Honestly I'm surprised that Valve would dive into such a legal quagmire. DotA was developed by 3 different people, uses proprietary blizzard graphics (in addition to personally developed ones), and has taken submissions from the community which puts the direct copying on shaky ground. S2 when creating HoN decided to remake everything even if keeping it almost the same, despite very clearly attempting to make DotA2, because of the legal issues.
With Guisoo (the original creator of DotA Allstars, which Icefrog continues to develop) working for Riot Games on League of Legends, a game that directly competes with DotA, I would not want to risk the hassels of having Riot send their in-house legal counsel after me like Valve is risking.
The fees do suck and do significantly reduce your actual rate of return from what is expected/advertised. However you can't just calculate the fees seperately from the interest since they are contingent on it and growth in the investment also increases the amount of fees you pay and the amount the fees amount to in reference to the original investment is completely irrelevant.
Capital gains taxes are generally not applicable to low-moderate income persons because they are spending the bulk of their money on their necessities and lack the free money needed to invest in hopes of realising a capital gain. For the wealthy who are the ones who actually have the money to invest the rate on capital gains is dramatically lower than they would be paying if their wealth were from earned income (rather than inheritance) which has a lot to do with how and why high-end jobs have their payments structured.
Getting rid of capital gains tax is an idea that only the wealthy and people with a poor grasp of economics like because it continues the ongoing shift of the tax burden to those who can least afford it.
In order to use Ebay you must accept PayPal which forces you to have a PayPal account. Since you can not control which form of payment a purchaser chooses to use you may be forced to attempt to retrieve your money from the clutches of PayPal. If you attempt to use Ebay you must use PayPal if you want to guarantee that you will actually ever get your money.
To me (and many countries legal systems) that sounds like it is forced and illegal collusion.
The historical reasoning is that it is in the banks financial benefit to have the cards be accepted everywhere with few obstacles. In order to convince merchants to accept their cards they credit card companies had to agree to cover any fraudulent charges because initially the merchants had no incentive to go to all the trouble involved with accepting a rare new form of payment which (especially prior to wired connections for credit card charges) was subject to difficult to verify forms of fraud. Credit card companies have opposed all reasonable measures to ensure consumers are not being taken advantage of and oppose any changes to increase security for cards if they determine that it makes them more money than they lose (a very different proposition for merchants). If the risk were shifted to merchant overnight we would see every merchant stop accepting signatures as a means of verification for cards.
First off Rackspace is not an ISP but rather a webhost which makes a large difference is their obligations both legal and as good citizens. When Dove World Church signed up their hosting with Rackspace they agreed to refrain from posting hate speech as a condition of service. At a later date they started serving up hate speech on their webpage which put them in breach of their contract and necessitated Rackspace terminating their service.
If they really weren't producing hate speech they could sue Rackspace for breech of contract for terminating their service on false pretenses but would need to prove that they had not been producing hate speech. While some people might argue that they didn't produce hate speech, they wouldn't have the slightest chance of winning because their actions could be reasonably interpreted as hate speech.
I understand that perfectly. However TFA and TFS both imply that it is the 'Shoe Database' itself that is violating copyright rather than the fact that they went out and used copyrighted photos to generate that database. The difference between the two is enormous and the articles and people discussing the two should stop conflating them.
Amongst professional criminals I'm sure that this sort of thing is common but when dealing with crimes of passion or low value crimes it becomes much more useful. After all when you own only a pair or two of shoes of a style and become a suspect, having just replaced them with brand new shoes is very suspicious. As well for something like a convenience store robbery it starts to make it even more financially worthless when you steal $50 and have to replace a $30 pair of shoes.
While I couldn't comment about how Swedish law treats such things in the United States or Canada this would be protected if the shoe prints were gathered directly rather than using online photos. A compilation of facts and details regarding the pattern and arrangement of shoe treads is definitely safe territory protected by the fact it does not inhibit the market for the original goods (unless some shoe company really wants to argue that their major clients purchase them to avoid being identified by the police), isn't for commercial gain, and does not replicate the original in any way.
