law school or medical school, then they will get more education that someone who can't afford any education past high school. So it's a case of the rich get richer because they can afford education. That said, I don't like how GP said "they're smarter than poor people." They're certainly more educated, but not necessarily smarter.

    29. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade. There is no hope. There is no reason. It's a pack of teens and young "adults" who have somehow already managed to ossify their brains with the political equivalents of crystal meth and heroin. These are the people who think they live in an actual police state and the NSA is building $100 billion dollar decryption farms to find out what women's underwear they secretly buy on amazon.

      You might as well argue the merits of love and charity with Dexter Morgan. They simply cannot understand the idea that if, say, Bill Gates makes another dollar, that does *not* prevent them from earning their own dollar. They view the "rich" as Scrooge McDuck swimming around in a money vault, all those gold coins locked away forever and not, say, out there acting as capital and investments. It's a pre-school, cartoon view of economics that sadly affects all of our cukture. That's why we (as a society) keep doing the same dumb things and voting for the same sociopaths over and over again.

      Pogo (speaking of cartoons) was absolutely right. Disclaimer: yeah, I feel the same way about the Tea Party. All you ideologues can go fuck off and die already. You're fucking killing us.

    30. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      120 years ago the poor and rich pooped on the same kind of latrine.

    31. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Furry is talking of post-war (WWII) history, and you're thinking of the whole of history.

    32. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by chrispalasz · · Score: 1

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      Ummm... that, OR their daddy was rich and could afford to mask their average to sub-average intelligence by throwing money at the best private schools and tutors and opportunities available. The mesh is so extreme now, there's no telling how 'intelligent' people in high profile positions are... Oh! Hello there, President W-Bush! Didn't see you standing there... how awckward

    33. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by fast+turtle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They Can't? Strange, they've got the money to afford the Lawyers and pay off the judges in the case of a DUI involving a fatality. To me that's getting away with Murder (Killing someone). They're also major stock holders in corporations that sell products that kill thousands if not millions of people (Bhopal India) - Mass Murder and don't forget Enron. How many people lost their life savings there plus the manipulation of the California Energy Crisis? How many folks died there due to the rolling blackouts - elederly and sick folks on medical equipment?

      There's alot that the wealthy do that impact the middle/lower classes directly. Things such as the so called War on Terror. Who started the war? It sure as hell wasn't the American People. It was the Fat Rich Cats who think Profit at all Cost is the only way to make money. To hell with ethics and responsibilities.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    34. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "When those who are seventy wear silk and eat meat, when the masses are neither cold nor hungry, it is impossible for their prince to not be a true king." - Mencius

      As long as we are quoting Chinese philosophers, lets quote ones that were actually talking about how to govern a country.

    35. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Where I live, I don't need to afford any cure or treatment. I just get it. Rich or "poor". Hell I even get money to sit on my arse if i am happy enough with just a roof over my head, heating for the winter and food in my tummy. Since i still get health care, i also still have my health.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    36. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by nschubach · · Score: 1

      You're treating a symptom, not the problem.

      Giving money to the poor doesn't instantly make them powerful. Especially when they take the $600-$1200 (ore more) they got and go put a down payment on a new $40,000 Cadillac debt in an effort to impress their neighbors or church members.

      Basically put, you're not going to "fix" the problem by assuming that you can tax the "rich" (in this case, that magic number seems to be > $200K-$250k) so much that they make the same as you.

      Inevitably, the poor have to get off their couch (and quit whining that it "won't make a difference" or some other nonsense) and go educate themselves on a candidate and vote for someone who is not one of the normal two party nominated puppets that we keep flip-flopping in and out of office. This includes (most importantly the least vote turnout) local elections.

      They need to get past the idea that one person is going to step up and change the world and realize that change happens over time, from the local level up. Nobody is going to elect a President who has not had a political background and guess where that political background comes from... local government.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    37. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Sinn3d · · Score: 1

      "There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people."

      Paris Hilton

    38. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by nschubach · · Score: 1

      And there's a very good reason for me to vote to protect Bill Gates' wealth - if even he can't be assured of being secure in his property, how can I be assured of being secure in mine?

      This couldn't be any more true, but sadly, it will be overlooked or the person who disagrees will assume they can change this when "they get the power."

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    39. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by broknstrngz · · Score: 1

      Please put your money where your mouth is and try this simple exercise: without quitting yuor current job, try to find another gig, doing something completely different. If you succeed, you're my hero. I genuinely want you to succeed. I didn't. I've been a software engineer for 5ish years and was a network engineer at a rather big European ISP for 5 years before that. Yet I'm now apparently not qualified for networking positions because I haven't worked in the field recently. You know, exchanging prefixes is entirely different now than then. The hiring companies most probably wouldn't have stumbled upon this, but your average HR drone does.

      I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but just that it's harder done than said.

    40. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by nomadic · · Score: 1, Informative

      you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade

      The slashdot ideological brigade is, and has been ever since the site was founded, been solidly, rabidly, and fanatically anti-tax, anti-poor, pro-rich libertarian.

    41. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by baKanale · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk.

      They're working on it.

      No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      Unless you count their ability to "campaign finance" the legislation they want that benefits them and their business interests.

      So yeah, there might be more zeroes at the end of the net worth of rich people than there were before, but considering that "poor" people and "middle class" people usually have shelter, television, transport (private or public), food, etc, it's actually the poor who are better off than ever before.

      And more and more people have to work two or three jobs to keep those things, because the rich people are paying workers less and charging more for goods and services in order to keep adding those extra zeroes.

    42. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by ideonexus · · Score: 2

      Nowadays the "ultra rich" may be able to afford many homes and travel often. But unless they fly out of non commercial terminals, they still have to stand in the TSA line line everyone else. They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk. No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      The ultra rich don't fly commercial, they fly charter or private; therefore, they don't go through TSA. They can't legally kill or drive drunk, but they can hire armies of lawyers to reduce their sentences while poor people can't even make bail to give themselves a fighting chance. If Lindsay Lohan wasn't rich, she'd be in prison for the next 20 years like any poor person would.

      Our Democratic government has the power, but the rich have the money to influence public opinion and pay for the lobbyists making $300k a year to influence our elected officials. Campaign strategists actually have formulas for how much money needs to be spent for each point of popular opinion gained.

      I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I have to get back to work to pay for the car that I drive here and the underwater mortgage on the house I bought three years ago that talking-heads put on television by the wealthy assured me would never lose value.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    43. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I believe life was quite Ok in the Roman Empire, not so much in the Middle Ages.

      But, why should we compare to wretched times? Shouldn't we strive to be better? We shouldn't say "We're lucky we don't live like it's the Middle Ages", we should say "we should be living like it's paradise".

      If the income inequality is getting bigger, then we're getting worse. This is definitely a problem and should be stopped. Comparing it to the Middle Ages serves only the purpose of conformity. It's something a millionaire would do.

      It's like when the pundits on TV, with their designer suits, griffe glasses and fancy hairdo and nails say that we should deregulate the labour laws and cut salaries because we need to compete with China. Fuck, I don't want to compete with China! I don't want to eat a bowl of rice a day and work 18 hours in a shithole factory. Chinese should strive for our standard of living, not us for theirs!

    44. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Trivia: During the plague, the Lord Mayor of London spent most of his time in a specially constructed glass box and his servants fed him via a slot, he survived.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    45. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that being born to rich parents means you are intelligent.

      Statistically, it probably does. After all, smart people are more likely to be successful at their goals, which in most cases means becoming rich, and intelligence is to some degree hereditary. So being born to rich parents does tend to make one more intelligent because one is more likely to have genes which promote intelligence, on average anyway.

      Also note that people with wealthier parents tend to get better educations and have more opportunities in general. Their parents are more likely to read to them at a young age than poorer parents, which has been shown to increase intelligence. This allows them to better develop their intellects, again bringing up the average intelligence of people born to rich parents.

      Yeah, okay, I didn't define "intelligence" anywhere, but you get the idea. Egalitarian fantasies are nice, but we're talking about reality here.

    46. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Maybe way back when, but not anymore. Now it's the rag tag rebels fighting the Evil Empire of... someone or other. Jesus or Sarah Palin or somesuch creature. Maybe the Jabberwock?

    47. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade The slashdot ideological brigade is, and has been ever since the site was founded, been solidly, rabidly, and fanatically anti-tax, anti-poor, pro-rich libertarian.

      I don't know if I'd call them liberterian based on their seemingly rabid anti-contract law stances on everything except protecting the GPL.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    48. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you give me a link to that slashdot please?

    49. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    50. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well, even Steve Jobs couldn't get some shurikens past airport security. Surely he could afford a charter...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    51. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      That's easy. Volunteer for a few months.

      Get's you the work experience, and no company in their right mind* would turn down a few months of a volunteer net admin.

      Then simply toss that on your resume, and proceed from there. You'd be surprised how effective it is.

      *= that's not to say that there aren't a LONG list of companies that know nothing about IT, and thus would immediately say: "it's more trouble than it's worth". personally: I'd either try to educate them as to the benefits of having an experienced admin that's willing to catch up to their practices, or I'd ignore them as a potential employer.

    52. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is not as big as you assume. But let's break this down, shall we?

      The ultra rich can afford NOT to fly out of commercial terminals, what the hell you think that private jet's for?

        Can't kill or have anyone killed? Maybe they can't do it OPENLY, but what they CAN do openly is find some legal precedent to have them imprisoned, which is effectively the same damn thing, if not worse. Some shelter! Get locked up on falsified charges or given an exaggerated sentence for a minor offense, spend your time there getting assraped by hardcore criminals or even the freaking guards, and if you don't end up getting shanked by the inmates or shot by the guards, you might MAYBE survive long enough to get released to see your grandkids graduate high school, only to learn that the "quality time" you spent in lockup gave you the gift of an incurable and ultimately fatal disease (HIV, anyone?). Tell ME that they can't have anyone killed, sheez!

      Can't drive drunk? Meh, a good enough lawyer could (not guaranteed, I'll grant you that) obfuscate and redirect the case to a point where a vastly reduced sentence results, if the case doesn't get outright DISMISSED due to some magical "procedural error".

      As for poor and middle class having guaranteed shelter, food, television, transport......maybe you should get out of your mom's basement and actually visit a homeless shelter for once. Better yet, go visit your local morgue, and see, first hand, just how many people actually manage to fail to get that shelter, food, etc. on a regular basis.

      And have you even seen the news within the last six months regarding the housing/ mortgage crisis?

      Oh, yeah, and with an unemployment rate not seen since the Great Depression, but it's not affecting the rich at all, except maybe for the bad press they get for having outsourced for cheap labor in China, Vietnam, etc.

      About the only way the poor ARE better off, is the fact they have legal access to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, providing they haven't been convicted of a felony, and providing that they can even scrape together enough money to afford the ammunition. Thanks to THIS little gem, the rich have at least ONE reason to worry, since desperate people tend to do really crazy things, sometimes.

      Jesus H. Christ, mister, just what HAVE you been smoking, lately?

    53. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If the income inequality is getting bigger, then we're getting worse. This is definitely a problem and should be stopped.

      I don't think that's true for most resources. Assume poor people read 10 books per year and rich people read 100 books per year and reading books pretty much equates to knowledge.

      Which situation is better:

      1. Poor people start reading 20 books per year, rich people read 1000. Ratio increased (worsened) fivefold.
      2. Poor people only read 5 books per year. Rich people only read 10. Ratio decreased (improved) fivefold.

      To me situation 1 is better. Why do you care more about the relative level of reading (or wealth) and not more about the absolute level? The only thing I can think of is that you are motivated by pride more than anything else.

    54. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that throughout history, lesser economic divides between rich and poor have led to greater power divides between "rich" and poor, simply because power was all that could be had over your fellow man?

      If the claim that the economic divide is larger than ever, even restricted to the 20th century, isn't it also true that we have more regulations than ever (in the 20th century)? We've gone from the abuses described in "The Jungle" to... Wall Street people making big bonuses that make others jealous. When you put it in perspective it's quite minor.

