I didnt say you hadnt read it because it talks about nintendo, I said that because the 3 emails listed show racism and nothing more (no corruption, unless you define corruption to mean "racist"). You can have a racist cop without it meaning "the entire system is corrupt top down".
Thats fine and dandy, but I stopped reading at the "in Canada" part, because I had thought the discussion was on corruption in the US police force. I fail to see the connection between the RMCP and US police forces. There may or may not have been wrongdoing in that instance, but its really irrelevant to the discussion.
Or is this global corruption, some international cabal of evil policemen?
And for the record, Im not saying that cops are perfect (I think ive stated several times that I think that PDs will have more corruption in big cities, as will everything else), but I dont think theres some top down national level of corruption as is being claimed.
Er, in that story, a swat team surrounds a house suspecting pot (and I agree a swat team sounds kind of crazy for this, but whatever, thats not the discussion). Now, lets put you in the guys shoes:
* You have armed police entering your house * You have a wife and kids nearby * You have a loaded AR15 laying nearby
Should you A) lay down and not start something, or B) pick up your AR15 and start attacking the SWAT team? Guess which he chose? Guess why he got shot? As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway.
Yea, TOTALLY blame the police for opening fire on a guy brandishing an automatic rifle, that really shows corruption.
THis is why I wanted people to provide the links-- I would have seen that article and thought to myself, CLEARLY noone find fault in THIS case, but yet here we are, that happens to be one of the stories supposedly showing widespread systemic corruption.
You must have had the volume down, I distinctly remember them asking for permission to fire on the belief that the perceived enemy was about to be retrieved by allies.
And I dont believe it was an ambulance, I believe it was an unmarked van. You might want to rewatch that video.
Yes, well everyone knows those kernel.org sysops are a bunch of pushover newbies. Im sure you can do way better with the scope and size of the systems they deal with.
You know, when I signed up for Amazon.com many many many years ago, Im fairly certain I told them NOT to spam me. But in the last 3 weeks, since Amazon now does Amazon Local (their groupon equivalent), they feel like its necessary to send me daily deals.
All that is irrelevant though; noone argues that by doing business with amazon I have given consent to them emailing me. The problem is when people send UNSOLICITED email, from companies I have no dealing with; THAT is what is referred to as spam.
Question, how would OpenBSD prevent them from getting into the server with compromised username and password? Or from running arbitrary code once they do so?
So, in our conspiracy to discredit Assange, we now have : * the CIA * Republicans * Scotland Yard * the Swedish authorities * Interpol (remember, they released the arrest warrant!) * several young ladies who had an encounter with him-- and since one of them used to be part of Wikileaks, ---* a Mole in Wikileaks * Daniel Domscheit-Berg ---* and thus also Openleaks
And now, we add The Guardian, who has traditionally been Wikileaks go-to media outlet.
At some point, rationality says, yea, Im gonna need a LITTLE more than wild speculation to believe all of that. Im sure the CIA is doing SOME stuff, but I cant believe in a conspiracy that far reaching with nothing more than rabid slashdot opinions to base it on.
Um, its still partly on his plate because that "nothing he could do" is because of the way he chose to do insurance.
He could have, for example, leaked it to several large news organizations that he trusts, with the understanding that they can release it if anything goes down. Possibly with one or two backup individuals in case the outlets dont want to release it.
One might also ask whether or not the insurance was responsible at ALL, but thats a different discussion.
Wait, so if a potential vulnerability in Google's cookie means theyre abusive, does that mean that the attacks on AES256 (due to design flaws) mean the NIST is abusive and doesnt care about your privacy?
Or is it possible that calling google evil and malicious in this instance is incorrect and irrelevant to the real issues (such as what are the implications, how can we protect ourselves, and whether Google needs to take measures to better protect the cookies)?
If the article were on "Theists believe in a wacky God", all the comments would be on how they have no proof for what they believe and whatnot; but I request some kind of source for parents claims, and a 30 post argument erupts over whether or not evidence is necessary, I get called an asshole, and I think a grand total of 2 people took the effort to provide some kind of backing to their statements.
I mean, how do people reconcile that kind of hypocrisy? Its not like I have some vested stake in police corruption going undetected, I simply havent seen anything which leads me to believe that its a national level thing as is being implied.
Do I think there are problems of police corruption in bigger cities? You bet, but I think thats the nature of bigger cities and corruption that goes with power. I dont think its something that affects every PD in the country, and I dont think its unreasonable to challenge someones statement that "the entire thing top to bottom is corrupt".
