Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks, Money, and Ron Paul
Another day, another dozen WikiLeaks stories, several of which revolve around money. PayPal has given in to pressure to release WikiLeaks funds, though they still won't do further transactions. Mobile payment firm Xipwire is attempting to take PayPal's place. "We do think people should be able to make their own decisions as to who they donate to." PCWorld wonders if the WikiLeaks' money woes could lead to great adoption of Bitcoin, the peer-to-peer currency system we've discussed in the past. Meanwhile, Representative Ron Paul spoke in defense of WikiLeaks on the House floor Thursday, asking a number of questions, including, "Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?" The current uproar over WikiLeaks has prompted Paul Vixie to call for an end to the DDoS attacks and Vladimir Putin to break out a metaphor involving cows and hockey pucks.
We don't have to wonder, since the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeapordized by the Wikileaks releases.
So what are they so mad about?
Being made to look like spoiled children, that's what. Being shown to be backstabbing hypocrites. This is the political equivalent of being pantsed on the world stage.
There are a small handful of votes where Ron Paul has voted in a way that would be upsetting to left-liberals (gay adoption in DC comes to mind), but aside from that, I don't think there is anyone in DC more passionately committed to personal freedom than Ron Paul. The strong support for Wikileaks is just another example.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Ron Paul, Julian Assange, cows, hockey, Vladimir Putin and PayPal?
I'm sorry, that's one orgy I don't want to be invited to.
... and then they built the supercollider.
BitCoin's creator and it's forum members don't want to be associated with WikiLeaks for fear of becoming associated with money laundering, so why is this article pushing it?
Anyway, if there is to be some future electronic currency then IMHO it should be based on IOUs traded between trusted "friends", to send to someone who is not your friend then the network could make a path between nodes with whatever has the best exchange rate and tah-dah, a currency based on trust, not on wasting cpu cycles (as how BitCoin works). I did see a project like this once but the name escapes me. From memory I also think it was centralized which is a big no.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Freeeeeeedommmm
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I don't trust PayPal: it's an unregulated global banking monopoly, that routinely abuses its monopoly to steal money from people. It's not insured by the FDIC like a regular bank, so if it goes bust any money in there is going to disappear.
What about Xipwire? Has it demonstrated theft, dishonesty or any other reason not to trust it with money and private info? Is there any reason to believe it won't just do like PayPal (or worse) once it does become big enough not to care, like PayPal?
If I don't trust PayPal, is there any reason I should use Xipwire instead?
--
make install -not war
Ron Paul is my biggest... fucking... hero.
My only regret is that he's not 30 years younger, so that he'd have the energy and lifespan needed to better advance his goals.
These recent events have shown how reliant we are, in the West, on American companies which do not necessarily hold the same values as us. Unless you want to return to living in a cage, boycotting both VISA and Mastercard is simply not an option, and the same goes to some extent to using paypal. It's surely not a good idea that the American government have such power over money transactions of all countries in the West.
I wonder if this will be recognised by governments in the West, and a new form of electronic transfer be supported as an alternative, as the article mentions, or whether this will blow over and we'll find ourselves in a similar position in the future, but it could involve an entire country that displeases the US government rather just a small organisation.
2600.org points out that if you want to make a donation to the KKK then Visa is everywhere you want to be.
“So, you know, as they say in the countryside, some people’s cows can moo, but yours should keep quiet. So I would like to shoot the puck back at our American colleagues,"
Its all russian to me.
How can the man that created maps, to which all of the above applies, say these things with a straight face?.
Vixie makes some good points about the rule of law and how DDOS attacks both by supporters and enemies of Wikilieaks are unjustified. Yet I can't help but wonder what the outcome would be if everyone just went back to business and let the courts settle everything out. Wouldn't this mean that Wikileaks is taken down for now, Assange's ass is ripped up in court for the next ten years, and even if he wins in the end (in the unlikely case he manages to afford a year-long court battle), Wikileaks will have utterly failed to reach its goals?
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
- Desmond Tutu
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
"In soviet russia, even cows play hockey"?