Personally I would be very cautious about opposing something like this even if a literal interpretation of the law were to support this belief. Opposition to such a non-offensive, common sense proposal is likely to have governments write in specific loopholes to allow such action which could be discovered to have unintended side-effects that actually harm the business.
That largely has to with the relative power of the groups. Small powerless groups who are marginalised are forced to use extremism and violence if they want to influence the public. Widespread and influential groups like Christians have powerful ways of influencing the public, spreading the message, and punishing those they oppose. For example Christians have the Fox 'News' Channel as a near full time propaganda outlet, the ability to maintain round the clock protests, and mount punitive boycots against companies that offend them.
Might I suggest actually READING a bible (or heck a Quran) sometime before spouting off like that?
Both books endorse violence, punishment, and death to those that violate their laws and customs many times within them. Simply because you like Christianity (most likely because you were raised within the church) and hate Islam (because it is foreign to you and you have not educated yourself) doesn't mean you can ignore the content of these books and pretend that the Bible is all love and daisies while the Quran is hate and flesh eating locusts. They both also have a lot of extremely positive stances on social issues, particularly when you consider that they were both written in human rights dark ages.
The fact of the matter is that neither Christians or Muslims follow the literal writings of their holy books and instead selectively pick components that support their moral stances. In truth the two books are fairly equivelent which shouldn't come as a surprise since they are Monotheistic tomes written in ancient times when there was a profound lack of understanding of the world and a general disrespect of people who are different.
While (in general) business' retain the right to do business or not do business with whoever they like and could indeed refuse to rent one because you disagree with the positions held by the rentees that isn't the case here. Rackspace has provided service in the past to them and Dove World Church or Terry Jones personally agreed to a contract which amongst other things agreed that they would not use Rackspaces hosting to produce hate speech. However in spite of having contractually agreed to refrain from doing so, the Dove World Church produced hate speech culminating in this current plan to burn copies of the Koran because 'Islam is the Devil', 'Muslim's are pedophiles', and other offensive racial and religious slurs. Because DWC produced and distributed hate speech on their website, Rackspace not only can but is obligated to terminate their service for breech of contract. DWC should have taken more care in selecting a web hosting provider like 'Bigots 'R Us' who was willing to be associated with offensive behaviour and speech.
But we need to also treat women as if they are equal partners that are intelligent and capable of expressing their wishes.
While it is good behaviour to explicitly get permission for any change within a sexual relationship it is actually fairly uncommon. Unless he concealed the fact that he wasn't wearing a condom (by faking putting it on for example) she is responsible for expressing that this is unacceptable and withdrawing her consent to sexual activity until and unless he puts one on (or entirely for that matter). Anything else begins to treat women as children incapable of making decisions for themselves or requires men to have the ability to read minds, neither of which is ethically acceptable.
Rape laws are a funny beast that is still trying to find balance in the world. Thirty years ago the law didn't allow for a spouse (or often former sexual partner) to be found guilty of rape even if violence was used. The laws have been steadily expanded to cover more situations and edge cases to the point that it has begun to diminish to impact of the term 'rape'. Currently the situation has swung so far towards infantalizing women as being incapable of taking responsibility for their sexual desires and actions that you can be convicted of rape for having consentual sex with a bigot who wasn't aware of your racial background (http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/palestinian-saber-kushour-accused-of-rape-of-deception-speak/19568421).
I absolutely agree that we need for people to take responsibility for their own boundaries. I feel great sympathy for a women who had sex that didn't particularly want but failed to communicate it or stop the situation in much the same way that I feel sorry for people who allow themselves be pressured into giving money they can't really afford or don't want to donate to 'charities' that push for a donation on their doorstep. I've always taken an approach of seeking enthusiastic consent in my sexual partners both to avoid any possible confusion and because the sex is much better that way.