    55. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 2

      Sure, because sitting in a university/college and learning "how to work for someone" is really "education" these days.

      sheesh. I'll never understand people's fixation with "being told they're doing good in life". there was a time that a university degree represented a "learned person, who specialized in the field of [whatever]". these days, it's just a ticket that some people insist others have, to prove that:
      1) the person is willing to sit and do as their told for at least a few years at a time,
      2) the person has demonstrated some simple understanding of 'common' topics
      3) the person either has money or is in enough debt that they need more money.

      no matter how you choose to do it: rich or poor, ugly or beautiful, smart or like an idiot, You're doing fine.

      stop trying to please other people and focus on being happy with yourself. You'll thank yourself later.

    56. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, I love the smell of blind, rampaging individualism in the morning!

      You may have heard about the "poverty trap". Poverty is a condition that's really hard to reverse, most people will never do it and will pass it along to their children.

      With social support, many of the poor can improve their way of living. They can study, they can have their kids in school, they can have better health and education, which makes them better workers, benefiting the whole economy in the end. Yes, I mean you and me.

      Of course, just throwing money at them will fix nothing, of course. That's what a populist politician would do. But social programs are not about throwing money at the poor.

      Without social support, all the poor can do is fight against each other for day-to-day survival. I think it's pretty clear this doesn't bring up the best in people. Just correlate the crime rates with social protection in rich countries, and it's pretty clear.

      A very small percentage, the smarter of the poor, will probably make it into the middle class. A minority will resort to crime, hurting society (yes, you and me). The vast majority will live a life of scarcity and resignation. It's not so bad if at least you can survive and have your basic needs covered. When this is not the case, it sucks big time.

      Even worse, instead of the social ascension you talk about like it's so easy, I've been watching more and more middle-class raised people fall into poverty. Many with higher education have shitty jobs where they make the minimum wage or little more. And there's no way they can improve their situation because more and more companies have employees fighting between each other like dogs. Guess who wins, the competent and honest or the greedy and deceitful? Once again, the whole society loses.

      The more money goes to the few richer, the more they want. The less they will want to contribute to the lower layers, and money brings power, so it gives them even more ways to shit the balance to their side. This eventually hurts the vast majority of the people. If you can't see this, you have your brain washed.

    57. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your greatly oversimplified ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter full of rational discourse.

    58. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      and yet people keep working for less and less.

      if you wanted to make a point, then stop working.

      you'll quickly realize that others will happily step in and take your place, working for less than you wanted and doing *about* the same job.

      there's a reason some countries are producing 90% of the worlds goods right now: because they were willing to do it for less when somebody demanded more money.

    59. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Your logic is completely flawed. The poor now have access to things that a billionaire couldn't get 20 years ago. You should always measure wealth in relative terms, because the whole sum of the wealth of mankind is not fixed.

    60. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Um... reason.com? :-)

    61. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. because sitting on a campus for a few years and convincing somebody that you have "furthered some area of learnedness" is how I define 'smart'. [/sarcasm]

      A PhD does not make you smart. all it requires these days is you either spending enough money, or doing enough work for long enough that you've 'paid your dues'. the peer review requirement is a joke and has been for years.

    62. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by PotatoFiend · · Score: 1

      You're swatting at clouds just as much as those you accuse of doing so. Perhaps your own bias causes you to see the Slashdot that you want to see -- or don't want to see, whichever reinforces that bias. You see in Slashdot a faceless liberal mob. Another poster sees a faceless libertarian or conservative mob. None of these viewpoints are objective, as Slashdot discussions continue to exhibit a wide range of values and opinion. Don't let confirmation bias sway you from debating people and their arguments on an individual basis.

      --
      "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
    63. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuides seem to show that happiness in society comes from a smaller variation between the richest and poorest in society (i.e. if you had $1 more than everyone else, people would be largely happy), so the evidence doesn't support your strawman. This isn't about one guy having a nominal sum more than everyone else, it's about 1% of society having 40% of the wealth and the poorest 40% having 1% of the wealth. That's not just a nomal difference, it's sickening. As for "everyone benefits" from development and economic growth - the last 70 years would beg to differ. Development and economic growth serve only to transfer the balance of wealth from the poor to the rich at a still higher rate.

    64. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with Rupert Murdoch being a billionaie but I do have a problem with how he uses those billions. I also have no problem with Bill's billions and respect the fact that he stayed true to his word and has spent piles of it on charity.

      Economic activity is not a goal in itself, if it was then perpetual war would be a good thing. Those who benifit the most from society (ie: the uber rich) owe the biggest debt to society and creating economic activity by simply investing their money for the highest possible return does not cancel that debt. Some like Bill go a good ways to honouring that debt others like Rupert really do have a lot in common with Scrooge McDuck. The thing with idealouges is they can't see the difference.

      Disclaimer: I have 2 grand kids.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    65. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by tylersoze · · Score: 2

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      God I wish I had mod points on this thread, because this is literally stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard in my life. So I guess that means you're a homeless person then?

      Yeah, just like this: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/

      Steven Weinberg (nobel prize winning physicist) $391,791
      Mack Brown (a fucking football coach) $2,511,667

    66. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime - Lao Tzu

      You meant to say "Give a man inheritable exclusive fishing rights and he will catch the lake empty, eat comfortable for the rest of his life and watch the rest of us starving.", didn't you?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    67. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Never is indeed an exaggeration. But there are useful metrics for determining equality and many of them suggest that we now have a level of inequality last seen in the early twentieth century. Of course as productivity has increased since then the quality of life is indeed much better. But it does nevertheless raise questions about how efficient the economy can be if there is such disparity in how the productive workforce is compensated.

    68. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by jbolden · · Score: 1

      This is a stupid argument. Wealth inequality means that statistically your efforts are less likely to succeed in getting out of poverty, essentially that's the definition.

    69. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the large part of the population who take out loans from the wealthiest that have had such a negative impact on the economy. The top 10% were just trading those debts. When lots of people defaulted it created chaos.

      We are all to blame for the economic state, so stop blaming other people.

    70. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Go ahead then - take responsibility for the privilege you are born under and pay responsibly back to society gifting you this privilege by voting for a substantial tax increase for the upper income bracket, especially for a massive tax on capital gains.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    71. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Stuides seem to show that happiness in society comes from a smaller variation between the richest and poorest in society (i.e. if you had $1 more than everyone else, people would be largely happy), so the evidence doesn't support your strawman.

      Depends on the purchase power of $1.

    72. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk. No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      You sure about that? They can buy off the cops and judges. And hell, even if they do get caught, they can afford the best lawyers in the country. Even if they don't get away with it entirely, they're going to get a _far_ lighter sentence than anyone else who committed the exact same crime. My father got a DUI and was given a far harsher sentence than a _17 year old_ rich kid I knew who had one. What was that kid's punishment? His highschool said they were going to withhold his diploma for a while. They never did. Yes, it was the city police that caught him, and the only even _threat_ of punishment came from his highschool. Meanwhile, the average adult who gets a DUI (doesn't even have the added crime of underage drinking) gets a huge fine, possibly jailtime, and a breathalyzer on their car for a while. Oh, and let's not forget that a $100,000 fine means a lot more to someone if it's 2 years wages compared to someone for whom it's one month's salary.

      Nowadays the "ultra rich" may be able to afford many homes and travel often. But unless they fly out of non commercial terminals, they still have to stand in the TSA line line everyone else.

      ...Unless they're a government or airline official. But that point aside, a _lot_ of people have or rent private jets. I wouldn't quite say it's only the "ultra rich" - there are hundreds of families in Pittsburgh alone that can afford such things. I know one that rents a jet every year for their family vacation. Within the richest 1%, sure - but that's still 1 out of every 100 people.

      So yeah, there might be more zeroes at the end of the net worth of rich people than there were before, but considering that "poor" people and "middle class" people usually have shelter, television, transport (private or public), food, etc, it's actually the poor who are better off than ever before.

      Yea, while being thousands of dollars in debt for it - something that wasn't always possible, and certainly not as prevalent, in previous generations.

    73. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They simply cannot understand the idea that if, say, Bill Gates makes another dollar, that does *not* prevent them from earning their own dollar.

      It's kind of ironic that you chose him for your example. After all, much of his business technique is based on directly preventing any other company from making their own dollar. Real life isn't zero sum, but Gates certainly exerts a lot of pressure towards that extreme. Gates, and many like him, are part of the reason why normal people dislike and mistrust today's rich.

    74. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by tbannist · · Score: 1

      For about 20 years the middle class as whole has suffered from income stagnation. Why do you suppose that is? The companies the middle class work for have made huge gains, they've become ever more profitable. Well, to answer the question you only need to look at who's prospered. The top 1% alone consumed over 33% of all GDP growth in the past 20 years.

      What's been happening is that the rank and file salaries have been held to about inflation to "keep costs down" and make the company more profitable. Simultaneously, corporate executives have seen their salaries balloon by about 2000% over the same time period. Mostly this is a direct effect of Reagan changing the top tax bracket from 70% to 28% 1. When the top rate was 70% there was little incentive to increase the wages of the executives, it cost a company a lot of money to give a small cash incentive (because over two thirds of a large salary would go directly to taxes). Now, however, with only one third going to taxes, corporate executives spend the money that could have been raises for the rank and file employees on bonuses and salaries for each other because they're in a bidding war to try and get and keep the best executives they can hire.

      It doesn't matter if you think 70% is too high of a tax rate, I'm just outlining the unforeseen consequences of the changes that Reagan made. The only solution I see to this problem right now is to substancially increase the tax rate on the highest levels of income. The result would be a disincentive to paying huge salaries, and might make it more attractive to spend that money on salaries for the rank and file employees.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    75. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      Not necessarily. However, they need to be smart enough to understand that money buys power and use that power ruthlessly to ensure that they will never ever lose that money - oddly enough, this seems to be doable with a minimal level of intelligence (see "Commodore" Cornelius Vanderbilt and his spawn, for a historical example). The fact that "little people" get hurt along the way is either ignored or simply gravy, depending upon how awful the rich person is.

      --
      That is all.
    76. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand the heart of the issue. It's not you versus Steve Jobs. For most of the middle class it's them versus the corporate executives. The executive salaries increased by about 2000% over the same period that their salaries increased at the rate of inflation. For them, yes, if the money hadn't been spent on executives it would have either been payed back to the shareholders (which include middle class investors) or likely spent on increasing production (thus hiring more middle class workers) or on existing employees (thus increasing the wages of middle class employees).

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    77. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

      All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich.

      Government cannot and will not protect you from the rich. They ARE the rich.

    78. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      So it is the Jabberwock, then?

    79. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You are admitting that the poor are better off today than they were 20 years ago.. but then apparently that doesn't matter! All that matters is that the rich are even richer. Like I said, I really don't understand what is motivating you except a grossly inflated sense of pride. Like it's worse for a poor person to suffer insults to their pride than it is to not have access to things that 20 years ago a billionaire didn't have access to.

    80. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by shentino · · Score: 1

      If you're rich enough to buy a politician, then you still have power.

    81. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by rvw · · Score: 2

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      I wasn't aware that being born to rich parents means you are intelligent. There can only be so many opportunities to exploit during one's lifetime.

      Rich kids are (on average) probably more intelligent than poor kids because of their environment. Rich usually means better food and health care, better education, parents that stimulate their children more, parents that have a better network that can help their carreers, and less stress factors as crime in the neighbourhood or in the family etc.

    82. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Prune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One great tool against this problem is raising the estate tax.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    83. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      One can argue that rich kids have it easy, and poor kids don't.On the long run, easiness breeds laziness, on the other hand hardship breeds resilience (if you don't die --literally or in figure-- from it). who's intelligent?
      and what is intelligence to begin with.

    84. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      I don't know if there is significant issues here, but when it comes to comparing quality of life it's not sufficient to just compare incomes or wealth. You have to look at both how much wealth a person has as well as the price of the goods and services that they want to purchase. And if you are making the point that people are better or worse off you'll have to make that comparison as well.

      Consider a household that makes $55,000 a year. They may be much further away from the top of the heap than they would have been ten years ago, but they still may have a higher quality of life than they had ten years ago. And unless someone is just in the business of class warfare for the sake of class warfare, e.g. they are a jealous fucking entitlement cunt who thinks that they deserve an unearned standard of living, then it's insufficient to just care about incomes or wealth.

