They are now actually aiding countries like China and Saudi Arabia by exposing all the US information and opinions on them.
We couldn't help Saudi Arabia any more if we tried. 9/11 hijackers were all Saudis, yet we have the President holding hands and kissing their King. We give them billions of dollars, and prop up their regime. You seriously drank the Kool Aid if you think this is going to do any damage to the US, or if you think that whatever damage it may do would be a bad thing.
The Saudis are tools, not friends, and everyone realizes. Tools == dickweeds and Tools == someone to be used.
Both are accurate.
Unfortunately propping up dickweeds has tended to backfire on the US in the past, but if you want to get your hands dirty in the clusterfuck hellhole that is the Middle East, it's pretty much unavoidable.
Oh no! Some multi-million dollar political constructs didn't make as much money as they thought fair for a short period of time!
Anndddd... the smaller businesses that rely on an amazon-based presence or folks who rely on payments through paypal (several of my friends are in that boat) are out of luck too, but hey, what's a little collateral damage when you're "sticking it to the man!"
How much of what Wikileaks revealed was of "illegal actions" and how much of it was the "did you hear what X thinks of Y? Shocking!" bullshit suitable for celebrity gossip rags?
Amongst nerds (which is pretty much whoever is following it on this site) - to 'hack' does not meant the same as 'to crack'.
Yes it does. This isn't the 70s anymore.
'Hack' now has multiple meanings of which are obvious in the context used.
Old-school 'Hackers' don't get to decide what the meaning of the word is -- society does. The dictionaries do. You can rail against it as much as you want; that's your choice, but it makes you seem out of touch.
"The problem is this "hacktivism" is doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch"."
If you think that the politicians need a reason to do this, then you're living on another planet.
They never need a "reason" to introduce things, but they at least need the public to not be outraged. If they think they won't face retaliation from a voting public, they'll go for it. If the worst they'll get is the 'meh' that they usually do when it comes to issues like these, they'll go for it and let the courts strike it down if they can't get away with this.
Oh yes, lets raise taxes during a recession. Brilliant. Its not like they should cut back spending. No, can't have that.
What spending? Where do you suggest they cut? Off the top of my head, three of the sections of the budget larger than any others are Social Security, Medicare, and Defense, three areas that are just as sacrosanct to the Republicans and neo-cons as they are to the Democrats. People make vague cries about "cutting waste," (far easier to say than to do) or limiting entitlements (the costs of which are insignificant) while ignoring the items that really eat up the budget.
I went to Catholic school, got along extremely well with the teachers and nuns (except for one guy... he was a bit out there) despite being agnostic. I'm friends with my mother's pastor still, and know he and others are generally good people.
You don't have to be a member of someone's religion to know whether he's a decent fellow or not.
Thou shalt not murder was in the bible, too. Should we not be allowed to enforce that law, either? Where is the ACLU to protect our "religious freedom" to murder people?
That makes the poor assumption that religion is required to craft a set of morals and what is not acceptable in a just society.
Unless you are Justin Blieber, no one is going know about your music unless you publicize it some way
Interesting, considering Bieber is only known because of the massive publicity blitz that's pushing him. He doesn't have a huge amount of talent (or at least, little that is currently displayed) and no one listens to him for the music; he's being targeted at the very valuable and profitable "teen heart-throb" demographic.
As an indie artist, I can't see how putting your stuff out there for free doesn't at least help somewhat with getting your name out there.
I don't think it will hurt! If you have something especially good, Youtube can be a fantastic way to build reputation. Now... it just has to be good, and something that people would like. And being able to include some crazy cat freaking out in the video would be good too.
Unfortunately they've stacked the system to raise some huge barriers to entry. They control the distribution channels, they control the all-important advertising and promotion channels. If you could break their hold on that, then we might be getting somewhere.
Why are you even making a "conservatism is bad" argument here? It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority. Liberal vs Conservative is not necessarily drawn in "non-moneyed interests versus moneyed interest" lines, nor does it mean that the left is not cozy to some big business interests. They are very interested in vigorous government pre-emptive intervention on the part of the media conglomerates.
They appear to be part of special-event or sponsored clips. I've never seen a Youtube add on a video that Joe Shmoe put up, but Crackle has a number of Married With Children episodes up (like this one) that break Youtube's normal 10-minute limit and come with unskippable ads.
And then no company will want to set up shop in your country again. Why would they, when the risk is driven up that high?
So, basically, you're saying countries should just let themselves be held hostage by corporations?
I'm saying they should no more be slaves to the government than anyone else should be. If they decide not to business in your country you get to -steal- all their assets? That's probably one of the few times that the WTO would come down hard on a country and I'd actually think it was justified.
Slashdot Mirror
They are now actually aiding countries like China and Saudi Arabia by exposing all the US information and opinions on them.
We couldn't help Saudi Arabia any more if we tried. 9/11 hijackers were all Saudis, yet we have the President holding hands and kissing their King. We give them billions of dollars, and prop up their regime. You seriously drank the Kool Aid if you think this is going to do any damage to the US, or if you think that whatever damage it may do would be a bad thing.
The Saudis are tools, not friends, and everyone realizes.
Tools == dickweeds
and
Tools == someone to be used.
Both are accurate.
Unfortunately propping up dickweeds has tended to backfire on the US in the past, but if you want to get your hands dirty in the clusterfuck hellhole that is the Middle East, it's pretty much unavoidable.