However the admins would then have to prove how they were able to reverse engineer the server without using the client. Which given the general improbability of such an action would constitute a fairly significant burden of proof.
Not the behaviour itself but the algorithm that generates that behaviour. Theoretically they could reverse engineer the behaviour but the burden of proof to prove it was done with no prior knowledge of the algorithm (in a 'clean' environment) is extremely high when there is secondary evidence that they are duplicating someone elses work.
Raw statistics such as the "stats" of monsters aren't within the realm of copyright, but more complex behavior like AI models can be.
Not necessarily correct.
While copyright doesn't cover 'facts' which the 'stats' would definitely fall under, it does cover any "creative spark" or exercise of the requisite "skill and judgement" in how that information is organised and presented. In this particular situation changing how the 'stats' were organised would render the system inoperable without rewriting the code used to request and process them in a different way (which again would require a 'clean' reverse engineering').
Ultimately the 'private' servers had no hope of wining this one legally. They were profitting off not only off the programming itself but also their trademark, their (copyrighted) storyline, and diluted the market for the original. Ultimately about as open and closed a case as ever existed in copyright law.
I'm not sure what precisely 'one of those' means as I'm not from the US where I presume this statement might be obvious.
I certainly didn't intend to imply anything racist. However I can't help but notice that thanks to our general advantages (higher familial wealth and greater educational oppurtunities) and relationships with those who share those advantages that those of us of European descent have many more opportunities in life regardless of our personal character and abilities. Simple demographic evidence show that there is a strong correlation between our socio-economic status at birth and our eventual personal one. The simple fact that that native and enslaved populations were exploited for so long means that it is exceedingly hard from them to break from those economic situations.
I didn't intend for this to be antagonistic. I find that my frustration with these wars has been growing for years as I see what I believe to be gross mismanagement.
There is room for disagreement in this subject and I'm sorry that I've driven you out by becoming overzealous.
According to Assange the release of the documents was delayed by several months while Wikileaks was in talks with the Pentagon to receive assistance in redacting the documents to conceal the identities of individuals who would be at risk. The story is that the Pentagon continued stalling and attempting to negotiate the removal of certain documents from the release. Wikileaks concluded that the Pentagon was not acting in good faith and was attempting to stall the release or prevent it completely on the theory that Wikileaks couldn't adequately redact the documents on their own and wouldn't release them if they couldn't redact them.
Whether that is true or not is a question that has not been proven either way. However the Pentagon has admitted to being aware that Wikileaks was in possession of the documents well in advance of the release and had communicated with them.
Personally I think that the known facts and general modus operandi of the involved parties would suggest that Wikileaks is relating the truth or at least the most accurate version of events.
I disagree that Wikileaks (or more relevantly the internet) haven't truly changed the game. While military (and other) leaks have existed since humanity started having secrets and beating each other up, the presence of the internet shifts the power to leak safely, widely, and successfully dramatically in favour of the leakers.
Historically leaks were limited by several factors that the internet helps overcome:
Anonymity: Even leaking to a friendly reporter meant that at least one person knew who was responsible. Wikileaks on the other hand has developed an ingenius system that ensures that even Wikileaks doesn't know the identity of the source but the source can also prove that they were the responsible party.
Scale of dissemination: The best you could hope for historically was to get newspaper or television (and those only for the fairly modern era) to spread the information from a leak. These however are institutions vulnerable to censorship, lawsuits, and are an easy target for political pressure. The internet however allows for virtually universal dissemination for anyone seeking it and the ease of mirroring and altering jurisdiction make censorship nearly impossible (see Streisand effect). If the worst ever came down to it and Wikileaks were forced to remove leaked documents it would be ineffective to prevent the availability of the document from elsewhere.
Access to the information: For the most part even widely disseminated leaks were forced to rely on a reporters analysis and subsequent characterisation. However the ease of storing and transmitting information on the internet means that anyone can have access to the raw data (though despite this it seems that reporters will just parot gov spokespeople) to review and analyse themselves. This removes a gatekeeper from the equation and decreases the likelyhood of important information being overlooked due to lack of knowledge.
