...and the wisdom of the crowd is always right, then? I'm going to go re-read 1984 with that in mind.
thetagger just pointed out that Wikileaks IS celebrated by people around the globe. And it's also true that if it does create controversy in a country, it says more about that country.
I think it's very much an open argument as to whether the information they have released has made the world more or less peaceful.
It can also be argued that Nobel peace prize has nothing to do with that. Did opposing your country's leader make the world a more peaceful place? Does escalating a local conflict and doing the dirty job for the US government make the world a more peceful place? Yet these are some of the shit people did before getting the Nobel.
Not to mention giving it to at least one known terrorist, Arafat.
FYI, PLO is a liberation army. It's not a terrorist organization until the "international community" says so. It's a political thing. For instance, KLA is not a terrorist organization despite the fact that it did resort to terrorism, simply because they were backed by the US government (openly).
Won't happen. Can't be used to criticize the Allies' war on terror since their leader won the same prize two years ago.
Wow, cool. It's totally ok for Barak and other nobel prize winners to commit any kind of crime now, and they cannot possibly be at fault. It's like get out of jail free card.
While the US gov't is discussing the possibility of an Internet kill switch, Egyptian gov't is doing it. Good chance for the US to see what it looks like, and what people might do in an event kill switch is activated.
You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.
There are many things you can do to someone or some entity that doesn't involve physical pain. You can damage their reputation by uncovering something they wanted to hide, you can deal financial damage, etc. To figure out what particular type of threat this kill switch can remove, you have to first figure out who it's supposed to protect. I'm almost sure (judging from the recent news on Internet) that it's not your average Joe six-pack.
Your idea is brilliant (no sarcasm) and I agree with it. However, I do feel it's a bit idealistic. Any ISP that comes up with a detrimental plan like the one in the article would also flatly refuse to agree to those terms.
But there are always more than a few that will say "Yeah, I hope nobody pays this ransom money so I can pay it and beat them hands down." And it always turns out there are more than a few of those idiots.
Why even have the card? Sooner than we may think, the chips the size of a grain of rice will force us to make payments, or identify us so we can be brought in for questioning about our Facebook postings.
You are making claims that possibly criminal stuff exists in these wires; this requires justification. If you told me that, on google, I could find evidence that such and such was a murderer, I would (rightly) demand proof / a link. Likewise, I dont intend to dig through several thousand pages looking for support of your claim. You made it, so the onus is on you to support it.
Ironically, I am neither the first nor the last one to make such claims, and it's been all over slashdot if you care to look. You insistence that it has to be served to you on a silver platter is laughable, and not something I would waste our time on. Wait for a while and I'm sure someone will publish a book on the topic for people like you.
They also lead revolutions. Mugabe initially came to power as a revolutionary hero. Violent revolutions rarely deliver on their promises of a vastly better society, they simply demonstrate that "might is right".
I won't go into the topic of African 'revolutions'. Most of them are either not revolutions at all, but coups backed by the US dollars and thirst for oil, or otherwise successful revolutions that end up getting negative press coverage, again backed by US dollars and thirst for oil. I've got buddies from Sudan, Somalia, and other African countries, that more or less told me the same stories about the developments in their respective countries, and if you, on occasion, substitute France for the US, you get a common pattern all over africa.
In statements of the leftist media such as this one, I think there is more than just a hint of truth.
The Guardian’s embrace of CIA dirty tricks and military aggression cuts through the human rights rhetoric with which its has sought to garb its own campaign against the Mugabe regime—and not for the first time. Political assassination, invasions and coups d’état have been the hallmarks of US foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century. Once the Guardian would have registered its own meek protest.
I'm going to take a stab at this and suggest that there probably isn't a whole lot out there. Most of it is probably duplicates.
Could be. I was just joking anyway. Though, duplicates must be considered separate evidence, afaik, because distributing child porn is also a crime, and hence distributing duplicates is a separate process from that of producing the originals.
The corrupt politician at least gets you a path to better government. The dictator will be in place until his death, which could take quite a while.
Actually, you are wrong. A dictator invites revolution, and hence paves a way to a vastly better society. A corrupt politician will keep the people docile enough to get away with his schemes, because his schemes depend on the lack of opposition. Shamelessness is easy to spot. Those that hide in plain view are the ones you should fear the most.
Slashdot Mirror
...and the wisdom of the crowd is always right, then? I'm going to go re-read 1984 with that in mind.
thetagger just pointed out that Wikileaks IS celebrated by people around the globe. And it's also true that if it does create controversy in a country, it says more about that country.
I think it's very much an open argument as to whether the information they have released has made the world more or less peaceful.