    85. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi! I would like to invite you to rent or purchase a copy of A Christmas Carol, watch it all, think about the character that best defines you and then look up "Logical fallacies" on Wikipedia. Merry Christmas :)

      (in case you need a hint: you've used exactly the same fallacy as Scrooge when he was talking to the beggars at the beginning of the movie)

    86. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by samuisan · · Score: 1

      Yes, because there were no billionairs in Roman times. Probably the whole value of the entire Roman empire was less than a billion (maybe a million considering inflation) so the difference between one billionair and one unemployed person now is greater than it could have been then.

    87. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Wealth mobility is sticky, but it's not as sticky as you would think. Several months ago I counted the US members of the Forbes 400 whose wealth didn't come from inheritance, and I got something like 40% which was a lot higher than I expected.

      Take a look at Figure 8 on page 8 of this paper (PDF). Fully 64% of children of parents in the top wealth quintile actually end up in a lower quintile. Granted, if there was perfect mobility this number would be 80%, but I'm surprised it's as high as it is. On the other side of the spectrum, 64% of children of parents in the lowest quintile end up doing better than their parents.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    88. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by feranick · · Score: 1

      Then explain me this. Someone that most likely flanked hard math and science classes but managed to get a good law degree (or an MBA) makes millions. Science PhD (like me) barely survive? Are you saying that really is because we are either stupid or wrongly educated? Also: I know I can't cherry peak, but explain me people like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg. Thanks for any insight.

    89. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say that yes, the rich can easily drive drunk, and if they kill someone they've got a pretty decent chance of getting away with that too.

    90. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I am smarter then you

    91. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a simpleton.

    92. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can also be Democrats and politicians, no?

    93. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Flawed logic all along.

      Ok, let's compare with 20 years ago. The real cost of fulfilling the basic needs, I mean decent housing, proper food, health and education, has come up big time. Because, if you take away inflation middle class people make less money.

      If you really need an example, here it goes: This is perfectly observable in my daily life. My parents came from the country and worked hard to make a living in the big city. Now, me and my siblings have higher education but, although we make a shitload more absolute money than my parents did, we can only afford a fraction of what they could. This happens mainly for two reasons: Relative wages are a lot lower; Public services disappeared and now we have to pay for many things we had for free. Of course, this wasn't compensated by any fiscal reduction, quite the opposite. Only the rich and ultra-rich had a huge reduction in their taxes, and someone must pay for it.

      Did I mention my parents worked strictly 35 hours a week and I'm forced to work whatever it takes without any overtime pay?

      If you think this is fair, you're a millionaire, or crazy.

    94. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part technology has driven the 'we're all better off' argument. And while the U.S. excels/excelled at advancement a lot of that advancement came from people getting rich, not people getting richer.

      When wealth is controlled by a small portion of the population it isn't doing anything. Money is only important if it's being paid to someone to do something. It's lubrication for trading goods and services.

      It doesn't make sense for anyone to accumulate 'too much' wealth at the expense of runiing the economy. What 'too much' means might be a matter for debate but saying that it doesn't matter to society how much a small percentage of the population holds is as flawed as saying everyone should make exactly the same amount. 1% of the population controlling a third of the wealth creates too much manipulation. If the economy is frozen blame the 1% that control a third of it and the government that controls the rest at their behest.

    95. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't see this, you have your brain washed.

      Your argument doesn't need this straw man.

    96. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      Why is it unreasonable to resent unfairness? We're built to perceive and CORRECT unfairness. Read up, paleocon!

    97. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well let's see citations of those "studies", while I will point out the collapse of communist regimes around the world, Poland, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, China, etc, where everyone (except party members) was equal. Everyone had to wait in line.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    98. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this instead?

      I will continue to work for you, but I will only supply the effort that I can afford when working two to three jobs.

      I will also refuse to buy any of your goods, ever. All of my money will go to taxes or food that I cannot grow myself. I will live without electricity, telephone, water, etc.

      Then, I will take this money I have made, and I will start a business that competes with you. When you try to sue me out of existance, and win, I will come and fucking kill you. You know why? Because I'll finally become sick of this fucking game that I cannot win.

      There is a limit to how wealth should be used. So fuck this libertarian shit. Fuck the corporations. Fuck the global economy. Fuck the sociopathic CEOs. Fuck the corrupt governance. And fuck the idea of slowly turning the population into your god damn farm land.

      You see, many people on earth live under conditions that are unforgivable. They live like this because of petty politics from ages past, born of theorocracies and dictatorships. And now, they are willing to sell their bodies to you just so that their stomachs will stop hurting. And you advocate pushing me into the starvation racket until I'm willing to sell you my body?

      Fuck you.

    99. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by stdarg · · Score: 1

      In the context I'm using it, "absolute" doesn't mean how many dollars you have. It just means what you can afford, without relation to what others can afford. If I'm in the bottom 1% of the population and I have a tv, that's an absolute asset. If 20 years later the bottom 1% has an hdtv, that's another absolute asset. One is better than the other, even though the relative wealth (bottom 1%) is the same.

      I thought that's how you were using it too when you said "The poor now have access to things that a billionaire couldn't get 20 years ago." Phrases like "the poor" are relative -- they are poor compared to people who are rich, both today and 20 years ago. But "things" is absolute -- the poor now have HDTV, 20 years ago nobody had HDTV.

      Public services disappeared and now we have to pay for many things we had for free.

      What are some of the public services you're referring to? 20 years ago I was in elementary school so I'm not sure. I find it hard to believe that there were many more free things than we have today. Certainly the major public services (school, roads, libraries, parks, etc) haven't changed.

    100. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by sac13 · · Score: 1

      One great tool against this problem is raising the estate tax.

      Or get rid of the income tax and replace it with a wealth tax... Then Warren Buffet can quit pretending that an increase in income tax rates will mean his taxes go up and thus things will be "fair."

      I'm not really for the estate tax because it's a little morbid to be taxing someone for dying... Taxing them for the actual wealth they have while their alive seems better. And, it seems more "fair" than taxing based on income where someone who's trying to work their way up is disproportionately impacted as compared to the "rich" guys that make their bucks on capital gains and whatever ways their high-dollar accountants and lawyers tell them they can and still keep the most for themselves.

  18. wikileaks.ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... sponsored by the swiss pirate party:

    $ whois wikileaks.ch
    [...]
    Holder of domain name:
    Piratenpartei Schweiz

  19. No need for DNS anymore by miojobr · · Score: 0

    As I stated on my recent tweet: "Do we really need DNS afterwards? Give me an IP and I'll give them a shortened URL through Social Nets" - http://twitter.com/#!/brunoborges/statuses/10682824059256832 I don't think DNS is needed anymore, at least for websites. With the advent of URL shorteners, we all can publish websites online, without DNS, and through Social Networks show it to the world, easily through some link like http://bit.ly/myFooWebsite. DNS is, IMO, the last hope for Internet control. I have no idea how E-Mail or other protocols could deal with an Internet without DNS, but surely there's a way. Maybe, not invented yet.

    --
    All we need is a little bit of mojo in our lives...
    1. Re:No need for DNS anymore by miojobr · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I stated on my recent tweet: "Do we really need DNS afterwards? Give me an IP and I'll give them a shortened URL through Social Nets" - http://twitter.com/#!/brunoborges/statuses/10682824059256832 I don't think DNS is needed anymore, at least for websites. With the advent of URL shorteners, we all can publish websites online, without DNS, and through Social Networks show it to the world, easily through some link like http://bit.ly/myFooWebsite. DNS is, IMO, the last hope for Internet control. I have no idea how E-Mail or other protocols could deal with an Internet without DNS, but surely there's a way. Maybe, not invented yet.

      WikiLeaks will never be shut down http://bit.ly/WiKiLeaks

      --
      All we need is a little bit of mojo in our lives...
    2. Re:No need for DNS anymore by icebraining · · Score: 2

      You're just replacing DNS for a similar system. If they can bring down/seize wikileaks.org, why couldn't they bring down http://bit.ly/wikileaks, or whatever?

      And relying on social networks for uncensored information spreading is the worst idea ever, unless you're talking about distributed social networks, which basically don't exist yet. Do you think Facebook or Twitter won't censor if the US govt asks "nicely"?

    3. Re:No need for DNS anymore by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      There are some very important uses for DNS that a url shortner doesn't exactly handle, like round robin load balancing for example. All URL shortening does it leave your site's availability up to a service that you don't even pay that could pull the plug on you even easier (I'll guarantee they don't want to handle the ddos either).

      --
      Get a web developer
    4. Re:No need for DNS anymore by fmobus · · Score: 1

      That will work only until wikileaks' opponents force them to switch to another IP.

    5. Re:No need for DNS anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we really need DNS afterwards? Give me an IP and I'll give them a shortened URL through Social Nets... easily through some link like http://bit.ly/myFooWebsite [bit.ly]

      You're an idiot.

    6. Re:No need for DNS anymore by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      It's not often I see something that qualifies for the title of 'stupidest idea ever posted on Slashdot', but that one seems close.

      And how do you get the IP addresses for your URL shortener? Are you proposing some kind of two-class Internet, where 'important' sites (like bit.ly) have their addresses distributed by DNS, but others rely on your horrible fragile mechanism? How do you handle people moving IP? My server has changed hosts twice and changed IP addresses a total of five times, but the DNS still works - do URL shorteners let you change the shortened address later? How do you handle fail-over and load balancing? A DNS server can return multiple addresses, which a client then (automatically) tries in order until it finds one that works. No such feature exists with IPs distributed by URL shorteners. How do you handle caching? DNS scales because ISPs and large networks can cache the results. Do you want everyone to have to go via an HTTP proxy? Do you have any idea of the overhead of an HTTP redirect compared to a DNS lookup? Do you really want to see a system that's more centralised than DNS replace it, at a time when people are complaining that DNS is too centralised?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:No need for DNS anymore by Rudolf · · Score: 1

      With the advent of URL shorteners, we all can publish websites online, without DNS, and through Social Networks show it to the world, easily through some link like http://bit.ly/myFooWebsite.
      How do people get to a website on bt.ly if there is no DNS?

  20. If only we had a p2p DNS system.. by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

    I think the title says it all.

    1. Re:If only we had a p2p DNS system.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/01/1320253/The-Pirate-Bay-Co-Founder-Starting-P2P-DNS

    2. Re:If only we had a p2p DNS system.. by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

      hmm we really really need sarcasm tags.

    3. Re:If only we had a p2p DNS system.. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      hmm we really really need sarcasm tags.

      I see what you did there.

      Sarcasm tags! Hilarious!

    4. Re:If only we had a p2p DNS system.. by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm! That's original!

  21. not exactly a new problem by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    PC World wonders: "In an idyllic future where we make heavy use of the cloud, what happens if a cloud service provider removes content it deems inappropriate, or just doesn't like?"

    Welcome to the mid-1990s. At least that's when I started worry about that, after my ISP deleted my web site because of content that offended the owner's moral sensibilities. That's when I sat down, figured out how to install Linux and Apache on an old computer, and began self-hosting.

    It's the exact same issue here, but with "cloud" substituted for "web" or "net".

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  22. On other news... by golden+age+villain · · Score: 2

    Eric Besson, the French ministry for digital economy, has declared that France cannot accept to host a website which violates the secret of diplomatic relations and endanger people who should be protected by said secret.

    1. Re:On other news... by McTickles · · Score: 0

      I am ashamed that our government is run by such morons.

    2. Re:On other news... by Noe2097 · · Score: 1

      It sure will be interesting; let's see if France is effectively "the country of Human Rights"!

    3. Re:On other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, France, country of the Bill of Human Rights and whatnot.

    4. Re:On other news... by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1

      He's a disgrace to all what we french believe in.

      This said, he has no power to prevent OVH (the ISP) from hosting the site. And OVH has already fought back the pressure by filing a summary motion to have a judge decide wether they can legally host wikileaks. (I'm not really sure of my law speech translation here - basically, they went straight to a judge to have the case decided by justice instead of the administration).

      Fingers crossed...