If you don't know what Ron Paul's foreign policy views are, here is a handy summary from his book "Revolution": Leave everybody else alone. Some might call it isolationism. Not sure how well that would work, but if that was our policy, then there obviously wouldn't be much to leak about it.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
I can use a credit card or paypal to "buy" coins at $0.20/ea. (Dec/12th price)
I can also download a program that gives me a free coin every three weeks if I let it run constantly on my computer.
There are sites out there I can trade bitcoins in for cash or prepaid credit cards.
How does this work then? Why does it give money for processor time? What's it doing that merits payment, and who is paying it? And wont the first botnet operator who signs up end up the richest, simply because of the massive amount of stolen cpu cycles? Doesnt that in turn make the whole system worthless?
As someone sells stuff online (like etsy/ebay) why would I benefit from this? Sure, I save 4% by skipping paypal, but how do I get actual cold hard cash I can buy liquor with? This whole thing involves too much trust into a system that appears real easy to game. It also relies on people I can't trust, and who have no incentive to keep their side of the deal. When I get a paypal payment, I know I have money I can spend. But with this bit stuff, I just dont understand how one gets from worthless digi-bits online, to something I can buy groceries with.
Ron Paul Assange and- Julian Ron Paul.
We are lucky for the stupidity of the US government to give Wikileaks so much publicity. They could just say that they working hard to make sure no more secret documents are leaked and nothing more. But instead the US government pressures US companies, US politicians give talks about Wikileaks and Assange, the press is all over how Wikileaks is bad, etc. etc. The members of Wikileaks should be proud to get so much publicity, I hope the politic in USA will polarize about Wikileaks some more and thus give Wikileaks even more publicity.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
These articles comments always seem to turn into an America bashing session (which, I have to admit is not only really cliche, but the obvious and easy target, and yes, there is plenty the US does wrong). But that fact is, the US, in this case, is the first ones to get caught. Does anyone really think that the US government is the ONLY ONE playing these kinds of diplomatic games? Gathering this kind of Intel? The stories that have come out about these cables are not really that surprising at all. What concerns me most is that PFC McDumbass was able to access these files and release them. Our (the US) security for these types of documents really needs to be fixed...
Ron Paul, Julian Assange, Vladmir Putin, and a cow walk into a bar.
Then a hockey puck says, "what is this, some kind of joke?"
Curious how this sort of system would interact within a peer-to-peer governance, which appears to be somewhere in our future.
Paypal and Amazon both gave in to US government pressure to eliminate their services to WikiLeaks. Since WikiLeaks depends on internet presence and donations to exist, it's no different than cutting the power to a house. In this case, it signaled to any other internet provider that they would no longer be friends to the US government, which per the norm, acts like a local mafia boss in enforcing its will in the neighborhood.
The United States differs from other States only in that it does not overtly tell someone to shut up. It threatens charges. It stays quiet while members of it's government and celebrity punditry call for assassination. It sends a few spooks around to anyone connected with you. It's a base form of terrorism, and differs from the KGB only in that it has to look like an accident if they decide to eliminate you. They like plausible deniability because the miserable pro-authoritarian sycophants like you can pretend that those things don't happen, and you'll continue to support the government regardless of how badly they ignore the laws they are supposed to be following.
Take a look at the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. What is the effective difference of the Chinese government throwing him in prison, and the US leaning on Sweden to bring back trumped up charges so Assange could be detained while they build a bullshit case to do the same thing? We just have better PR.
Honestly, you're fucking pathetic. You are everything that is wrong with democracy today, because you don't even know what freedom of speech is, or why it's important. I hope you end up in the society you dream of, protesting the latest corporate takeover of your publicly funded infrastructure from your "Free Speech Zone" like the coward you are in order to keep what little freedom they decide to let you keep for the time being.
You are right that it might not cover your electricity bill to generate a few bitcoins (unless you are generating on a high-end graphics card), but that's how it should be. If it was easy to generate bitcoins, they would be worth nothing.
It gets interesting after the coins are generated, and they start being traded for goods and services.
Bear in mind that the difficulty of generating new bitcoins rises in proportion to the total CPU power in the network, so most people will need to get their bitcoins by trading rather than by generating.