It can also be argued that Nobel peace prize has nothing to do with that. Did opposing your country's leader make the world a more peaceful place? Does escalating a local conflict and doing the dirty job for the US government make the world a more peceful place? Yet these are some of the shit people did before getting the Nobel.
And really, the idea of Obama is what many people voted for
Everybody thought it's a good idea to vote for Obama at the moment. :)
Not to mention giving it to at least one known terrorist, Arafat.
FYI, PLO is a liberation army. It's not a terrorist organization until the "international community" says so. It's a political thing. For instance, KLA is not a terrorist organization despite the fact that it did resort to terrorism, simply because they were backed by the US government (openly).
Neither does keeping Guantanamo Bay alive, but there you go. In reality it doesn't have to do anything with peace.
Won't happen. Can't be used to criticize the Allies' war on terror since their leader won the same prize two years ago.
Wow, cool. It's totally ok for Barak and other nobel prize winners to commit any kind of crime now, and they cannot possibly be at fault. It's like get out of jail free card.
Clearly a wretched hive of scum and villainy... if you're a conservative.
Or if you live outside US.
So he got the nobel peace prize for something he was supposed to do? That's retarded.
It's done far more than Barak Obama, and I believe that should qualify.
While the US gov't is discussing the possibility of an Internet kill switch, Egyptian gov't is doing it. Good chance for the US to see what it looks like, and what people might do in an event kill switch is activated.
You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.
There are many things you can do to someone or some entity that doesn't involve physical pain. You can damage their reputation by uncovering something they wanted to hide, you can deal financial damage, etc. To figure out what particular type of threat this kill switch can remove, you have to first figure out who it's supposed to protect. I'm almost sure (judging from the recent news on Internet) that it's not your average Joe six-pack.
It still takes 10-20 here.
Your idea is brilliant (no sarcasm) and I agree with it. However, I do feel it's a bit idealistic. Any ISP that comes up with a detrimental plan like the one in the article would also flatly refuse to agree to those terms.
and I'd rather have a competent government do something about it, or, in other words, wait for a miracle.
There, fixed that for ya.
Are you maybe refusing to step down?
But there are always more than a few that will say "Yeah, I hope nobody pays this ransom money so I can pay it and beat them hands down." And it always turns out there are more than a few of those idiots.
Good job!
Embedded cards?
That's exactly what's it about. And it's not just Russia that wants this.
Why even have the card? Sooner than we may think, the chips the size of a grain of rice will force us to make payments, or identify us so we can be brought in for questioning about our Facebook postings.
There, fixed that for ya.
The problem is not whether the card identifies you or not. It's that you can misplace or have the card stolen for multi-level inconvenience.
You are making claims that possibly criminal stuff exists in these wires; this requires justification. If you told me that, on google, I could find evidence that such and such was a murderer, I would (rightly) demand proof / a link. Likewise, I dont intend to dig through several thousand pages looking for support of your claim. You made it, so the onus is on you to support it.
Ironically, I am neither the first nor the last one to make such claims, and it's been all over slashdot if you care to look. You insistence that it has to be served to you on a silver platter is laughable, and not something I would waste our time on. Wait for a while and I'm sure someone will publish a book on the topic for people like you.
They also lead revolutions. Mugabe initially came to power as a revolutionary hero. Violent revolutions rarely deliver on their promises of a vastly better society, they simply demonstrate that "might is right".
I won't go into the topic of African 'revolutions'. Most of them are either not revolutions at all, but coups backed by the US dollars and thirst for oil, or otherwise successful revolutions that end up getting negative press coverage, again backed by US dollars and thirst for oil. I've got buddies from Sudan, Somalia, and other African countries, that more or less told me the same stories about the developments in their respective countries, and if you, on occasion, substitute France for the US, you get a common pattern all over africa.
In statements of the leftist media such as this one, I think there is more than just a hint of truth.
I'm going to take a stab at this and suggest that there probably isn't a whole lot out there. Most of it is probably duplicates.
Could be. I was just joking anyway. Though, duplicates must be considered separate evidence, afaik, because distributing child porn is also a crime, and hence distributing duplicates is a separate process from that of producing the originals.
The corrupt politician at least gets you a path to better government. The dictator will be in place until his death, which could take quite a while.
Actually, you are wrong. A dictator invites revolution, and hence paves a way to a vastly better society. A corrupt politician will keep the people docile enough to get away with his schemes, because his schemes depend on the lack of opposition. Shamelessness is easy to spot. Those that hide in plain view are the ones you should fear the most.
Depends on what is leaked, I suppose. At the frequency I was masturbating at that age, I'm amazed I never drew blood.
Hah! Good point. Albeit, I could argue that drawing blood with excessive masturbation might actually pass as a good analogy. :)