    5. Re:On other news... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Where's the news? A self-righteous government that doesn't give half a shit about the people it supposedly represents doesn't want to host a service whose primary goal is to undermine the demand for the opinion monopoly of self-righteous governments that don't give half a shit about the people they supposedly represent.

      Who'd have tought?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Live Q&A with Julian Assange happening NOW by Atmanman · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Live Q&A with Julian Assange happening NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he just seriously TL;DR a question?
      The original post (below) clearly highlighted the issue at hand (and one of the more important issues with the current data set), but Assange simply said "Sorry, TL;DR, please come again"

      JAnthony

      Julian.
      I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.

      In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

      My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

      Julian Assange:

      If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

    2. Re:Live Q&A with Julian Assange happening NOW by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 1

      ...However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

      Interesting!!

    3. Re:Live Q&A with Julian Assange happening NOW by inKubus · · Score: 1

      That dude is pretty bad ass. And you know he's just a talking head for us, we the people, who are the organization behind wikileaks, just like we're the organization behind wikipedia. It's open, distributed publishing. Unfortunately that will always be counteracted by a desire for total control by the few who have it in their grasp. It's the essential conflict of humanity. There's no solution, just struggle. Unless the people at the top are willing to give it all away (and let's face it--would YOU if you were there?), this will always be the case.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  24. Make China look good? by miffo.swe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the US has a hidden goal of making China look pretty moderate and nice in comparison to the west, its working like a charm. It would be doubleplus ironic if China would lighten their censoring at the same time as the west applies what now looks like total censorship on all leaked material.

    I was uncertain before but now im 100% certain, China will take over as the next super power and it will happen a lot faster than i could ever expect. I couldnt imagine just how willing the west is to commit seppuku and dismantle the democracy in favour for totalitarian fascism. Moussilini would be proud.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:Make China look good? by jbridge21 · · Score: 1

      Nah. If this was happening in China it wouldn't be all over the news. They'd just quietly find Assange, put a bullet in the back of his head execution-style, and nobody would ever be the wiser.

    2. Re:Make China look good? by blueZhift · · Score: 1

      *sigh* It sure is looking this way. I'm appalled at all of the effort and energy the US government is wasting in a futile attempt to put the genie back in the bottle. It's kind of hard to criticize authoritarian governments elsewhere while exerting such a high level and public effort to not only suppress the information, but also crush the person who released it.

    3. Re:Make China look good? by Radtoo · · Score: 2

      Nah. You forget that the EU and Japan and Australia and many more are also still in this boat, and they will not at all dismantle democracy because China exists or grows. And the US not being so influential anymore does not have to be a bad thing - it will just mean a different mix of EU-US-Japanese-Australian etc influence. Not a full change in direction.

      Of course, even in a democracy, it is always a problem maintaining freedoms. I think the decline in number of people who likes objectivity and the scientific method and reason as a thing to strive for in life (and politics) worrisome in that regard, and a failure in western education. And it has strong effects on how our governments act and communicate, too. But that's not China's fault at all.

      Not that China doesn't have highly questionable politics and distribution of wealth. But you also ought to see that the growth China has right now is the only chance for 1.3 billion Chinese to no longer live in abject poverty. It is not really something to dislike per se.

    4. Re:Make China look good? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I was uncertain before but now im 100% certain, China will take over as the next super power

      That happened about three years ago if not earlier. They just have different aims from the US and are not building military bases everywhere on earth, but they do have the global influence that the USA had a decade ago. There is not a single country that China will not trade with and they have influence everywhere.

    5. Re:Make China look good? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Australia will follow the money as it always has. Sorry US, but trading partner number four that can not be trusted anymore to help Australia out if it gets in military trouble (the only threats now are also US allies) just doesn't carry any weight against China. The US-Australia one sided "free trade" agreement was probably close to the last straw. I think Europe is running out of patience as well and getting sick of being mixed up the US war in Afganistan.

    6. Re:Make China look good? by res1216 · · Score: 1

      I'd have to check the relevant subsection to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that picking a different WWII-era fascist dictator doesn't place you outside the jurisdiction of Godwin's Law.

    7. Re:Make China look good? by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Wrote this on my blog, might as well post it here too.

      ------

      Wikileaks moved its site to "Wikileaks.ch" after "Wikileaks.org" was taken down. I think this is a big mistake. They should have moved to "Wikileaks.cn".

      Here's why:
      - China is not interested in censoring English documents.
      - China does not violate the rights of foreigners.
      - China does not care that US classified documents are leaked.
      - China is a rare place in the world where American law is unenforcible.
      - China has a massive intranet, even if USA uses ICANN to take down your site, you will still have 300+ million people who can spread the information.
      - Even if you get into trouble with the authorities, at least the charge will bear some resemblance to the actions that offended them (i.e. subversion, theft of state secrets, etc.). You won't get charged for *rape* if you post classified documents online.
      - If you get incarcerated, you can apply for "medical parole", and have a good chance of succeeding.

      Welcome to the land of the free!

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    8. Re:Make China look good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If wikileaks leaks something from China, the average Chinese internet user (let alone newspaper reader) will know nothing whatsoever about it. It'd be scrubbed from forums, blogs wouldn't post it at all (the ones that did would disappear, so they self-censor).

      Contrast this to the situation in the US: WikiLeaks' information is ALL over the news.

    9. Re:Make China look good? by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the Germans, and it's the ones living in the U.S. now. And if you're of German descent and aren't participating in any way, please tell your people to stop it. And by participating I mean formenting any kind of negative attitude.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    10. Re:Make China look good? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Do you know what fascism stands for? Read this and take a while to think about it in detail. I will be very surprised if you cant see many similarities to the US. The only difference in the US is that you can choose between two identical parties with the same goals.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    11. Re:Make China look good? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      If the US would have their say, Assange and the rest of Wikileaks would be murdered and buried. The world would know nothing about the documents.

      I would say that what the US does with political pressure against Amazon, ICANN, Tableausoftware and a slew of other places would correspond rather exactly to what you think China would do? The reason Wikileaks information is "ALL over the news" is that the US cant contain the whole world. If it could i have no doubt we would know nothing about Assange at all.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
  25. Only on Slashdot... by metrix007 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Can you be sure to be the first to hear yesterdays news, today. People were submitting this all last night and evening, and after every other site reported it finally Slashdot get's t's act together and posts the story. I don't understand why people pay for this site -- probably the same people who pay for Hotmail.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:Only on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God, please mind your spelling. "Get's t's?" Gets its.

    2. Re:Only on Slashdot... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      My God, get over it.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    3. Re:Only on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could anyone take you seriously if you can't even spell? It's like listening to the opinion of a child.

    4. Re:Only on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your point is?

    5. Re:Only on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't read /. for the news, they read it for the discussion.

    6. Re:Only on Slashdot... by asvravi · · Score: 1

      Well, had to wait until Slashdot was done pointing to a Swiss server.

    7. Re:Only on Slashdot... by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 1

      Learn another language sometime. then sit and laugh at the stupid critizims of your use of that language.

      Seriously: when I type out "get's something" the meaning is PERFECTLY clear to 99% of the world. If you're part of the minority who can't process other peoples idioms: that's just too bad.

  26. Open Government by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And so now that Open Government has well and truly arrived our leaders are busy trying to shut it down. Well the public have had no privacy for a long time. Now politicians and bureaucrats are getting a taste of their own medicine.

    The moral is don't say or do anything unless you wouldn't mind the entire world knowing. That means you too, Hillary!

  27. Is it just me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that had faith in the Internet as a sort of safety against a fascist state ever developing in the US? I feel naive as that faith is replaced with a world of pulled domains and probably an eventual ISP level blocking of ips?

  28. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

    You can't blame them. Propaganda says that if they work hard, get an education (and more debt with that) and invest their money smart (does anyone actually think the super rich invest in those shit mutual funds you invest it or even those "small caps" that your newsletter points out every month?!?); they too can be rich.

    Or the biggest one - anyone can be rich! Just start a business and a way you go!

    As someone who's started a couple of businesses, I really wish that were true. It's really hard with all the competition out there (all computer services are saturated) and laws that benefit big business supported by the little people and written by lying politicians who say that the law will help small business.

    Of course I'm now broke because I thought I could have the American dream - which was a lie.

    1. Re:Propaganda by larry+bagina · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You're broke? "A fool and his money are soon parted."

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "sack of stupid", good call. Those that can, do. Those that can't, don't. And then complain.

    3. Re:Propaganda by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place." -- Gordon Gekko

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  29. ehhh by unity100 · · Score: 1

    dont sweat it guy. what has happened, has happened.

  30. Logical destination by Max_W · · Score: 1

    God bless Switzerland, the birth place of the Red Cross and Geneva convention!

    People of Switzerland are kind and fair. Because these people themselves had to run away from persecutions during Reformation period.

    Julian Assange better come here himself to stay in one piece. The Swiss police is well trained after all and could provide a realistic protection.

    1. Re:Logical destination by puto · · Score: 1

      Yes, bless the Swiss who financed th Nazis in WW2 and also had kept Holocaust's victim's accounts as their own.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  31. Home of the free, my ASS by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    now what's important is, what are you americans going to do about this. some dipshit is censoring you at his will, using the power you gave to him.

    1. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by js3 · · Score: 0

      He's not an American citizen, he is afford any right to free speech

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    2. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by thijsh · · Score: 1

      After being spoonfed BS for years you will grow to love it. You will probably roll over and ask for seconds and another free refill of your Cola(tm) to wash it down.

      NOTE TO SELF: I should stop mocking, I actually feel sorry for these people and it's not nice to point out their flaws even if they themselves can help it.

    3. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by unity100 · · Score: 1

      I actually feel sorry for these people and it's not nice to point out their flaws even if they themselves can help it.

      how will they find out their flaws and fix them, if everyone hides them ...

    4. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually feel sorry for these people...

      Don't. Instead, stand by, point and laugh at the quagmire we've allowed ourselves to be swallowed up in. This is a bed of our own making, and now it's time to lay in it.

      As the poster above you asked, what are we going to do about it? I suspect a very vocal minority of politically active young ones will make some waves for a bit, but their song and dance will be washed out by the insouciant majority who want them to clam up so they can see who won on American Idol. Thus the downward spiral continues.

      The United States was an interesting experiment, but I'm calling it a bust.

    5. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by thijsh · · Score: 1

      True, but I also believe that just because someone is right it is no excuse to behave like a dick... and I notice that I'm more and more tempted to do just that... :(

      It's hard to find a way to point out someones blatantly obvious flaws in a nice way when they resist changing their view about even the most basic things violently.

    6. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem in a nutshell: It's not just 1 dipshit. If it were just 1 dipshit attempting to illegally censor this material, he'd be arrested, tried, impeached, etc. The attacks on Wikileaks have the strong support of both major parties in the United States as well as numerous corporations and news organizations, because nobody with power likes it when people without power start acquiring knowledge about what those with power are up to.

      They also make damn sure nobody can take power away from those 2 major parties and corporations. For instance, the major political parties both arrange to exclude candidates from political debates because they are representing political parties other than Democratic or Republican. News anchors routinely exclude guests that don't match their own views.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... And if someone stole confidental writings of you and your family (perhaps your wife's or daughter's diary of her sexual escapades, names, dates, positions, objects, animals, etc) and posted it online...

      You'd be all for censorship. Publishing your own rantings is not affected. Publishing illegally obtained correspondence is not protected.

      USC 18-793.

    8. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, it cannot happen in America the free! Only in evil China!!

      oh wait....

      Liberman and everyone in leadership of DHS is a type of people that doesn't seem to understand the constitution. They break 4th amendment at will. They don't give a shit about the 1st one either.But I guess it's OK. In China they may have "Re-education through labor" - the west will just have "Freedom-Hater Camps"

      or, maybe they'll just call anyone that does not agree with a particular government policy a terrorist.... Oh wait, that's ALREADY part of the Patriot Act!!!!

    9. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge difference between government and the people. Government is supposed to be transparent and accountable to the people.

    10. Re:Home of the free, my ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not an American citizen, he is afford any right to free speech

      You make no sense, in any way.