If you just want to play with Bitcoin, you can install the software then get 0.05 free bitcoins (5 bit "cents") from the Bitcoin Faucet. There's no catch.
Paid Q&A/Research
"The big leap upon Assange and the attempt to squelch Wikileaks came when they announced they got material that would make an important bank go keel up." - by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday December 12, @08:56AM (#34528452)
Amen, & I agree, 110% - & I know who will be getting MY VOTE next election (provided the man runs again that is, & that's Ron Paul).
Assange didn't "rape" anyone either (after all - you CAN'T RAPE THE WILLING, & the "law" used against him? It was JUST MADE, tailor-made in fact, & "gee, I wonder BY WHO?" (can you say what Opportunist did above that I quoted? I knew you could!).
Assange is merely the messenger, like the press, and he can't be condemned for merely conveying the information given he after he verifies it... that? That is the JOB OF THE PRESSES!
Assange didn't steal ANY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS (though his sources MAY have, & he doesn't have to divulge them either, just like the press).
Additionally: The entire "housing debacle" isn't over yet, there are STILL PILES OF FORECLOSURES WAITING TO HAPPEN... this? This entire "economic depression"??
It is ENTIRELY ARTIFICIALLY MANUFACTURED, economically too, imo @ least!
RECIPE FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS IN THE U.S.A. BY BANKERS & "THE POWERS THAT BE":
You start with offshoring to weaken/erode the middle-class (who largely & imo, foolishly, leveraged themselves to the hilt with mortgages & credit cards (making them "easy meat" to destroy, especially on hedge funds + variable rate mortgages - they can "call in the mark of due" at ANY TIME on those is why)).
You leave the middle class, with NO good jobs (with payrates well beyond "hand-to-mouth" ones that merely pay your rent & utilities + food/the basics), & good luck trying to afford a mortgage (especially a variable rate one).
APK
P.S.=> No, I think the "day of 'big money'" is coming to a RAPID HALT, & nobody knows it better than the "big money" being threatened here, and what do they do in retaliation?
LOL, the same as they always do (as it's the ONLY THING THEY UNDERSTAND to try to "cover up" their b.s. & other shenanigans, that come AT YOUR EXPENSE U.S. TAXPAYERS (can you say "bank bailouts"? Yes, again, I "knew you could")) - they attempt to "ad hominem attack" & discredit those that threaten their "empire" (what a sad bunch of pricks, seriously - money doesn't make you a better person, period! It's absolutely necessary though, for guys with "2 inch pencils" that couldn't get a woman otherwise)... apk
As we make more people, and those people create more things of value, doesn't that guarantee that the value of a bitcoin will inflate? IANAE (I'm not an economist), but it seems like capping the amount of money is bad. Even the gold standard had mines to try and keep up with generated value. Is the 21million an agreement, an effect of the distribution of a certain sort of number?
I always liked the idea of fixing a currency to energy. If it inflated I think that would mean we were using more than we were producing with it. A good thing to know. The wide variety of forms of energy and their vastly differing levels of utility is hard to account for though.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
From his Inaugural address, formatted for clarity. Notice how many times he uses the word "peace" and how he describes that we should have "honest friendship with all nations".
. . .it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;
peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;
the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;
a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;
absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;
economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;
the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.
A government will advocate for freedom of the press as long as that freedom is used to embarrass other governments and further it's own interests. Once the those things get turned around and focused on the advocate country they quickly call it espionage and treason. If Wikileaks focused on China and their members were hunted down in other countries and then Jailed in China, the state department would call them political prisoners and demand their release. Citizens of the United States should listen very carefully to what their representative have to say about this issue. It will show exactly what kind of freedom they support. Freedom of speech or freedom to agree.
I agreed with everything in your post--except for one word in your title. Communist!? Seriously?
Overwhelmingly it's been the supposed conservative defenders of freedoms that have been throwing a fit over Wikileaks, or inferring that Assange should be assassinated (one of those clowns was advisor to Canada's current prime minister, who heads the so-called Conservative party).