Then he is naieve for assuming the summary is anything more than a vehicle to express the poster's political views on an event. It is only loosely coorelated with the actual facts of the article, if at all.
I appreciate the link, and Im not sure why me wanting evidence of such claims makes me an asshole, but apparently thats what the internet does to a discussion.
If I was asking about it, its not common knowledge to me, and Im very clearly asking for some evidence that its not an urban legend. Such things are rather common on the internet, you know.
If it is vital to their job, they already have it, or they wouldnt have a job (and I would argue relying on it in an area of poor infrastructure is a really bad decision). If theyre not relying on it, they dont need it as an emergency measure.
Im not saying none of this stuff is good for progress, but it is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Farmers have been doing this stuff for centuries without internet, and continue to to this day.
WebMD makes it so the local vet is no longer capable of doing his job? (for that matter, whens the last time you skipped going to a doctor for WebMD-- for me its been never) Farmers need to use BBSes? The TV isnt capable of doing weather forecasts?
a coalition government which promised significant budget cuts to limit the deficit (I think you know about these arguments).
Yes, theyre always lots of fun, I dont think anyone disagrees with that.
was to promise that there are services which can be delivered more cheaply by moving online.
That said, if a local government agency is in the middle of the boondocks, is it not reasonable to assume they will continue to provide in-person service until the infrastructure supports online-only?
This then leaves them open to attack about those households who are not online, and the rural areas where there is little provision.
Fair enough. Still dont think it comes anywhere close to the level of "crisis", but Im not denying that it is a "problem".
Depending on your political point of view, you can see this as welcome deregulation which will allow private sector innovation to step in and solve the problem, or a political fig leaf which won't make any real difference but gives the current government the chance to say they're doing stuff.
Internets one of those funny things where, despite my conservative instincts, I dont have a ready answer. It probably depends a good deal on how easy or difficult it is to get the necessary permits to run lines, and what the level of competition is, and how big the ISPs margins are (if the profits per customer are low enough, theres a good chance it simply wont be worth it to run new lines).
Just because you want to push for improvement and progress doesnt mean you need to demean legitimate crisis (like imminent threat of death for a population, or war, or famine) by equating it with "do not have internet".
Have you actually seen "collateral murder"? There werent any war crimes in there, there was a friendly fire incident. Even the soldier's banter supports this fact.
Protip, try actually watching the un-edited video rather than taking everything assange has to say at face value.
Hate burst your ignorant bubble, but police are on record, breaking into houses, executing people (yes, murder), and absolutely NO ONE being prosecuted.
And yet, STILL no source to this supposedly on record incident, and not even enough specificity for me to be able to google it were I so inclined.
Sorry, without more than just the unsourced (and rather bold) claims of an Anonymous Coward, Im not gonna bother reading your wall of text. Facts are what counts, not your opinion.
Parent (me) asked for sources for his claims, and he provide a zillion MORE unsourced claims. How is that reasonable? You want me to do his legwork, and have to guess which incidents he is referring to?
For instance, Ive heard of deaths from tasers, but never of a case where the death was shown to be due to wrongdoing by the cops. Perhaps hes mixing that up with the "dont tase me bro" case where the dude resisted arrest and was deservedly tased?
Look, this isnt hard. If someone makes unsourced claims, and I challenge him on it, its up to HIM to provide SOME kind of proof that hes not full of crap. [Citation needed] on wikipedia doesnt mean that the READER needs to find the citations, it means the person making the claims does.
Or in the Texas PD, where they would have had no cause to think there was racism prior to a break in? And as for corruption, none of those emails show any, sorry. Sounds kind of like you didnt bother to read them, and just assumed that the summary must be correct (are you new here?)
As for "havok", yes, if you look over the list of hacks over the last 6 months (including The Escapist, Eve Online, Nintendo, a number of Sony divisions, etc), it starts to look like havok. But yea, stick it to the escapist and all their racist, corrupt ways, right?
Yes, that wikipedia article is impressive. In the first 3 paragraphs they make vague, weasly statements, with no source, and then on the end tack on a reference to an article that appears to be an opinion piece. This is one of the reasons wikipedia can be dangerous-- if you dont know how to check the sources on questionable statements, you shouldnt be reading wikipedia.
Thanks for the link tho, maybe I can put it up for review so someone can actually try to find sources for the statements that it makes.
Slashdot Mirror
I didnt say you hadnt read it because it talks about nintendo, I said that because the 3 emails listed show racism and nothing more (no corruption, unless you define corruption to mean "racist"). You can have a racist cop without it meaning "the entire system is corrupt top down".