  32. Time for a network controlled by its users by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    Maybe it is time to establish a network that is controlled by its users, rather than large corporations and powerful governments?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Time for a network controlled by its users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spam problems should be one glaring example of why that nice thought may not work in real life. Basically, we need to balance in the sweet middle between two terrible extremes. One extreme is that government/megacorporations control the technology layer and we, the users, are deprived of the usefulness of the internet. The other extreme is that there's no oversight (over the tech layer), and we, the users, are destroyed by "ourselves" (other, malicious, users). I don't want the government or a company controlling me, but I don't want some other jackass controlling me either.

  33. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Bread and circuses. It's been this way for thousands of years - you're just realizing it?

    For a while we had a chance to build a different world. But human nature (I'm too lazy to do it myself so I will "trust" my politician/god/celebrity to do it for me) won out in the end. So either continue to be a sheep, or be a wolf.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  34. Real Cyber World War by Juel · · Score: 2

    This is history! With the unreal number of denial-of-service (DOS) attacks and Goverment actions against wikileaks, for me this is the First Real Cyber World War against a website!

    1. Re:Real Cyber World War by thijsh · · Score: 1

      And let us settle this once and for all with a precedent: The Internet always wins!

      But I'm afraid the same can't be said for individual people...

  35. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    Remember carefully that some speech is more free than others.

  36. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the (defaulted) home lone and free of the brave, rather...

  37. demonoid by alphatel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Demonoid has switched from .com to .ME overnight and .com no longer resolves. Obviously there's more brewing about out there than the sheeple care to realize.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:demonoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know what they believe because this is happening to more sites than wikileaks and demonoid. (not published b/c.. when you publish it... it gets noticed by more than the "usual suspects"

    2. Re:demonoid by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the U.S. Government has taken control of ICANN and the root servers for "national security" reasons. Fortunately there are other sources of DNS information.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  38. The system works!!! by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    Well... at least for those who need to cover up their tracks.

  39. This doesn't completely make sense... by datapharmer · · Score: 1

    What I don't get is as of this posting their whois data is still showing:

    Name Server:NS1.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:NS2.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:NS3.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:NS4.EVERYDNS.NET

    Why don't they just update their friggin dns records and call it a day. You can run your own dns server or choose from the billion providers that are out there - heck for that matter pick a half dozen or so on different services around the world and have fun seeing who is last to dump you.

    The only thing I can come up with here that makes any sense is this is sort of their middle finger to everydns as they are still getting requests to their servers even though they aren't serving the record anymore, but that doesn't really seem to be worth the downtime to me unless they are going for the Streisand effect.

    --
    Get a web developer
    1. Re:This doesn't completely make sense... by js3 · · Score: 1

      it takes time. stop overreacting to a simple dns change god

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
  40. It is the weakness of democracy by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret. How can I vote for the guy who is going to make foreign policy if I don't know the foreign policy?

    Yes, this makes life very hard for democratic leaders. Though shit. It comes with the political system. I am sure cops would be able to do their jobs far better if we restrict the freedom of citizens as well. For instance a curfew would make patrolling the streets just so much easier.

    But we can't do that so we accept that criminals go free because they got rights.

    Wikileaks just made life harder for US politicians. So? What do you value more? Freedom or an easy life for the diplomatic core?

    And the silly thing is that the outrage isn't really present in the countries the US has the most troubled relations with. Iran doesn't even give a shit.

    But all this HAS given the US public a real insight into the true goings on on the diplomatic front. Just what is the official line? Well now we know. So we can base our votes on that... or one who promises the largest tax cut. Whatever takes the shortest attention span.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Knowing foreign policy is not the same thing as being in the same room. In fact, what you suggest is very likely to damage foreign policy efforts.

      If diplomats and ambassadors can't have frank discussions then lines of communication have been destroyed. Failure to effectively communicate is the first step toward total chaos.

      You make is sound like the public is always left entirely in the dark. When in fact, this latest round of leaks absolutely confirms that the public has always been well informed as to the state of foreign policy.

      If you've been the least bit surprised by the majority of the leaks then you've simply maintained your own veil of secrecy despite the media doing their best to lift it.

      These types of disclosure only serve to create chaos and harm relationships.

      Basically, leaking the bank documents are far, far, far more important than the harmful bullshit pushed so far.

    2. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by I_Voter · · Score: 1

      SmallFurryCreature wrote:
      Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed

      True, but the corollary of this is that limited or ineffectual democracy leads to less support for freedom of speech. The majority below the average income (the poor) will defend speech, as a political issue, as long as they believe the political system benefits them - and no longer.

      From the Wikipedia Pentagon Papers page
      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1894524&op=Reply&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=34429666 [slashdot.org]

      "To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds."

      "Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States."

    3. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by dpilot · · Score: 2

      It would be a good idea for us to write to our "direct reports" - our congress-critters, Obama, and perhaps Biden - in direct support of Wikileaks. I plan to. I'm also struck that the government intelligence agencies keeps increasing their surveillance along with the statement, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear."

      I would suggest that the same applies to governments and other large organizations, and Wikileaks.

      It's kind of similar to a kid saying, "I'm sorry," when what he really means is "I'm sorry I got caught," not "I'm sorry it did something bad." As far as I could tell, our government has felt no remorse whatsoever about having done the stuff released, only that now everyone knows. In some cases, such as the diplomatic issues, I don't think they're done anything wrong, and if there's an issue it's with those whose public and private statements are so different. (As about Iran's nuclear ambitions.) With some of the Iraq information, it seems to me that the US was clearly in the wrong.

      Fun little aside I heard last night. Apparently someone in the US government wants to use Interpol to get at Assange. At the same time, the Nigerian government has gone through Interpol channels to issue the same kind of extradition request for Dick Cheney - I believe for the crime of fraud, when he was running Halliburton. It'll be interesting to see us refuse to honor one request while insisting that others honor ours.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      You're saying that we shouldn't let people say things that might be harmful to <people in power>?

      If this isn't the antithesis of free speech, I don't know what else it can be.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    5. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret.

      Conversely, Communism/Marxism only works when the people are uninformed, uneducated, and uninspired...

      I choose Democracy.

      I actually disagree with you though. There are manueverings on the world stage that prevent as many hazards as they cause that would be impossible without some level of secrecy. Not to mention that just because your democracy tells you absolutely everything doesn't mitigate the secrets of every other nation on the globe. You cant learn of and navigate the dangers inherent in the secrets of other nations without at the very least securing informants. And you cant keep informants alive (and thereby retain future informants) if you dont retain secrets.

      This WikiLeaks dump includes the identities of our informants. Who are now walking corpses. It's only a matter of time before they are murdered for their actions. And the people whom they've offended are just as likely to filet the informant's kids as they are to put a bullet in the informant's head.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. It's been argued that the very reason it was framed as a republic is because the average citizen is not informed enough to make day to day decisions. The average citizen should vote for someone who does have the "ability" to make such decisions and shares a similar mindset as the voter, thus trusting the candidate to make decisions for the voter's best interest .

      Not saying that logic is perfect or even a reflection of the current state of things, but it illustrates the goal of representative government. Promises are worthless political propaganda as they are generally made to people without full information or sometimes sincerely but with limited information.

    7. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret.

      Informed of what, the "truth", Truth(TM), Truth, tru dat, teh truf? People are not computers. True/false is not 1 and 0.

      I like how this place can have extremely varied, splintered, religious culture well into the "Information Age", but somehow you expect people to put their thinking caps on when it comes to politics.

      Selective reasoning is like selective truth. It's not. You might as well just enjoy the bread and circus. Your hosts are not robots, they are avery bit as human as you are, and they like good bread and circus too.

      Most people just want to live happy lives. Is that hard to understand?

    8. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I said nothing of the like. Your position seems to be that diplomatic channels should not exist.

      Free speech is not the same thing as violation of privacy. If it were your privacy, you should as heck wouldn't be complaining about everyone's right to free speech.

  41. I Loved Amazon's Statement by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

    Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.

    It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

    Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.

    1. Re:I Loved Amazon's Statement by segedunum · · Score: 1

      I mean, if someone comes in and claims you don't have rights to certain information that some people don't want you to see then that's goodbye to the press and any kind of journalistic investigation. I suppose that's kind of the point.

    2. Re:I Loved Amazon's Statement by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I proudly closed my Amazon Account and also reversed EC2 deployment plans of my company. I know, it is not like Amazon could care less, but I _had_ to do it.

      --
      839*929
    3. Re:I Loved Amazon's Statement by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

      Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.

      It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

      Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.

      So? Amazon is a private company, no one has any free speech rights wrt what Amazon chooses to host. They are free to decide how to run their business based on what they believe will be most profitable and what they need to do to avoid any liability for their hosting material.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:I Loved Amazon's Statement by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.

      Seems to me that you're barking up the wrong tree here. Amazon is a corporation, so it's legally considered a person in the U.S. Amazon has a legal right to make political statements under the first amendment. Freedom of speech does not mean that a third party like Amazon can be forced to provide a platform for the views of someone with whom they disagree. Amazon does not need to be able to prove that Wikileaks' activities are illegal. If Amazon decided it wanted to dump Wikileaks as a customer because they didn't like people named Julian, that would be their privilege. Whether or not Wikileaks is violating copyright is kind of a silly issue to be worrying about. IANAL, but my understanding is that under U.S. law, when you write something original and it's fixed in tangible form, you automatically own the copyright; however, works produced by the federal government are not copyrightable, although this doesn't apply, for example, to works produced by contractors. So there may or may not be copyrighted material in the Wikileaks documents, but if Amazon thinks there is, they're entitled to their opinion, and they're entitled to dump a customer for that reason -- even if they're wrong.

      So let's be realistic here. The real issue is not whether we think Amazon should or should not have done this. The real issue is whether they were *pressured by the government* into doing this. If they were, then it's de facto censorship. Also, legality is not the same as morality. I approve morally of what Wikileaks has done. If it also happens to have been illegal under U.S. law, that has nothing to do with its morality.

    5. Re:I Loved Amazon's Statement by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Really? Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks had rights to material that a federal crime and possibly a capital one was committed in order to obtain? They may or may not be legally responsible for it, I'm in no position to parse what I am certain is complicated legal issues around that, but they damn sure didn't have rights to it and that is abundantly clear. Biased much?

  42. Ms Streisand is Holding on Line 1 by grcumb · · Score: 1

    The response to Tableau Software's cowardice, at least, is obvious:

    Everybody and their dog should take an account on their system and repost the data. Someone call Anonymous.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  43. yeah by unity100 · · Score: 1

    like the americans who financed nazis until 1941. did heaps of trading with them merrily.

    had switzerland not 'financed' nazis, they wouldnt stay as a neutral unoccupied country. germans would just take them over and finance themselves.

    get real.

    1. Re:yeah by zakeria · · Score: 1

      don't forget the Irish!

  44. The Assange Doctrine by geegel · · Score: 1

    This post has only marginally to do with the original post, so if you feel that this is a reason to mod down, feel free to do so.

    Understanding the impact that the Wikileaks impact has on the world should be I believe a function of how Wikileaks meant to change the world. In light of this, I recommend you to read Julian Assange's essay "State and Terrorist Conspiracies", which functions as a sort of manifest. The document is only five pages long, so please shove the tl;dr and try to understand what's really happening

    link (PDF format)

    --
    right...
    1. Re:The Assange Doctrine by geegel · · Score: 1

      Crap, apparently /. doesn't allow PDF links. Just Google "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and pick the first link.

      --
      right...
    2. Re:The Assange Doctrine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find articles about quantum physics written in a more accessible manner.

  45. This Is Huge by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue goes to the heart of the controversy over who controls the internet; specifically who controls ICANN and the DNS root servers.

    Right now, DNS control resides with the United States, and up to this point they have defended this status quo by assurring the world that the US is a bastion of absolute free speech and therefore best placed to control this most centralised, hierarchical and critical piece of internet architecture.

    And now, when faced with the first real and signifigant test of its will, the United States' resolve crumples almost immediately. Gone is any guarantee--implied or otherwise--that the DNS servers will be beyond political or domestic influences(In truth, the takeing down of "terrorist" sites has been ongoing for some years). The weak appeal that these are the actions of a private company is a thin rag which fails to cover the US governments nakedness. This censorship is on the express will of the government.