Call them neo-conservative if you must, as libertarian Ron Paul did in his speech.
Meanwhile, the same neo-conservatives are labelling Wikileaks supporters as leftist, anarchists, socialists, communists, or terrorist sympathizers intent on disrupting the world order. Yet on CBC, Canada's supposed pinko socialist news source (according to neo-conservatives, anyway), comments left on their wikileaks news articles are overwhelmingly in support of Wikileaks.
Seriously, I hope you don't think suppression of freedoms is a strictly "left" trait, the "right" is doing its best to do it better.
This New Yorker article from the more innocent days of June is something that everyone needs to read before they can really make sense of WikiLeaks. It's about what those people actually do, and it's an excellent read. Even if you've read a hundred stories about WikiLeaks, you probably don't have this background and it will change the way you look at their work.
They're not conservative or liberal. They're authoritarian, just like Stalin.
Sure, if you want to go back to before the Revolution communism meant something else, but I'm not trying to convince an academic in some paper. I'm trying to convince a citizen that they're seriously fucking up the whole concept of democracy and the importance of freedom of expression.
Step away from this "left versus right" thing. In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism? Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state? What if that group is an enlightened oligarchy, or a backwards junta? I suppose you could make a very weak argument that intellectual genocide has more merit than ethnic genocide, but I wouldn't agree. They are both two sides of the same coin: murder to create order.
The measurements of government cannot be drawn on a line graph. Even Canada has been waging it's war on personal freedom through the suppression of drug use, which is the very definition of totalitarianism: prosecuting someone for exercising personal freedom.
It's not "caving" when you do the right thing. They may even have done this *despite* strong pressure from agencies of the US government.
Or they might have done it because they think it's legally unavoidable. But that's still not a bad thing.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I'm certainly in agreement it's not a left/right thing, my own post centered on why exactly you used "communist" in the title, which implies a political leaning that's not at all evident in DesCorp's post, especially since most Wikileaks attacks have originated from the right.
Maybe it garnered more eyeballs, but IMHO it detracted from an otherwise spot-on post.
what difference is there between Communism and Fascism?
In one you get raped by the government, and in the other you get raped by private industry protected by the government.
Not a huge difference for citizens (they still get raped), but still and important difference. In America we're rallying against some mythological Communist plague (and branding anyone who is even moderately left of the extreme right such), while wholly supporting fascist ideology. Amusingly there has been some interesting historical precedents for this, and all of them ended badly.
My favorite is people branding Obama as a commie, when his policies more smell like fascism (forcing people to support giant, rich, corporations).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Would Vixie make the same argument if it were Anonymous vs the PRC: both sides are equally guilty of being hypocritical on the issue of "free speech" because DDOS attacks censor speech and so does the Great Firewall. I wouldn't be so daft as to suggest that the PRC values "free speech" and I have no idea why Vixie thinks better of people who call for Assange to be assassinated.
Ok, so let's ignore every Conservative pundit in the country and say that maybe Anonymous is just as hypocritical as Senator Lieberman and Amazon. A US Senator, who has sworn an oath to defend the First Amendment, and a $79 billion bookseller are equivalent in power and responsibility to... a bunch of internet trolls? I don't get it.
So what are you doing to make your definition of free speech a reality in our society? Or are you sitting on your comfy chair while you watch other people go to jail for it?
They like plausible deniability because the miserable pro-authoritarian sycophants like you can pretend that those things don't happen, and you'll continue to support the government regardless of how badly they ignore the laws they are supposed to be following.
It's just like black slaves celebrating the fourth of July.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXQRDYmPpM
In Post-Soviet Russia Puck Shoots You
the US leaning on Sweden to bring back trumped up charges so Assange could be detained while they build a bullshit case to do the same thing?
Do you have evidence of this happening, or is it just your guess based on the way you desire the world to be? Because I haven't seen any evidence that the US is behind the Sweden thing. Maybe they are, I don't know, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions.
If there is evidence, I would definitely like to see it.
Qxe4
You sound angry. Is someone violating your rights?