Thats fine and dandy, but I stopped reading at the "in Canada" part, because I had thought the discussion was on corruption in the US police force. I fail to see the connection between the RMCP and US police forces. There may or may not have been wrongdoing in that instance, but its really irrelevant to the discussion.
Or is this global corruption, some international cabal of evil policemen?
And for the record, Im not saying that cops are perfect (I think ive stated several times that I think that PDs will have more corruption in big cities, as will everything else), but I dont think theres some top down national level of corruption as is being claimed.
Er, in that story, a swat team surrounds a house suspecting pot (and I agree a swat team sounds kind of crazy for this, but whatever, thats not the discussion). Now, lets put you in the guys shoes:
* You have armed police entering your house
* You have a wife and kids nearby
* You have a loaded AR15 laying nearby
Should you A) lay down and not start something, or B) pick up your AR15 and start attacking the SWAT team? Guess which he chose? Guess why he got shot?
As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway.
Yea, TOTALLY blame the police for opening fire on a guy brandishing an automatic rifle, that really shows corruption.
THis is why I wanted people to provide the links-- I would have seen that article and thought to myself, CLEARLY noone find fault in THIS case, but yet here we are, that happens to be one of the stories supposedly showing widespread systemic corruption.
You must have had the volume down, I distinctly remember them asking for permission to fire on the belief that the perceived enemy was about to be retrieved by allies.
And I dont believe it was an ambulance, I believe it was an unmarked van. You might want to rewatch that video.
Webkit-- built on a compiled language built by someone else entirely.
What is your point?
Yes, well everyone knows those kernel.org sysops are a bunch of pushover newbies. Im sure you can do way better with the scope and size of the systems they deal with.
You know, when I signed up for Amazon.com many many many years ago, Im fairly certain I told them NOT to spam me. But in the last 3 weeks, since Amazon now does Amazon Local (their groupon equivalent), they feel like its necessary to send me daily deals.
All that is irrelevant though; noone argues that by doing business with amazon I have given consent to them emailing me. The problem is when people send UNSOLICITED email, from companies I have no dealing with; THAT is what is referred to as spam.
Question, how would OpenBSD prevent them from getting into the server with compromised username and password? Or from running arbitrary code once they do so?
So, in our conspiracy to discredit Assange, we now have :
* the CIA
* Republicans
* Scotland Yard
* the Swedish authorities
* Interpol (remember, they released the arrest warrant!)
* several young ladies who had an encounter with him-- and since one of them used to be part of Wikileaks,
---* a Mole in Wikileaks
* Daniel Domscheit-Berg
---* and thus also Openleaks
And now, we add The Guardian, who has traditionally been Wikileaks go-to media outlet.
At some point, rationality says, yea, Im gonna need a LITTLE more than wild speculation to believe all of that. Im sure the CIA is doing SOME stuff, but I cant believe in a conspiracy that far reaching with nothing more than rabid slashdot opinions to base it on.
Um, its still partly on his plate because that "nothing he could do" is because of the way he chose to do insurance.
He could have, for example, leaked it to several large news organizations that he trusts, with the understanding that they can release it if anything goes down. Possibly with one or two backup individuals in case the outlets dont want to release it.
One might also ask whether or not the insurance was responsible at ALL, but thats a different discussion.
Yes, they totally crack down on opensource and lead the way with EEE....
Except for when theyre hosting FOSS projects on google code.
And contributing massive amounts to them (HTML5 standards, WebM, Chromium, Android, Wave {which was a completely open protocol}).
And donating massive amounts of money to Mozilla foundation.
But other than that, yea, linux geeks unite against the monster that is Google.
Wait, so if a potential vulnerability in Google's cookie means theyre abusive, does that mean that the attacks on AES256 (due to design flaws) mean the NIST is abusive and doesnt care about your privacy?
Or is it possible that calling google evil and malicious in this instance is incorrect and irrelevant to the real issues (such as what are the implications, how can we protect ourselves, and whether Google needs to take measures to better protect the cookies)?
This is really rather astonishing.
If the article were on "Theists believe in a wacky God", all the comments would be on how they have no proof for what they believe and whatnot; but I request some kind of source for parents claims, and a 30 post argument erupts over whether or not evidence is necessary, I get called an asshole, and I think a grand total of 2 people took the effort to provide some kind of backing to their statements.
I mean, how do people reconcile that kind of hypocrisy? Its not like I have some vested stake in police corruption going undetected, I simply havent seen anything which leads me to believe that its a national level thing as is being implied.