If the government didn't attempt to conceal information that the electorate rightly should have available they might have a valid complaint about having their other information released. However until the government starts acting like it is part of a democracy it unfortunately falls on the public to force accountability onto them. Wikileaks would probably have very few supporters if all they were releasing was information on informants and troop movements rather than fundamental information about the progress and administration of the war. Since the administration and military attempted to maintain support for the war by misleading the public they are just going to have to live with the consequences of that decision which is that all their info got released.
Though it may come as a surprise if you had listened to the republicans lately but Canada is actually a capitalist society and while we 'socialize' the cost of it, the fact of the matter is it is good solid capitalist sense to do so because we pay vastly less for better outcomes and manage to cover everyone simultaneously.
However the research for this project is out of the University of Calgary and is not funded by our health care system but through the standard mix of research grants, university funds, and private partnerships that you would get out of any US post secondary institution.
My general understanding is that when referencing the source of a classified document it is a reference to the individual or agency that produced it rather than where the intel for that document was gathered.
As for the informants it is very unfortunate that they may be at risk because of this. However it is equally important to bear in mind that Wikileaks held off releasing the documents for several months while attempting to get the Pentagon to help redact them (what you are supposed to do for documents that may identify sources but do not deserve classification) for those sorts of details. However the Pentagon would not cooperate which gives them a share of any blame too. Wikileaks does not have the manpower (or quite possibly sufficient knowledge of what is or is not a serious concern) to do so themselves. If they had allowed the Pentagon's instringency to prevent the release they would have failed their mission statement and our society. Hopefully now that it is clear that non-cooperation is not going to prevent these releases the Pentagon might choose a harm-reduction strategy instead or go even further a declassify all the documents that ought to be publically available themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly I'm surprised that Valve would dive into such a legal quagmire. DotA was developed by 3 different people, uses proprietary blizzard graphics (in addition to personally developed ones), and has taken submissions from the community which puts the direct copying on shaky ground. S2 when creating HoN decided to remake everything even if keeping it almost the same, despite very clearly attempting to make DotA2, because of the legal issues.
With Guisoo (the original creator of DotA Allstars, which Icefrog continues to develop) working for Riot Games on League of Legends, a game that directly competes with DotA, I would not want to risk the hassels of having Riot send their in-house legal counsel after me like Valve is risking.
Both your math and logic are profoundly flawed.
The fees do suck and do significantly reduce your actual rate of return from what is expected/advertised. However you can't just calculate the fees seperately from the interest since they are contingent on it and growth in the investment also increases the amount of fees you pay and the amount the fees amount to in reference to the original investment is completely irrelevant.
Capital gains taxes are generally not applicable to low-moderate income persons because they are spending the bulk of their money on their necessities and lack the free money needed to invest in hopes of realising a capital gain. For the wealthy who are the ones who actually have the money to invest the rate on capital gains is dramatically lower than they would be paying if their wealth were from earned income (rather than inheritance) which has a lot to do with how and why high-end jobs have their payments structured.
Getting rid of capital gains tax is an idea that only the wealthy and people with a poor grasp of economics like because it continues the ongoing shift of the tax burden to those who can least afford it.
Not terribly different in this case.
In order to use Ebay you must accept PayPal which forces you to have a PayPal account. Since you can not control which form of payment a purchaser chooses to use you may be forced to attempt to retrieve your money from the clutches of PayPal. If you attempt to use Ebay you must use PayPal if you want to guarantee that you will actually ever get your money.
To me (and many countries legal systems) that sounds like it is forced and illegal collusion.