We have a Nobel Peace Prize winner too. He's called the President. He should ignore existing laws and three hundred years of custom concerning classified documents because you're butthurt. Let's riot and burn shit down. That will show him we mean business and bring everyone else to your way of thinking.
I don't think the universe could handle any more irony.
I have been backing Wikileaks until somebody on another site pointed out an interesting point. This data was stolen and then leaked. It remains STOLEN property. As such, wikileaks, and all those that are running it, are not just outing information, but are actually fencing it. The fact that they are asking for money makes it as much fencing as anything else.
The question that everybody should be thinking of, is we argue for us to have personal privacy, including holding not just those that stole the information responsible, but those that propagate it as well. Why? Because they are fencing KNOWN STOLEN PROPERTY.
So, why is it ok for somebody to steal,release, and disseminate a govs. property, but it is wrong to do the same for personal property?
And for Ron being a good Libertarian, why is he not arguing the same?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Andrew Card's railroad (he was Bush's chief of staff, or some similar position like that) was fined $39 million by the US Dept. of Justice for smuggling in drugs for the Mexican drug cartel.
multisynch is exactly correct, of course, you are either for Wikileaks and Wikileaked documents implicating criminals and banksters, or you are siding with the banksters and ergo enemies of the people.
And I believe we know historically what becomes of enemies of the people.
Oh...I get it....you're the one hiding in the men's room hoping to collect used condums?
Questions to consider:
Below text is quoted, not my own
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
You forgot to plug your stupid anti-spam apps.
Paypal, and the US government both deny that any pressure was applied. It appears to me to be about stopping the next release (about banking) than the last release. Same with Assange, you think the US wants him out of control of the UK? Even that smells more like a more banking friendly move, than a US government move. More of a chess move to get him under control before, not after.
In order to denigrate the character of a politician who actually has some character, and wants to do the 'right' thing, you are bringing up proposals that occured in 1997.
I guess we should just keep the current system, where the conservatives want to wage a war against religious instrumentalists, and the left wants to protect a group whose goal is to keep women subservient to men.
In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism? Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state?
Not that I don't see your point, but as long as you're going there, you might as well throw in Capitalism and the kitchen sink as well. Communism is mainly an economic stance, while fascism is... well, hard to define in few words, but it's political in its core. It doesn't help that all communist governments up until now have been fascist (with the state owning of taking the place of big corporations), but there's an enormous difference in the meaning of those words. And neither of them usually advocate for or commit genocide, it just so happened that the few ones that got to power did.
"Communist"
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
All freedom is self-absorbed, that's what differentiates it from duty.
The cables refer to him as an "alpha bear", compare him to Batman, claim his people "masterminded" a shadow war in Georgia. Far from being embarrassed, he probably is on top of the world and seriously considering having a Batmobile built.
(granted, Medvedev might be a bit embarrassed, but no one cares what Robin thinks..)
Posts like this make it pretty obvious the USA never experienced either fascism or stalinism.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
AIUI Wikileaks didn't give the cables to the NYT (for obvious reasons). The UK Guardian passed them on to NYT. The NYT cannot be trusted on any level; it's operating in the interests of the Establishment.
you had me at #!
Right, but guess who likes to help out their banker buddies? Hint: They're in Washington
The upcoming bank leaks could potentially be just as damaging to the US Gov't as they are (expected to be) to the banks themselves.
Fascists generally made a country's infrastructure better than a communist one. Other than that, far too many people died, were murdered and too many atrocities ocurred.
Some of us voted with our feet and closed our PayPal, eBay and Amazon accounts. This may have had an effect as well. I'm proud to have jettisoned PayPal in protest and urge others to do likewise. The news that PayPal is giving WikiLeaks its money hasn't made the Times, not surprisingly.
You would probably be surprised by the number of Americans who immigrated to America from old Soviet bloc states.
He used the word 'communist' to try to be ironic, because "copponex" himself is a communist, or of some faction that is in practical terms, indistinguishable from communists. Quoting Chomsky is a giveaway.
In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism? Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state?