    This was the first real test; the US failed it. This has the potential to split DNS completely; with US trust now bankrupt, no other country will give it credit. In 5 years time, when you go looking for wikileaks.org or indeed slashdot.org, don't expect to get the same IP address as everyone else.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:This Is Huge by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2

      What "terrorist" sites? There's PLENTY of garbage out there that stays up that should probably be more controlled - pedophilia, genuine terrorist sites (al-qaeda related, etc), etc.

      Just go look at racist sites from all sides of the aisle and you'll probably see better examples as well - sites that wouldn't see the light of day in Europe.

    2. Re:This Is Huge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anything in the summary (maybe one of the 10 articles linked in it has more information) that states it was anything other than a business choice by the dns company to take down the wikileaks.org. Am I missing where the government told them to take it down or should that be implied as to why it was done?

    3. Re:This Is Huge by houghi · · Score: 2

      Remember when all said that control must be with the US, because they did such a great job?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:This Is Huge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anything in the summary (maybe one of the 10 articles linked in it has more information) that states it was anything other than a business choice by the dns company to take down the wikileaks.org. Am I missing where the government told them to take it down or should that be implied as to why it was done?

      Yes.

    5. Re:This Is Huge by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Just go look at racist sites from all sides of the aisle and you'll probably see better examples as well - sites that wouldn't see the light of day in Europe.

      Yeah, reading stuff on Stormfront (hosted in Florida AFAIK) shocked the sh*t out of me.

      Now, even if you hate the hate (heh), should that stuff be allowed on the grounds of free speech and related principles, like how y'all advocate for Wikileaks on such principles?

      "Don't hate nothin' at all 'cept hatred" - Bob Dylan - It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    6. Re:This Is Huge by inKubus · · Score: 1

      It's not the U.S., it's the people they let run the servers. I wouldn't do that, and I'm American. So let's hire some new root servers. I can change my DNS to point to them in a few minutes.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  46. Real Villains... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.

    1. Re:Real Villains... by zakeria · · Score: 1
      You mean Julian Assange, International shit stirrer & possible rapist!

      you all seem to forget that freedom comes with a price in this world!

    2. Re:Real Villains... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 0

      If you don't believe that there are also despots in the US, then I have a nice bridge to sell you. Cleaning up a mess starts at home.

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    3. Re:Real Villains... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.

      Uh, if the greatest trove of confidential information in history about one of the most holier-than-thou countries in the world (and I say this as an American) fell into your lap, you'd be a complete moron not to publish it.

    4. Re:Real Villains... by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

      Even if he wanted to target only one country (by far most powerful in military and engaging in wars most eagerly), I cannot see anything wrong with that. Your argument about despots in Africa resembles what communist governments used to say: "Don't criticise us for arresting political dissidents when USA is oppressing black people and slaughtered Native Americans!"

      --
      839*929
    5. Re:Real Villains... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks has stated that their next big release is going to be about some dirty corporations.

      It also turns out that the stuff released this time isn't just "well duh". They're a bit more dry than, say, footage of reporters and civilians getting shot to pieces by US helicopter gunners, but one of the more interesting is that the various Arab states are pushing for a US attack on Iran. I'd think the the US public would be far more supportive of a strike on Iran at the behest of, say, the UN Security Council than they would of a similar strike at the behest of the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Real Villains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bottom line is that few in "first world" countries care about what happens in African countries.

      People are far more interested in the dirty laundry of the US, Russia, and EU political leaders than the latest genocide or tin-pot dictator.

      Assange knows this. He also knows where he gets his funding from.

    7. Re:Real Villains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did (go after despots in Africa) . Already provided the impetus for at least one change of government in Africa. Research before whining about stuff please.

    8. Re:Real Villains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.

      Ok, so why is it anti-Americanism if he provides information on the US, but it's not racism or anti-African if he provides information on those people? What your saying is that it's okay to call people out for wrongdoing as long as they are not part of the USA. Wikileaks has provided vast amounts of leaks with regard to the places you mentioned, but currently they happen to be working on leaks related to the USA. That's the exact opposite of bias - they are covering all the bases they can.

      Did you read any of the summaries of the recent leaks? Many of the most interesting bits of information originate from diplomats / politicians in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. But mentioning that would probably destroy your theory wouldn't it?

    9. Re:Real Villains... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      All of those despots and dirty corporations are partners of the American and European governments. It would be hard to find anything to leak about them that would be surprising, but even then they would just shift their form--a new CEO or government would be appointed with the same mandate.

    10. Re:Real Villains... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa

      I remember reading in the press that last year wikileaks won an award for reporting about political murders in Kenya. Is that despotic and African enough for you?

    11. Re:Real Villains... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Ummm...the Iranian angle isn't surprising. Historically, the Arab nations have never really gotten along all that well with them. It's actually pretty central to the Shia-Sunni conflict.

    12. Re:Real Villains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, if the greatest trove of confidential information in history about one of the most holier-than-thou countries in the world (and I say this as an American) fell into your lap, you'd be a complete moron not to publish it.

      Repeat after me...

      1. Get trove of confidential information
      2. Blackmail people who would be embarassed
      3. Profit!
      4. Goto #1

      Of course, by publishing, you may get famous, but the profit doesn't happen the second time around the loop. (who's the moron now?)

  47. Julian ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make the full data torrent available.
    One hour later million of mirror will show them how futile their attack are.

  48. and by unity100 · · Score: 1

    where should joe liebermann, be ?

  49. Enough Side Talk by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For fucks sake, can we give the social polemical shit a rest for just one article?

    The heart of the internet just skipped a beat. This is important in a technical and political sense. Is it too much to ask for some comments giving technical insight into the DNS system, historical precedents, or exisiting context? Instead we get a +5 copy paste rant about the death of the middle class that could be placed in just about any other thread or a ZeroHedge comment section for that matter.

    TOPIC, GENTLEMEN; PLEASE.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Enough Side Talk by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      You kind of prove his point, though. Being outraged is considered faux pas, and that's why people aren't more vocal about the reality of where our society is headed. I've been told, "Never discuss politics or religion at a bar" b/c people get too riled up over those topics. But that's complete cowardly bullshit. This country was founded by revolutionaries who discussed politics in taverns and weren't willing to sit by idly and allow their rights to be trampled all over. The corruption that Wikileaks is exposing reveals that our rights are be trampled on today, but ordinary people don't express their anger over the situation because people like you treat them like they've broken some rule of social conduct.

      I agree, the technical and political aspects of this story are very important and I'd be interested in what you have to say about it. But to discourage someone from being critical of the social structure that has led to the government corruption that Wikileaks is fighting is just the same as encouraging complacency. It's like how in the mid-west it's faux pas to be an environmentalist b/c no one wants to be labeled as a hippie.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    2. Re:Enough Side Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fucks sake, can we give the social polemical shit a rest for just one article?

      The heart of the internet just skipped a beat. This is important in a technical and political sense. Is it too much to ask for some comments giving technical insight into the DNS system, historical precedents, or exisiting context? Instead we get a +5 copy paste rant about the death of the middle class that could be placed in just about any other thread or a ZeroHedge comment section for that matter.

      TOPIC, GENTLEMEN; PLEASE.

      I agree! Whenever there's an interesting technical topic of discussion it devolves into a bunch of catchphrase shouting morons who get +5, Funny moderations.

    3. Re:Enough Side Talk by samuisan · · Score: 1

      Maybe I am just getting old, but if you don't understand what dns is, why are you reading and posting on slashdot?

  50. Re:What free speech? by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1, Informative

    Assange isn't committing treason against the US, dumbarse, because he's not a US citizen. Learn to think.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  51. Swiss or Swede? by ks9208661 · · Score: 1

    Since when did Sweden start hosting .ch domains?

    1. Re:Swiss or Swede? by Poorcku · · Score: 2

      ch = Confoederatio Helvetica

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    2. Re:Swiss or Swede? by cdrnet · · Score: 1

      Domain: Switzerland (.ch)
      DNS Servers the domain points to: US (EveryDNS)
      Servers the DNS Server points to, A records: Sweden (.se)
      Servers these Servers redirect to: France (.fr)

  52. Swiss = Switzerland NOT Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swiss = Switzerland, not Sweden as Slashdot states.

  53. Look ma! No DNS by defaria · · Score: 2

    It's interesting that if you go to wikileaks.ch it redirects to http://213.251.145.96/. IOW once in you are using IP addresses and not names. No need for DNS anymore! And nobody should care because you merely click links after that. Brilliant.

  54. History Insurance by H3xx · · Score: 1

    I recommend that all of you, your children, your grandmothers and your mothers download the "history insurance" file that was tweeted 3 days ago.

    I sense that they will soon give up trying to go about this in a diplomatic fashion and just leak the key for the AES256 encryption. Then BOOM! Thousands of people will have the entire cable archive (or at least a large part of it) on their home computers.

    --
    "Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
    1. Re:History Insurance by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      The 'insurance.aes256' file has been around for a while now, around when "collateral murder" was released.

      We know it has nothing to do with the cables, it is something far more secret, and damaging.

      When cables have settled in the press, bankers are next, unless for some reason the insurance policy has to be opened.

  55. Re:What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he's not an American and he's doing this, then he's a terrorist and he should be at gitmo with the other terrorists.

  56. Amazon has been megatrolled by McTickles · · Score: 5, Informative

    Julian Assange: Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

    1. Re:Amazon has been megatrolled by geegel · · Score: 1

      Any source you can provide? Would really appreciate it.

      --
      right...
    2. Re:Amazon has been megatrolled by geegel · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Someone should mod this up as informative.

      --
      right...
    3. Re:Amazon has been megatrolled by Dotren · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent up. Informative link!

  57. Re:What free speech? by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 0

    Ah, I see you're from the same line of communists who like to incarcerate people without trial.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  58. Re:What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs a trial? He's posting information telling terrorists where and how to kill our troops and informants.
    He readily admits doing this. He's guilty of aiding and supporting terrorism and he should pay the price.

    If he claimed to be innocent,then we would need a trial.

  59. Can't they stop attacking Assange? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

    I mean... they already have got him fired!

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  60. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by drej · · Score: 1

    I know, rite?

  61. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Oh, cheer up. It's nearly (War On) Christmas time! :-)

  62. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Are you HONESTLY telling me in this world of Zimbabwe, North Korea, and China, that you dont think you have any freedoms in the US? Or that we're even close to having "freedom and justice" just as "buzzwords"?

    The fact that people can vote-- and did so, ousting the conservatives that everyone was so aclamor about-- indicates that youre just spouting hyperbole without a shred of perspective. The country may not be perfect, but its phenomonally childish to complain about a lack of freedoms in one of the freest countries in the world. Ill note that people CONSTANTLY criticize, satirize, and insult our leaders, and yet noone has yet been put to death, imprisoned, or "disappeared" for doing so.

    Grow up and join the real world, please.

  63. Re:What free speech? by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

    "Who needs a trial?". Oh dear, the terrorists really did win.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  64. Wikileaks: the biggest tabloid ever... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    "OMG! Did you hear what he said about her! OMG! Did you hear what she said about him! LOLLLZZZ!!!"

    Sigh. It would have been nice if they had been more selective about releasing documents and chose ones that really matter.

    1. Re:Wikileaks: the biggest tabloid ever... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      They be "selective" about the documents being released (beyond redaction of some information in them), and suddenly they're now the target of people crying that they're censoring the real interesting information. Therefore, their policy is simply "release it all and let someone else sort it out".

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Wikileaks: the biggest tabloid ever... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      They be "selective" about the documents being released (beyond redaction of some information in them), and suddenly they're now the target of people crying that they're censoring the real interesting information. Therefore, their policy is simply "release it all and let someone else sort it out".

      That's true but those people are idiots. I however understand the need to avoid even the hint of hypocrisy when pointing out the hypocrisy of others.

    3. Re:Wikileaks: the biggest tabloid ever... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      If they were to say "Here's half the documents. You wouldn't be interested in the rest of it", would you believe them?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  65. What free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't about free speech.