The historical reasoning is that it is in the banks financial benefit to have the cards be accepted everywhere with few obstacles. In order to convince merchants to accept their cards they credit card companies had to agree to cover any fraudulent charges because initially the merchants had no incentive to go to all the trouble involved with accepting a rare new form of payment which (especially prior to wired connections for credit card charges) was subject to difficult to verify forms of fraud. Credit card companies have opposed all reasonable measures to ensure consumers are not being taken advantage of and oppose any changes to increase security for cards if they determine that it makes them more money than they lose (a very different proposition for merchants). If the risk were shifted to merchant overnight we would see every merchant stop accepting signatures as a means of verification for cards.
First off Rackspace is not an ISP but rather a webhost which makes a large difference is their obligations both legal and as good citizens. When Dove World Church signed up their hosting with Rackspace they agreed to refrain from posting hate speech as a condition of service. At a later date they started serving up hate speech on their webpage which put them in breach of their contract and necessitated Rackspace terminating their service.
If they really weren't producing hate speech they could sue Rackspace for breech of contract for terminating their service on false pretenses but would need to prove that they had not been producing hate speech. While some people might argue that they didn't produce hate speech, they wouldn't have the slightest chance of winning because their actions could be reasonably interpreted as hate speech.
I understand that perfectly. However TFA and TFS both imply that it is the 'Shoe Database' itself that is violating copyright rather than the fact that they went out and used copyrighted photos to generate that database. The difference between the two is enormous and the articles and people discussing the two should stop conflating them.
Amongst professional criminals I'm sure that this sort of thing is common but when dealing with crimes of passion or low value crimes it becomes much more useful. After all when you own only a pair or two of shoes of a style and become a suspect, having just replaced them with brand new shoes is very suspicious. As well for something like a convenience store robbery it starts to make it even more financially worthless when you steal $50 and have to replace a $30 pair of shoes.
While I couldn't comment about how Swedish law treats such things in the United States or Canada this would be protected if the shoe prints were gathered directly rather than using online photos. A compilation of facts and details regarding the pattern and arrangement of shoe treads is definitely safe territory protected by the fact it does not inhibit the market for the original goods (unless some shoe company really wants to argue that their major clients purchase them to avoid being identified by the police), isn't for commercial gain, and does not replicate the original in any way.
Personally I would be very cautious about opposing something like this even if a literal interpretation of the law were to support this belief. Opposition to such a non-offensive, common sense proposal is likely to have governments write in specific loopholes to allow such action which could be discovered to have unintended side-effects that actually harm the business.
That largely has to with the relative power of the groups. Small powerless groups who are marginalised are forced to use extremism and violence if they want to influence the public. Widespread and influential groups like Christians have powerful ways of influencing the public, spreading the message, and punishing those they oppose. For example Christians have the Fox 'News' Channel as a near full time propaganda outlet, the ability to maintain round the clock protests, and mount punitive boycots against companies that offend them.
Might I suggest actually READING a bible (or heck a Quran) sometime before spouting off like that?
Both books endorse violence, punishment, and death to those that violate their laws and customs many times within them. Simply because you like Christianity (most likely because you were raised within the church) and hate Islam (because it is foreign to you and you have not educated yourself) doesn't mean you can ignore the content of these books and pretend that the Bible is all love and daisies while the Quran is hate and flesh eating locusts. They both also have a lot of extremely positive stances on social issues, particularly when you consider that they were both written in human rights dark ages.
The fact of the matter is that neither Christians or Muslims follow the literal writings of their holy books and instead selectively pick components that support their moral stances. In truth the two books are fairly equivelent which shouldn't come as a surprise since they are Monotheistic tomes written in ancient times when there was a profound lack of understanding of the world and a general disrespect of people who are different.