I don't think this is a good description of fascism. At least none of the well-known fascist states (Third Reich, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain) seems to fit this model. Two were led by demagogue politicians, one by a general. In none of them was the government composed of wealthy industrialists. The industrialists might be co-opted but they were junior partners to political leaders. I think these statements also apply to less successful fascist groups, e.g. Moseley's BUF.
As suggestions of fascism's defining characteristics, how about authoritarianism (unaccountability), totalitarianism (they take over many aspects of life that in other systems are outside government control), nationalism (they want their particular state and people to be strong - add religion for Spain) and social conservatism.
Communism is the first two but often isn't the last two. The USSR, for example, switched from not particularly nationalist in 1940 to much more nationalist in 1942.
In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism?
Well, with one, a train schedule actually meant something.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
...has a section on what you say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4Hv9pDicA
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
... is to make them into friends: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/How-to-Stop-Being-Teased-and-Bullied-Without-Really-Trying
See also my related essay:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html#On_dealing_with_the_social_hurricane_of_the_CIA
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
That story is seriously disturbing. I hope to God you Americans can somehow get your government back under control, or the next decade or two are going to be increasingly miserable for everyone.
Ron Paul is known as the most conservative member of congress. The NeoCons are liberals who pretend to be conservatives to get elected. It used to be conservative to be anti-war and pro liberty. It was the collectivist progressives and socialists who wanted to impose a tyranny, even though they now pretend they're for human rights (only on the surface, when it doesn't cause trouble for their careers)
You seem wound kinda tight. I suggest you take a nice long soak in a bath, a cocktail, maybe some relaxing music.
Your post is the worst formatted, least readable piece of tripe I've seen on the Internet in weeks. And I've been reading *youtube* comments. I'm going to move to Texas and vote against Ron Paul just because of you.
A modest proposal
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
However, most people usually just run it as credit - and there's a good reason for that. If someone steals your card info for a debit card - you're pretty much screwed. Any money they pull out before you notice is _gone_ unless you report it pretty much immediately - and even then, that's no guarantee you'll get it back. I think they have a maximum amount they'll refund, and they'll only refund that if you notify them within 30 days.
Just to let you know, debit cards do have slightly more risk to the consumer, but not in the way you described. According to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act which is codified in Federal Reserve Board Regulation E, liability to consumers that had a fraudulent debit card transaction is limited to $50 unless the consumer does not notify their bank within 2 days of learning of the fraud or loss of debit card. The $50 limit is not normally enforced, because banks don't want to loose your deposits. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco has a good summary of the differences in liability between Debit and Credit cards. Further, a bank must return any funds transferred by error or fraud within ten days {see paragraph (c)(1&2)}, unless the bank can prove no error or fraud took place.
One might say that 2 days is not enough time, but my bank (ING) sends me an email for every transaction in my accounts. If one is not familiar, I can easily check the detail.
With Visa - they'll refund everything. And I don't recall there being any significant time limit on it.
The law imposes a strict $50 limit on liability for credit cards, but credit card issuers rarely enforce this in order to retain you as a customer.
I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala is best way to donate to Wikileaks
Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
The sign above's about you Wandering Idiot (563842)
Sure, if you want to go back to before the Revolution communism meant something else
Oh please! That is like saying that democracy means something else now based on the track record of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and former German Democratic Republic (East Germany).
what difference is there between Communism and Fascism?
Fascism is DESIGNED to empower the rich and powerful and keep the masses in line.
Communism is designed to be the exact opposite, BUT it is often DEFORMED to create the powerful and keep the masses in line.
The difference is akin to that of seeing a group of people walking down a street holding shovels, and that same group walking down the same street holding guns.
Sure, should a group be an angry mob shovels can be used as formidable weapons - but guns were DESIGNED to kill people.
Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state?
Even deformed communism is still based on democratic and social principles.
In fact, they are readily taught as being "the highest standards" while trying to describe the "deformed communism" as the real deal - a common man's utopia.
A dissonance that must eventually create the realization among people that "This ain't that promised utopia".
And either with a whimper of a economic failure or a bang of a revolution that kind of a state will fall.
Fascism is based on "Might makes right".
The weak are taught that they are weak because they are supposed to be. Just as the strong are fed the same philosophy.