Do I think there are problems of police corruption in bigger cities? You bet, but I think thats the nature of bigger cities and corruption that goes with power. I dont think its something that affects every PD in the country, and I dont think its unreasonable to challenge someones statement that "the entire thing top to bottom is corrupt".
Then he is naieve for assuming the summary is anything more than a vehicle to express the poster's political views on an event. It is only loosely coorelated with the actual facts of the article, if at all.
I appreciate the link, and Im not sure why me wanting evidence of such claims makes me an asshole, but apparently thats what the internet does to a discussion.
If I was asking about it, its not common knowledge to me, and Im very clearly asking for some evidence that its not an urban legend. Such things are rather common on the internet, you know.
If it is vital to their job, they already have it, or they wouldnt have a job (and I would argue relying on it in an area of poor infrastructure is a really bad decision). If theyre not relying on it, they dont need it as an emergency measure.
Im not saying none of this stuff is good for progress, but it is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Farmers have been doing this stuff for centuries without internet, and continue to to this day.
WebMD makes it so the local vet is no longer capable of doing his job? (for that matter, whens the last time you skipped going to a doctor for WebMD-- for me its been never)
Farmers need to use BBSes?
The TV isnt capable of doing weather forecasts?
These things just arent necessities.
a coalition government which promised significant budget cuts to limit the deficit (I think you know about these arguments).
Yes, theyre always lots of fun, I dont think anyone disagrees with that.
was to promise that there are services which can be delivered more cheaply by moving online.
That said, if a local government agency is in the middle of the boondocks, is it not reasonable to assume they will continue to provide in-person service until the infrastructure supports online-only?
This then leaves them open to attack about those households who are not online, and the rural areas where there is little provision.
Fair enough. Still dont think it comes anywhere close to the level of "crisis", but Im not denying that it is a "problem".
Depending on your political point of view, you can see this as welcome deregulation which will allow private sector innovation to step in and solve the problem, or a political fig leaf which won't make any real difference but gives the current government the chance to say they're doing stuff.
Internets one of those funny things where, despite my conservative instincts, I dont have a ready answer. It probably depends a good deal on how easy or difficult it is to get the necessary permits to run lines, and what the level of competition is, and how big the ISPs margins are (if the profits per customer are low enough, theres a good chance it simply wont be worth it to run new lines).
Just because you want to push for improvement and progress doesnt mean you need to demean legitimate crisis (like imminent threat of death for a population, or war, or famine) by equating it with "do not have internet".
Seriously, get some perspective.
Have you actually seen "collateral murder"? There werent any war crimes in there, there was a friendly fire incident. Even the soldier's banter supports this fact.
Protip, try actually watching the un-edited video rather than taking everything assange has to say at face value.
Hate burst your ignorant bubble, but police are on record, breaking into houses, executing people (yes, murder), and absolutely NO ONE being prosecuted.
And yet, STILL no source to this supposedly on record incident, and not even enough specificity for me to be able to google it were I so inclined.
Sorry, without more than just the unsourced (and rather bold) claims of an Anonymous Coward, Im not gonna bother reading your wall of text. Facts are what counts, not your opinion.
Parent (me) asked for sources for his claims, and he provide a zillion MORE unsourced claims. How is that reasonable? You want me to do his legwork, and have to guess which incidents he is referring to?
For instance, Ive heard of deaths from tasers, but never of a case where the death was shown to be due to wrongdoing by the cops. Perhaps hes mixing that up with the "dont tase me bro" case where the dude resisted arrest and was deservedly tased?
Look, this isnt hard. If someone makes unsourced claims, and I challenge him on it, its up to HIM to provide SOME kind of proof that hes not full of crap. [Citation needed] on wikipedia doesnt mean that the READER needs to find the citations, it means the person making the claims does.
Racism and corruption at Nintendo and Eve Online?
Or in the Texas PD, where they would have had no cause to think there was racism prior to a break in? And as for corruption, none of those emails show any, sorry. Sounds kind of like you didnt bother to read them, and just assumed that the summary must be correct (are you new here?)
As for "havok", yes, if you look over the list of hacks over the last 6 months (including The Escapist, Eve Online, Nintendo, a number of Sony divisions, etc), it starts to look like havok. But yea, stick it to the escapist and all their racist, corrupt ways, right?
Yes, that wikipedia article is impressive. In the first 3 paragraphs they make vague, weasly statements, with no source, and then on the end tack on a reference to an article that appears to be an opinion piece. This is one of the reasons wikipedia can be dangerous-- if you dont know how to check the sources on questionable statements, you shouldnt be reading wikipedia.
Thanks for the link tho, maybe I can put it up for review so someone can actually try to find sources for the statements that it makes.