While (in general) business' retain the right to do business or not do business with whoever they like and could indeed refuse to rent one because you disagree with the positions held by the rentees that isn't the case here. Rackspace has provided service in the past to them and Dove World Church or Terry Jones personally agreed to a contract which amongst other things agreed that they would not use Rackspaces hosting to produce hate speech. However in spite of having contractually agreed to refrain from doing so, the Dove World Church produced hate speech culminating in this current plan to burn copies of the Koran because 'Islam is the Devil', 'Muslim's are pedophiles', and other offensive racial and religious slurs. Because DWC produced and distributed hate speech on their website, Rackspace not only can but is obligated to terminate their service for breech of contract. DWC should have taken more care in selecting a web hosting provider like 'Bigots 'R Us' who was willing to be associated with offensive behaviour and speech.
But we need to also treat women as if they are equal partners that are intelligent and capable of expressing their wishes.
While it is good behaviour to explicitly get permission for any change within a sexual relationship it is actually fairly uncommon. Unless he concealed the fact that he wasn't wearing a condom (by faking putting it on for example) she is responsible for expressing that this is unacceptable and withdrawing her consent to sexual activity until and unless he puts one on (or entirely for that matter). Anything else begins to treat women as children incapable of making decisions for themselves or requires men to have the ability to read minds, neither of which is ethically acceptable.
Rape laws are a funny beast that is still trying to find balance in the world. Thirty years ago the law didn't allow for a spouse (or often former sexual partner) to be found guilty of rape even if violence was used. The laws have been steadily expanded to cover more situations and edge cases to the point that it has begun to diminish to impact of the term 'rape'. Currently the situation has swung so far towards infantalizing women as being incapable of taking responsibility for their sexual desires and actions that you can be convicted of rape for having consentual sex with a bigot who wasn't aware of your racial background (http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/palestinian-saber-kushour-accused-of-rape-of-deception-speak/19568421).
I absolutely agree that we need for people to take responsibility for their own boundaries. I feel great sympathy for a women who had sex that didn't particularly want but failed to communicate it or stop the situation in much the same way that I feel sorry for people who allow themselves be pressured into giving money they can't really afford or don't want to donate to 'charities' that push for a donation on their doorstep. I've always taken an approach of seeking enthusiastic consent in my sexual partners both to avoid any possible confusion and because the sex is much better that way.
However the admins would then have to prove how they were able to reverse engineer the server without using the client. Which given the general improbability of such an action would constitute a fairly significant burden of proof.
Not the behaviour itself but the algorithm that generates that behaviour. Theoretically they could reverse engineer the behaviour but the burden of proof to prove it was done with no prior knowledge of the algorithm (in a 'clean' environment) is extremely high when there is secondary evidence that they are duplicating someone elses work.
Raw statistics such as the "stats" of monsters aren't within the realm of copyright, but more complex behavior like AI models can be.
Not necessarily correct.
While copyright doesn't cover 'facts' which the 'stats' would definitely fall under, it does cover any "creative spark" or exercise of the requisite "skill and judgement" in how that information is organised and presented. In this particular situation changing how the 'stats' were organised would render the system inoperable without rewriting the code used to request and process them in a different way (which again would require a 'clean' reverse engineering').
Ultimately the 'private' servers had no hope of wining this one legally. They were profitting off not only off the programming itself but also their trademark, their (copyrighted) storyline, and diluted the market for the original. Ultimately about as open and closed a case as ever existed in copyright law.
I'm not sure what precisely 'one of those' means as I'm not from the US where I presume this statement might be obvious.
I certainly didn't intend to imply anything racist. However I can't help but notice that thanks to our general advantages (higher familial wealth and greater educational oppurtunities) and relationships with those who share those advantages that those of us of European descent have many more opportunities in life regardless of our personal character and abilities. Simple demographic evidence show that there is a strong correlation between our socio-economic status at birth and our eventual personal one. The simple fact that that native and enslaved populations were exploited for so long means that it is exceedingly hard from them to break from those economic situations.
I'm sorry.
I didn't intend for this to be antagonistic. I find that my frustration with these wars has been growing for years as I see what I believe to be gross mismanagement.
There is room for disagreement in this subject and I'm sorry that I've driven you out by becoming overzealous.