Even if there is a "strong should protect the weak" (enlightened oligarchy) clause in the prescribed philosophy it still fortifies the position that "strong should be strong(er)" in order to "protect the weak".
Should the weak become strong by some twist of fate, they have no realization that there was no change in the society - cause they have reached their utopia by becoming strong. If that means that someone else must be weak to support their new found strength - so be it.
Cause they now have the might and that makes all the right there is.
FFS man... Look at your own sig for the difference.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Fact is, Fox new isn't republican, they're self-interested rich-bitchers.
Fact also is, neo-republicans aren't republicans, they're self-interested rich-bitchers
Ron Paul is a republican, in fact the only REAL republican I've seen on the republican side. The only real reason they haven't thrown him out is because the heist of the republican party of the rich would be too obvious.
Really encouraging to see at least one US politician prepared to stand up for the principle of whistleblowing.
And if you don't act within 2 days (my bank doesn't send emails for every transaction - it's all online, but it's not like I login every day, or even use my card every day), it's $50 vs. $500 max liability. Yea, I'll stick with credit. Unless I got pretty lucky, odds are very slim that I would notice fraudulent activity within two days.
Perhaps it's time for everyone to re-read (or read) John Brunner's The Shockwave Rider again.
See subject-line above.
Every Sperm Is Sacred.
Pythons were ahead of the game.
Obama play hockey! Of course I don't know if Harper can even skate either.
Then again when Putin is talking about cows and holding a hand guy and passes you the puck, you damn well learn how to play hockey really quick!
In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism?
You might enjoy reading a recent edition of _The Road to Serfdom_, by Hayek. Hayek's fundamental argument was that concentrating power in the hands of the few was always a dangerous error. Because when the book was written the US was allied with Russia he did not say what he wanted to say about Russia also, however in the later editions he did provide some editorial notes on the subject. Power is best at the edges, not the core.
C//
Religion was created to quell the baser instinct of mankind during more barbarous times. In that respect it kind of goes along with some of the goals of the state. ie. (Do not kill, protect the rights of women, and children, etc). Sure religion throws a lot of crazy superstitious ideas in there, but the underlying principals are sound.
The problem I have with rabid secularists, is that they totally ignore the crazy / insane things the state makes you do, while only focusing on the crazy things religion makes you do (some would say circumcision) and every evil that has ever been commited in the name of religion.
There has to be a happy middle ground where the government is NOT controlled by the church, but the majority is populace is grounded upon sound moral / theocratic principals and has a deep respect for religion.
The problem with the 'rule of law' and not the 'rule of law checked by good common sense and morality' , is that it ignores the underlying motivations of the people. If people feel free to do anything not expressly forbidden by the laws, you will have what we have today, where people feel free to rape the public treasury because it isn't against the law to do so.
IMHO things have swung too far to the left.
Ron Paul, and the other crazies were predicting this economic collapse, long ago, while all the other politicians were still admiring the empowers clothes.
-Insanity among individuals is rare, but among governments it is the Norm
-Nietzsche
I love the idea of a virtual currency implemented with hard crypto. Bitcoin's concept is a step in the right direction.
But any programmer who uses IRC as the main method of locating peers for his virtual currency system has some serious issues in judgment, and I'm personally not willing to risk any money, virtual or otherwise, using his software or his crypto set-up. Since this is a monetary system, I'd want to be sure before use that A) It's secure B) It can be publically implemented without licensing or IP rules and C) Someone with knowledge of economics looks at it and builds in some future-proof planning, so if it really catches on and all internet users start using it it won't fall apart just as people are starting to trust it.
Now, when something similar comes along from a real crypto person like Bruce Schnier and gets defined in an RFC before implementation, then that'll be worth trying.
It's 2 days from the time you notice. Not two days from the time of the transaction. It is definitely increased risk over a credit card. Just not as severe as you described.
The rape charges might be explainable that way but how do you explain all the various sites (amazon, et al.) dropping support for wikileaks?
Also do you also think a country who's government can take down a domain at will (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/10/11/26/1450257.shtml) would really need to make their dislike for a site such as wikileaks public?