    This is about a wanker who got hold of thousands of secret documents and is just dumping them for the whole world to see.

    He doesn't care who he hurts, or gets killed in the process.

    Sure, revealing human rights violations is one thing, but revealing names and locations of people who have given us confidential information because they might get killed for it is something else. I don't believe for a minute that this guy has gone through all the documents.

    1. Re:What free speech by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      " . . . revealing names and locations of people who have given us confidential information . . ."

      "us" == You and who else??

  66. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fail. Go back to your mom's basement.

  67. Distractions, Distractions. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    How the hell am I supposed to concentrate on getting MY work done when the government is working day and night to destroy our civil liberties, rape me financially and destroy the general quality of life of the working middle class. The most infuriating aspect of this is that they're stealing money out of my paycheck, thus forcing me to pay for my further enslavement.

  68. Re:What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The terrorists DID win, that's why the economy's in the shitter with no signs of recovery!
    If we had attacked them harder, if we had made more sacrifices, we may have had a chance.
    Instead, we went easy on them, and now we are locked into a war we can't win against an enemy we can't defeat.
    We are encircled and beseiged, and under attack on all sides.
    Our only hope at this point is to circle the wagons and lock down our defenses and hope they make a fatal mistake.

  69. Let me correct you nutso by unity100 · · Score: 1
    nutso as in right wing nutso that is. or extremely fool naive person.

    He doesn't care who he hurts, or gets killed in the process. Sure, revealing human rights violations is one thing, but revealing names and locations of people who have given us confidential information because they might get killed for it is something else.

    have those people who were participating in effecting operations, kidnappings, torture, invasions, occupations of united states around the world, been caring who might get killed ?

    huh ?

    they willfully, dutifully participated in these operations, directly or indirectly, doing whatever function that was assigned to them, DESPITE all the issues coming out to media for years now. for, approx 8 years even. they didnt have any worries about the ethics of what they were doing.

    why the fuck should we care, if any of them are killed, because of leaks ? give me a SINGLE reason for that ?

    no no - i have to make a correction - there WERE some people who worried about the ethics of what they were doing. that is the very reason we have these leaks.

    now, stop watching faux news.

  70. At least you were "modded up" for HOSTS use... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK:

    1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF...).

    2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

    3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do.

    4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

    5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

    6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

    7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

    GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

    http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
    http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
    http://www.stopbadware.org/
    http://blog.fireeye.com/
    http://mtc.sri.com/
    http://news.netcraft.com/
    http://www.shadowserver.org/

    REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

    http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
    http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
    http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
    http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
    http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
    https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
    Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

    8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

    9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

    10.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs.

    11.) HOSTS files are E

  71. Re:What free speech? by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your economy is in the shitter because you've spent trillions chasing ghosts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe if you spent the money on, gee, INFRASTRUCTURE, like rail and roads, and thereby plowing money back into your own country, you might have something to show for the last ten years, instead of thousands of dead soldiers.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  72. You're not talking about socialism there.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the rest of your points are not too bad though.

  73. Bad move to p!$$ off Russia? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    I applaud what Wikileaks is doing, but from a strategic sense, I think they might be making an error in leaking information that reflects poorly on Russia. Almost impossible to keep up with this stuff, but e.g. in The Guardian:

    "Russia armed Georgian separatists, Alexander Litvinenko murder 'probably had Putin's OK', Cables claim Putin has secret wealth hidden abroad." etc. etc.

    Aren't Russia and other Eastern European countries prime territory for setting up web servers free of interference from Western censorship efforts? The Wikileaks operators obviously know more than I do about circumventing censorship and finding ways to keep their site up and running after being booted from various hosts. Maybe there are plenty of opportunities elsewhere?

  74. Join dot p2p project to prevent these in future by unity100 · · Score: 1

    http://chat.efnet.org:9090/ -> channel dot-p2p

    I know there are a lot of people among you who can contribute A LOT due to your skills. it is time to put your skills to use for your and others' freedom. So that we can be truly free on the internet regarding domain names.

    http://dot-p2p.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

  75. Switzerland by unity100 · · Score: 1

    They are based in switzerland, man. No entity, person or corporation or government alike, can threaten switzerland, due to what is stored in swiss banks.

  76. OVH French Hosting Provider asking Justice opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the mean time

    The Hosting provider OVH which is currently hosting wikileaks said it was unaware of wikileaks being hosted. It was done through an automatic process (obviously).
    They have now asked an emergency ruling by a french judge on the "legality" of this hosting following pressure from the government stating however that it was not up to politics to ask such "removal' (cf previous comment about Eric Besson).

    The decision should come within hours / days and they will apply the decision immediately.

    French article sorry: http://www.clubic.com/internet/actualite-383224-wikileaks-heberge-france-eric-besson-obtenir-expulsion.html

  77. Lots of repeats of "So What". Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of repeats of "So What". Why? Do you like your money going to someone who is rich so they keep getting richer?

    Shall I tell you how your life is worsened by the increasing wealth gap:

    1) The money supply is limited. So the more the rich guys have, the less YOU have

    2) If you need a loan, that money comes from the rich and the extra payments make you poorer than if you had the money outright and the rich man takes that wealth from you

    3) Money = Power. You can't buy your way out of a Murder Charge. OJ could, even though it bankrupted him. Worse, Sony stole and profited from millions of hacks into windows PCs and the theft of copyright from another and paid less than they saved from it. Jammie Thomas is being stung for 24 counts of copyright theft without profit to the tune of nearly 2 million dollars.

    But you don't care?

    1. Re:Lots of repeats of "So What". Why? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      1) The money supply is limited. So the more the rich guys have, the less YOU have

      For love of God that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, there has to be a million websites devoted to exposing (take your pick) the John Burch Society/Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/KKK/The Communist Party/Zionists-Caballists/Free Masons/Knights of Columbus/The Templars (sorry if I forgot your favorite conspiracy group) conspiracy to move the world from a floating money system to a fixed or gold standard money system that they will control.
      If there really wasn't enough money to support our economic activity, people would start using barter more than they do now. That means the government loses track of the income and therefore income taxes, so they'll just increase the money supply to drive the economy above-ground. If we have a problem it's more likely along the lines of too much money in the system.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  78. DNS terminated for 'interfering with other members by kaptink · · Score: 1

    Interestingly EveryDNS says that they terminated Wikileaks DNS hosting for "violation of the provision which states that 'Member shall not interfere with another Member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services.' The interference at issues arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites.

    http://www.everydns.com/news.php

    Because they were the target of DDoS attacks and those attacks may harm EveryDNS's services, they terminated Wikileaks account. Sounds like a pretty weak excuse.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
  79. Victim: Arbor Networks confirms it by chrb · · Score: 2

    also, no ddos attacks (supposedly over 10gbps) were ever confirmed by their upstreams (bahnhof/ovh).

    The ddos attacks have been confirmed by Arbor Networks.

    This image released by Arbor clearly shows a spike of over 10Gbps.

  80. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    Your joke is oversimplistic and juvenile, and it proves your intellectual laziness. Its one thing to speak your own mind and voice your own opinions without fear of reprisals. That's what the First Amendment protects. It's quite another to knowingly accept into your possession classified government documents, and then purposefully spread those around the world. It's a crime in every nation, and in many (most?) it would get you executed.

    From that perspective, the United States is showing incredible restraint. Some might argue that the US is being chickenshit in not pursuing active and on-going espionage that is damaging to both foreign relations and national security.

    You can try to flower this up and redirect the argument, but the simple fact is that WikiLeaks is a small group of self-righteous little pissants that think they have a right to derail international diplomacy. Under the best of all possible circumstances they are incredibly misguided and irresponsible, albeit well-intentioned, idiots. I dont personaly believe they are that noble. Even if WikiLeaks proves that the US does these backroom deals it's not going to stop the back room deals. It's just going to make it much more likely that people refuse to make those deals with the US, and more likely that deals are being done between China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, ... They are helping to silence one of the few nations that truly embraces freedom of speech, pulling a fog over the US ability to pursue intelligence details and make alliances with those nations far less frightening than those mentioned previously, and worse.

    And that's aside from the fact that some of this leaked information actually names informants in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan who have aided the US govt and military. Those people, real people guilty of just try to make life better for their families, are walking corpses. It's just a matter of time before they are murdered for what they said. All they did was speak... freely.... They will die for it and you flippantly condemn them by supporting the right to sell them out as casually as if you'd laughed at Jon Stewart joking about George W Bush.

    You're exercising your Freedom of Speech right here with callous disregard for the ramifactions, exactly as WikiLeaks has. Just because you have the ability to say a thing, doesnt actually mean you have the 'right' to, depending on the context. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's smart to. You and Assange would both do well to learn that lesson.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  81. Re:What free speech? by whoda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The bailout money was more than both wars, and did go to 'help' the country. Not that it went to the right places or did any good.

  82. Everyone should MIRROR Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have some webhost space and big steely balls like me, mirror that b**ch. http://www.gnu.org/software/wget/

    I don't know how huge Wikileaks is, it probably pretty big, but the short term solution to this attack is for a thousand mirrors of Wikileaks to spring up all over the net.

    Remember how Sony tried to get rid of that copy protection string off the internet? And everyone countered by copying and replicating that string of Hex codes everywhere...?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

    By brutal intimidation and legal threat the U.S. government thugs took down torrentreactor, and now they have become embolden to take out Wikileaks. What next? Wikipedia? Slashdot? Google News? Digg?

    1. Re:Everyone should MIRROR Wikileaks by tibman · · Score: 1

      some webhost space?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    2. Re:Everyone should MIRROR Wikileaks by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Yup. The problem is having a point source for information. What we really need is a kind of SETI project where you've got a very-low-impact virtual storage medium. It could work like Amway pyramid schemes, except nobody gets stuck waiting for the millions of packets to show up. Just above this distributed layer, what you see is Wikileaks.ch, which you can use as before. The distributed storage level (a "cloud," by any chance?) could be embedded in everyone's Linux kernel... Hmmm... Sort of like a... like a... (*caff*) virus...

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    3. Re:Everyone should MIRROR Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a torrent of the wikileaks site that's just gone up on the green demon. I haven't downloaded to check it's veracity but the claimed size is only 62.5mb. Seems a bit small but who knows?

  83. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

    Also, Joe *LIBERMAN*.

  84. The history the US government is trying to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Addicted to War: Why the US can't quit Militarism
    http://www.addictedtowar.com/atw2a.html

    Prarie Fire:
    http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Prairie-fire.pdf

    Strip Search:
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5530950/Sidney_Lumet_-_Strip_Search_%282004%29

  85. Re:DNS terminated for 'interfering with other memb by thoromyr · · Score: 1

    weak is right. Apparently all you have to do to censor someone is do a DDOS for a little bit and the hosting service will drop the target because it impacts their other customers. The DNS registrar will delist them for the same reason.

    Only, don't expect this level of cooperation in censorship if the DDOS target isn't a clearly labeled enemy of the US government, and that is what really puts the lie to their statements.

  86. Re:DNS terminated for 'interfering with other memb by kaptink · · Score: 1

    True. And I wonder if another domain running from EveryDNS was hit by a similar DDoS attack would also get booted. Somehow I doubt it.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
  87. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean "land of the FREAK and home of DEPRAVED?

  88. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please google +wikileaks +cia +shill.

    Wikileaks is a governemnt run program designed to incriminate Iran, North Korea, and the failed drug war in Mexico.

    Google, google, google.... The information is there if you look.

  89. Oh great wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from the point of whether fighting an extremely well-financed enemy organization like AlQaeda makes sense or not, spending money on infrastructure is not at all a sure-fire recipe for economic growth. Growth is about production of goods, roads are only useful if there are goods to transport, otherwise they are a waste. There are lots of roads and land that are unused in production, because it is inefficient to do so. Building roads and other infrastructure instead of processors and biotech is just dumb, and processors and biotech plants do not just pop up magically at the end of a road once you've built it.

    And before you go into another fallacy, that of "investing in education", the US is already spending a lot more on its educators that all of Eastern Europe, but somehow does not get half of the results. Spending more money with the same people running the show will not help.