According to Assange the release of the documents was delayed by several months while Wikileaks was in talks with the Pentagon to receive assistance in redacting the documents to conceal the identities of individuals who would be at risk. The story is that the Pentagon continued stalling and attempting to negotiate the removal of certain documents from the release. Wikileaks concluded that the Pentagon was not acting in good faith and was attempting to stall the release or prevent it completely on the theory that Wikileaks couldn't adequately redact the documents on their own and wouldn't release them if they couldn't redact them.
Whether that is true or not is a question that has not been proven either way. However the Pentagon has admitted to being aware that Wikileaks was in possession of the documents well in advance of the release and had communicated with them.
Personally I think that the known facts and general modus operandi of the involved parties would suggest that Wikileaks is relating the truth or at least the most accurate version of events.
I disagree that Wikileaks (or more relevantly the internet) haven't truly changed the game. While military (and other) leaks have existed since humanity started having secrets and beating each other up, the presence of the internet shifts the power to leak safely, widely, and successfully dramatically in favour of the leakers.
Historically leaks were limited by several factors that the internet helps overcome:
Anonymity: Even leaking to a friendly reporter meant that at least one person knew who was responsible. Wikileaks on the other hand has developed an ingenius system that ensures that even Wikileaks doesn't know the identity of the source but the source can also prove that they were the responsible party.
Scale of dissemination: The best you could hope for historically was to get newspaper or television (and those only for the fairly modern era) to spread the information from a leak. These however are institutions vulnerable to censorship, lawsuits, and are an easy target for political pressure. The internet however allows for virtually universal dissemination for anyone seeking it and the ease of mirroring and altering jurisdiction make censorship nearly impossible (see Streisand effect). If the worst ever came down to it and Wikileaks were forced to remove leaked documents it would be ineffective to prevent the availability of the document from elsewhere.
Access to the information: For the most part even widely disseminated leaks were forced to rely on a reporters analysis and subsequent characterisation. However the ease of storing and transmitting information on the internet means that anyone can have access to the raw data (though despite this it seems that reporters will just parot gov spokespeople) to review and analyse themselves. This removes a gatekeeper from the equation and decreases the likelyhood of important information being overlooked due to lack of knowledge.
If the government didn't attempt to conceal information that the electorate rightly should have available they might have a valid complaint about having their other information released. However until the government starts acting like it is part of a democracy it unfortunately falls on the public to force accountability onto them. Wikileaks would probably have very few supporters if all they were releasing was information on informants and troop movements rather than fundamental information about the progress and administration of the war. Since the administration and military attempted to maintain support for the war by misleading the public they are just going to have to live with the consequences of that decision which is that all their info got released.
Though it may come as a surprise if you had listened to the republicans lately but Canada is actually a capitalist society and while we 'socialize' the cost of it, the fact of the matter is it is good solid capitalist sense to do so because we pay vastly less for better outcomes and manage to cover everyone simultaneously.
However the research for this project is out of the University of Calgary and is not funded by our health care system but through the standard mix of research grants, university funds, and private partnerships that you would get out of any US post secondary institution.
*Golf clap*
Bravo sir.
My general understanding is that when referencing the source of a classified document it is a reference to the individual or agency that produced it rather than where the intel for that document was gathered.
As for the informants it is very unfortunate that they may be at risk because of this. However it is equally important to bear in mind that Wikileaks held off releasing the documents for several months while attempting to get the Pentagon to help redact them (what you are supposed to do for documents that may identify sources but do not deserve classification) for those sorts of details. However the Pentagon would not cooperate which gives them a share of any blame too. Wikileaks does not have the manpower (or quite possibly sufficient knowledge of what is or is not a serious concern) to do so themselves. If they had allowed the Pentagon's instringency to prevent the release they would have failed their mission statement and our society. Hopefully now that it is clear that non-cooperation is not going to prevent these releases the Pentagon might choose a harm-reduction strategy instead or go even further a declassify all the documents that ought to be publically available themselves.