There are lots of explanations. The fact that you jump to one of them reveals more about you than it does anything else. Try to broaden your view.
Qxe4
There are many uses for Bitcoin, like:
https://sites.google.com/site/bitpr0n/001
Read the case of pentagon papers. The fact is, that JOURNALISM is protected. Simply dumped partially redacted files on the net is NOT journalism. Hell, they know it as well. Their name is wikiLEAKS, not wikiNEWS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But where's the fun in that?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
To tell you the truth I haven't reached a decision as to whether wikileaks is good or bad as yet.
However the reaction the US government has to this is leading me to believe they have something to hide, Stories like http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/0038211/Air-Force-Blocks-NY-Times-WaPo-Other-Media and others make the us government out to look like a bunch of censors.
While wikileaks is not a US company and cannot be threatened / controlled directly by the US government, US companies that do business with them (Amazon) have been dropping support for wikileaks like a hot potato, have they been threatened by their government not to do business with wikileaks? The fact that their DNS provider also dropped them is not helping to dismiss such a question, especially since EveryDNS is run by donations (they don't even remotely have the funds to be able to stand up to a lawsuit, especially one by the US government).
If the above claims are ever proven to be true, it shows that a single government already has too much control over the internet and unlike China which (for now) is content to only censor what it's own citizens see the US government is willing and able to censor what the entire world sees.
I agree with you that other explanations may exist however given that the documents specifically target the US government I seems almost obvious that they would react to the only target they have which is wikileaks. I invite you to propose a alternate explanation, as I said in my earlier comment the rape charges are the only case where I can come up with a somewhat reasonable counter explanation (maybe he actually did rape the woman, I don't know the man and cannot make such a judgment).
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024169-38.html is a decent start, there are public calls from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee to have wikileaks classified as a terrorist organization.
I'll finish with the following, if the US had followed the rules (most of them laid down by the US) what is there to fear from these documents? If they have broken rules and have been covering it up, what would you as a moral human being do if you happen across such information? I'm not American but this is more dangerous to the integrity of democracy in the US than anything an external entity could ever do.
US companies that do business with them (Amazon) have been dropping support for wikileaks like a hot potato, have they been threatened by their government not to do business with wikileaks?
Or maybe Amazon doesn't want to be known as a company who hosts controversial things (that is kind of true). Or maybe Wikileaks broke their contract with Amazon (I read that in some other comment). PayPal is the kind of company that will close any account that is controversial; not because of government pressure, but because they will try to find a way to keep the money. Any time something controversial comes up, watch, they freeze the account. EveryDNS has their own claim about what happened, you can find a link to it on Wikipedia.
I agree with you that other explanations may exist however given that the documents specifically target the US government I seems almost obvious that they would react to the only target they have which is wikileaks.
hehe.....as they say, conspiracy theories appeal to those who are more familiar with how Hollywood works than with how the world works. :) The US government has been quite open in this case, deciding whether to press charges against Assange or not; as you mentioned, a certain senator was giving his opinion on what ought to be done.
If the above claims are ever proven to be true, it shows that a single government already has too much control over the internet and unlike China which (for now) is content to only censor what it's own citizens see the US government is willing and able to censor what the entire world sees.
Uh....last year, Honduras got in a diplomatic fight with the US and didn't give in to any pressure. If a dirty little under-developed country in Central America can withstand the pressure, then European countries are just dumb if they give in. It's their own stupid fault (and if you're from Honduras, lo siento, me gusta gaseosa de guineo).
I'll finish with the following, if the US had followed the rules (most of them laid down by the US) what is there to fear from these documents? If they have broken rules and have been covering it up, what would you as a moral human being do if you happen across such information?
In the latest leak, America came out looking pretty good. The documents were mostly embarrassing to other countries.
Democracy doesn't guarantee good government; it only provides a way for a transition to a new government without bloodshed.
Qxe4
Planalto is the "seat of government" in Brazil - its Parliament House, or White House, if you will.
Presumably the "blog" Lula refers to is this one. Wikileaks is already cited there several times.
you had me at #!