Oh no! Some multi-million dollar political constructs didn't make as much money as they thought fair for a short period of time!
Anndddd... the smaller businesses that rely on an amazon-based presence or folks who rely on payments through paypal (several of my friends are in that boat) are out of luck too, but hey, what's a little collateral damage when you're "sticking it to the man!"
I miss that guy. :-(
Trailers have lost a bit of their luster.
How much of what Wikileaks revealed was of "illegal actions" and how much of it was the "did you hear what X thinks of Y? Shocking!" bullshit suitable for celebrity gossip rags?
Nice of you to bend over and take it from the big corporations, Abcd1234.
Better to be a wannabe Robin Hood than a compliant drone too scared to say boo to a goose.
You failed the argument.
Amongst nerds (which is pretty much whoever is following it on this site) - to 'hack' does not meant the same as 'to crack'.
Yes it does. This isn't the 70s anymore.
'Hack' now has multiple meanings of which are obvious in the context used.
Old-school 'Hackers' don't get to decide what the meaning of the word is -- society does. The dictionaries do. You can rail against it as much as you want; that's your choice, but it makes you seem out of touch.
"The problem is this "hacktivism" is doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch"."
If you think that the politicians need a reason to do this, then you're living on another planet.
They never need a "reason" to introduce things, but they at least need the public to not be outraged. If they think they won't face retaliation from a voting public, they'll go for it. If the worst they'll get is the 'meh' that they usually do when it comes to issues like these, they'll go for it and let the courts strike it down if they can't get away with this.
So when anyone disproves the points you make, you just dismiss it as nothing more than substanceless ridicule?
49ers fan. These days I have both of you beat.
Oh yes, lets raise taxes during a recession. Brilliant. Its not like they should cut back spending. No, can't have that.
What spending? Where do you suggest they cut? Off the top of my head, three of the sections of the budget larger than any others are Social Security, Medicare, and Defense, three areas that are just as sacrosanct to the Republicans and neo-cons as they are to the Democrats. People make vague cries about "cutting waste," (far easier to say than to do) or limiting entitlements (the costs of which are insignificant) while ignoring the items that really eat up the budget.
This is why car analogies suck.
.... and do you get dental coverage working in the CIA?
That sort of nonsense does your cause little good.
Ugh. Mother Teresa was a terrible example.
I went to Catholic school, got along extremely well with the teachers and nuns (except for one guy... he was a bit out there) despite being agnostic. I'm friends with my mother's pastor still, and know he and others are generally good people.
You don't have to be a member of someone's religion to know whether he's a decent fellow or not.
On first reading, I just assumed he was talking about the Roman Catholic Church, their pedophiles and official cover-ups and enabling of pedophilia.
Thou shalt not murder was in the bible, too. Should we not be allowed to enforce that law, either? Where is the ACLU to protect our "religious freedom" to murder people?
That makes the poor assumption that religion is required to craft a set of morals and what is not acceptable in a just society.
Unless you are Justin Blieber, no one is going know about your music unless you publicize it some way
Interesting, considering Bieber is only known because of the massive publicity blitz that's pushing him. He doesn't have a huge amount of talent (or at least, little that is currently displayed) and no one listens to him for the music; he's being targeted at the very valuable and profitable "teen heart-throb" demographic.
As an indie artist, I can't see how putting your stuff out there for free doesn't at least help somewhat with getting your name out there.
I don't think it will hurt! If you have something especially good, Youtube can be a fantastic way to build reputation. Now... it just has to be good, and something that people would like. And being able to include some crazy cat freaking out in the video would be good too.
I don't think you should call yourself an artist if your first goal isn't to get your music to as many people as possible.
Then you sign with a major label; they're the only ones who can do that.
Start your own company
Unfortunately they've stacked the system to raise some huge barriers to entry. They control the distribution channels, they control the all-important advertising and promotion channels. If you could break their hold on that, then we might be getting somewhere.
I think we trashed his country, and a couple of its neighbors, quite a bit more.
And he's fine with that sacrifice. As long as it takes us down, that's really all that matters.
Why are you even making a "conservatism is bad" argument here? It's the left that has been the side more firmly in favor of vigorous copyright controls and enforcement, and it's the more leftist administration that is making this more of a priority. Liberal vs Conservative is not necessarily drawn in "non-moneyed interests versus moneyed interest" lines, nor does it mean that the left is not cozy to some big business interests. They are very interested in vigorous government pre-emptive intervention on the part of the media conglomerates.
Tax breaks == government money. There's no difference between a "tax break" and simply handing them a check for the same amount afterwards.
But even so, I would still say it was legal. It's a tourism project.
They appear to be part of special-event or sponsored clips. I've never seen a Youtube add on a video that Joe Shmoe put up, but Crackle has a number of Married With Children episodes up (like this one) that break Youtube's normal 10-minute limit and come with unskippable ads.
It's only treason if Mr. Assange is a US citizen. Because he's not, it's just bad luck.
The treason would probably be on the part of the army officer who leaked the documents to Wikileaks.
And then no company will want to set up shop in your country again. Why would they, when the risk is driven up that high?
So, basically, you're saying countries should just let themselves be held hostage by corporations?
I'm saying they should no more be slaves to the government than anyone else should be. If they decide not to business in your country you get to -steal- all their assets? That's probably one of the few times that the WTO would come down hard on a country and I'd actually think it was justified.