  90. Re:What free speech? by stdarg · · Score: 1

    Your economy is in the shitter because you've spent trillions chasing ghosts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Correction. We've spent trillions trying to "democratize" Afghanistan and Iraq. That's quite different than fighting terrorists as the GP suggested we do.

  91. Leave Tableau out of it by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    Surely Tableau's takedown was a (successful) marketing program. Nobody had heard of them before, now everybody has.

  92. www.wikileaks.nl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.wikileaks.nl

  93. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately it's been about 5 years since I've had mod points, even with my excellent karma. Otherwise I'd mod you up.

    The general slashdot population (such as the GP) can be quite retarded sometimes.

    What's funny is that in the /. summary, they assume that the US government is responsible for pressuring them to disable the domain name, and then later in the summary give evidence as to why that is *certainly* not the case (they used the same company for their new domain). They disabled it for 24 hours because of the DDOS attacks. This is well known, but this site is full of conspiracy theorists. And even if it *was* the US government, so what? These people are criminals.

  94. Justice Black in NY Times vs United States (1971) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. *In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.*"

    (From NY Times Co vs United States, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC.html)

  95. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Id like to clarify that I dont think "we're not as bad as a 3rd world dictatorship" is a reason to give anyone a pass; but to hear someone complaining about their utter lack of freedom in one of the freest societies in history has got to be highly insulting to those who live in truly tyrannical, oppressive societies, and would quite literally die (Tianamen square?) for the freedoms that are being scoffed at here.

    The biggest portion of my complaint is that there seems to be no weight whatsoever behind your assertion of "free as long as we dont cross our politicians". What happened to the pentagon papers leaker Daniel Elsburg? Oh wait, hes still walking free. What happens to talk show pundits who rail against politicians? Oh wait, they enjoy first amendment protections.

  96. China by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    Maybe there are plenty of opportunities elsewhere?

    See my other post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1894524&cid=34433566

    And I'm really half joking only.

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  97. au contraire this is the heart of nothing... by slew · · Score: 1

    Nothing that is happening now with ICANN and DNS root servers couldn't happen with some other organization controlling root servers (the registrars are dumping wikileaks), this has nothing to do with root servers...

    You are just crying wolf and taking advantage of this situation to push your agenda. If you think this has anything to do with root servers, you should go back to and retake internet 101.

    There are many valid reason to have a more independent entity control DNS root servers, but the takedown of an individual site by persuading individual registrars to dump their clients is not one of them.

  98. Land of the free by Xentan · · Score: 0

    "You are free to do as we tell you" - Bill Hicks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY

  99. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    "to knowingly accept ... classified government documents, and then purposefully spread those around the world [is a] crime in every nation, and in many (most?) it would get you executed."

    Oh? So where are the criminal indictments? What U.S. criminal statutes are they violating by making these documents available? Why aren't the mainstream media outlets (like the New York Times) being charged with a crime for publishing the exact same content? There was probably some sort of violation of law when the documents were originally released, but I think you forgot that the First Amendment not only protects the rights of the individual, but also the freedom of the press.

    This is just the federal government having a temper tantrum because someone decided to air their dirty laundry. Also interesting to note that we saw the previous release of the Iraq/Afghan war documents with SOME fanfare, but things went ballistic as soon as Assange announced that they had dirt on a big bank.

    Free speech has ramifications? Hopefully the ramifications here will be a complete dismantling of our saber-rattling, imperialistic foreign policy!

  100. Obama by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    Obama is your president, and Hillary is your secretary of state. of course liberals are never responsible for anything. you guys are baby cowards.

    1. Re:Obama by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Obama is your president, and Hillary is your secretary of state.

      I fail to see how that's the least bit relevant. Obama is innefectual and I never did like Hillary, better as a SoS than a Senator.

      Palin is simply a distraction who continually opens her bimbo mouth and says incredibly stupid things. Your knee-jerl reaction to my comment suggests you are a mouth breathing Rush listener whose only form of exercise is jumping to conclusions.

      Grow up, boy.

  101. Nice double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its nice to have two standards, one for things you like, and one for things you don't like. It demonstrates lying hypocracy. Example: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Ann Coulter. These people are an affront. They are offensive. They are neither fair, nor balanced. Yet in the name of 'Free Speech', they can spout and rant all day and night. Rubbish pours out of them, most of it lies, but in the name of 'Free Speech' they are all tolerated. Wikileaks does not create any of their own content. They censor the content they produce so that people creating the content are not vilified (for basically doing their jobs). Its content some people don't want to see or hear, and so Joe Lieberman goes off half cocked, and tries to censor them. So much for 'Free Speech'. When he was sworn into office, there was an oath about protecting 'Free Speech'. Now there are several possibilities here. 1) He lied during the oath. 2) The oath changed since 1776, so that now protecting 'Free Speech' has been replaced with protecting 'political or corporate interests, or both' 3) He recanted the oath, but kept the job, citing that the oath is 'mere ceremony' and shouldn't be held up to scrutiny and doesn't apply in the modern world. Those are the choices here. An honest broker might be slightly embarrassed by a leak like this, but shouldn't have anything to hide. Dishonest people need to be cloak and dagger. Which side are these people on?

  102. Patriotism by formfeed · · Score: 1
    When the French criticized the Gulf War, the reaction was pouring French wine down the drain.

    Yeah, Merika! Merika! (my country right or wrong) !

    If nothing else, patriotism makes you feel good.
    - But if patriotism is a virtue and not just a replacement for whatever else you lack, shouldn't it make things better?

    As I said before:
    If Americans wouldn't take Wikileaks as an attack on their national ego but as an opportunity to hold their beloved leaders accountable, much could be accomplished.

  103. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by ugen · · Score: 1

    Yep, even if it does actually endanger *good* people (and while *good* is a quality judgement, I'll stand by it this time).

    Among other information, Wikileaks released documents showing that US got advice from Lebanon defense minister about ways to defeat Hezbollah by Israel and also assurances Lebanese army will not participate in the conflict. Now, I try not to label things "good" or "bad" needlessly - most are neither, but if the label of "bad people" ever has to be used, Hezbollah is it. Not only that, but there is fairly little doubt that Lebanons' defense minister's life is now more in danger, than it was previously (granted Hezbollah probably didn't like him much before - they are kinda big on that).

    Is that a document release of which has a value to anyone but Hezbollah supporters? I'd like to know what the legitimate reason would be for anyone not related to the issue to have this information and how it promotes peace, freedom or anything else of use?

    Now, I'll grant you - it's one document, but honestly the result of release of this one document may not be worth the rest of it. IMHO

    (link to news here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j799Vr28IKzO7Q9ZcakIy5tAb3sg?docId=803fcc9dded74cb4abf7ab3fc52ebc6b)

  104. DDOS failsafe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not make the DNS name point to whitehouse.gov, kremlin.ru,gov.cn in round-robin fashion? We wouldn't mind to refresh the page until we hit the real deal!!!
    And even route some of the traffic to them?

    I wonder if the DDOS would mysteriously stop...to avoid further international problems.

    It would be the wiki-roullete... see where you fall!

  105. Sweden != Switzerland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden != Switzerland

  106. Re:At least you were "modded up" for HOSTS use... by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

    TL;DR

    Seriously.

    --
    We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  107. Re:What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except our economy isn't in the shitter, it's YOUR economy that is

    but then I guess you can find a way to rationalize blame from your politicians incompetency to the USA too?

  108. What worries me most... by blueforce · · Score: 1

    After reading the comments, what has me worried most is the pathetic state of spelling and grammar.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  109. Publish to FreeNet by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    This is what its for, make it damned near impossible to censor it. Also would give FN some much needed press and increase use.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  110. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by strikethree · · Score: 1

    You know what? I am getting really fucking tired of everyone ragging on Americans being lazy and apathetic. How about we see how other populations act under the same bombardment of signals that the average American receives.

    I am going to bet that humans are pretty much the same everywhere and that what nation you are from is not going to determine if you are apathetic, stupid, and lazy or not.

    So yeah, okay, I get it, the American population is subjugated (by the media?). Either get off your high horse and do something constructive about it or shut the fuck up. You could end up in the same situation (or worse).

    strike

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  111. Re:LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Myself I like to finally know how the US pressured sovereign states in Europe into creating draconian laws serving US media companies.

    I'll use that knowledge in future elections.

    Thanks Assange, for distributing the material someone else leaked.

  112. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'll be the .me generation then

  113. Can someone please explain why... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia:

    "Liberal members of the Democratic caucus were reportedly angry at the decision to not punish Lieberman more severely. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is also an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) stated that he voted against Lieberman "because while millions of people worked hard for Obama, Lieberman actively worked for four more years of President Bush's policies."[49]

    Lieberman's embrace of certain conservative policies and in particular his endorsement of John McCain have been cited as factors for his low approval rating in Connecticut: 38 approval to 54 disapproval. "This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator — except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could."

    Can someone please explain why this flip-flopping, opportunistic little man is still in office? What leverage does he have that allows him to stay seated in the face of such approval/disapproval ratings?

    1. Re:Can someone please explain why... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      What leverage does he have that allows him to stay seated in the face of such approval/disapproval ratings?

      6 year senate terms....

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  114. Re:What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't tell if that was serious or not, but I LOL'd :)

  115. Re:What free speech? by inKubus · · Score: 1

    Actually, it worked and the recession is ending. In fact, jobless claims (people trying to get unemployment) peaked (at almost 650,000) on Apr 2, 2009. We have a functioning banking system, jobs are picking up every month (now at around 400,000, which is close to "normal"), home prices are climbing out of the shitter. When money like that is spent it takes time to filter out and hit the system. But it did restore confidence.

    Now, you can spout whatever talking points you want about the Obama and democrats spending huge amounts of money but the money supply has grown every year for a damn long time. People don't understand money is the problem. Money is like TCP or UDP packets of information on the internet. Guess what, to move more data between two points you need more packets. No one complains that there are 10 million times as many packets today on the internet as their were 10 years ago. No one complains that their 28,800 bps modem has been made obsolete by huge internet companies "printing more packets". Money is the same thing. Money is not "something", it's a medium which we can transmit information with. With the rise of the global enconomy, digital commerce and payments, debit cards, and of course a steadily growing world population demands more money for more transactions. Money itself is nothing, it's just a way to exchange information. Yes, the value of money is variable based on the quantity and yes it's not a good investment to hold on to it when there's inflation. But when you see inflation coming you need to buy real stuff, it's not that big of a deal. Enough people buy real stuff, the values go up and the inflation is naturally absorbed. It's really quite beautiful.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  116. The real question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is why the HELL were they using the domain name to ddos? How amateur are you U.S. government? Don't you know they could've changed wikileaks.org to resolve to say...whitehouse.gov at any time? Seriously?

  117. Re:What free speech? by evanism · · Score: 1

    you sir, are a complete and total fucking idiot.

    --
    Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
  118. Re:What free speech? by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

    I'm Australian, you moron. My country's economy is leaving yours for dead.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  119. Re:What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except our economy isn't in the shitter, it's YOUR economy that is

    There's just about only one prudent response to the above tripe, and it is:

    "lol"

    You really have no idea at all, do you?

  120. Nobody's listening to you, Cyberdouche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody's listening to you, Cyberdouche

  121. What's your problem w/ the info. on HOSTS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line: I'm absolutely willing to discuss/debate ANY of the points I put up from my initial post with you, and we'll see if you have valid points, or not...

    Good luck - you'll NEED it!

    (I.E.-> I've had entire fleets of trolls here, and elsewhere, try to do so numerous times. Each time, on any "so-called point" they made, I disproved them easily or completely nullified their "so-called points/objections" they tried to make vs. those in my init. post you replied to asking it be "modded down").

    APK

    P.S.=> The ONLY people I can see wanting that post of mine "modded down" would, imo @ least, be malware makers that do NOT want HOSTS usage to be more widespread by users (since many folks nowadays are NOT aware of what a HOSTS file can do for you (both speed you up online, & noticeably so & in many ways AND secure you better as yet another layer of security that extends to any & all webbound apps... malware makers WOULD object to that, because it would put a HUGE "dent" into their bogus workings online ripping others off & such))... apk