Looking at whois, "cookssource.com" was registered six months ago.
Now a lot of people know who they are, so points for Slashdot giving them free advertising, as well as anybody else who clicked through to such an obvious "HEY LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY." Look for a statement of contrition and a re-launch with original content (which they probably already have on the backburner).
No matter how much we plead with them the group we deal with has their hands tied because the IT department refuses to upgrade
This is what's called "a bad client." It's analogous to writing your code for them in VB4 because they don't want to "upgrade" to msvcrt50.dll (or whatever it was called). I understand that as a large company they may have yours over a barrel and that you really don't have any choice if you want to survive, in which case you should be treating them as if they're asking you to write in COBOL. Why does IE6 cause peoples' brains to forget this basic-business stuff? You start charging $400/hr to implement IE6 and you'll see companies figuring out how to upgrade their standard browser.
But in the real world, investing is very different, and plenty of legal responsibility is heaped upon the board of directors to act in the investor's best financial interest.
Also in the real world, boardmembers and company officers have stacked the deck against ever having to worry about duty-of-care suits. The "how it is" you describe is just as rare and fanciful as the OP's idea that one investor would buy up a failing asset and (attempt to) bring it back to life, falling for the sunk-cost fallacy or something.
Actually, while reading the comments on the article, I found this rather amazing link to a "street view" care of Google that lets you walk right through there from the comfort of your own PC terminal.
Not only that, but if you rotate the view, you'll see some kind of constable guy standing right next to the GoogleCam. Even da popo be cockblockin' royalties from the Herr'tage wallet.
So you're saying that George W. Bush could have had people charged with..."abuse?" if he really didn't like being called "shrub?" Which "abuse" law are you referring to?
Again - the leak should be making a point. It should be a smoking gun. There should be something so egregious that it's worth ignoring personal duty and putting people at risk to bring light to an issue that so badly needs it.
Looks like somebody's got a case of the "s'postas."
You don't get to decide this. Just because you don't value whatever was released doesn't mean nobody else does and that it shouldn't have happened. Also, the DoD themselves have admitted that there isn't any evidence that anybody has been harmed as a result of Wikileaks's publication choices, so you can stop with that tired canard. I do think it's funny that you would overstep your bounds and pass judgement on Manning's attitude toward personal duty. Condescending, to say the least.
Exactly what was the big story that justified publishing this material?
That the DoD would respond as your parent said, with self-preservation in mind. This revealed them to be idiots when the facts revealed themselves as facts. The DoD didn't care what was in it, they just responded like a priestly sexual abuse victim: with pure anger and vengeance. Turns out they're really just a bunch of crybabies who fly off half-cocked. What a wonderful tradition of discipline and honor you have there, Eisenhower.
I don't like him at all. I believe he is doing things for the wrong reason.
Why do you care to fantasize about why he's doing it? Facts are facts, and he achieves the same result whether you dig his schtick or not. Dick Cheney is also a jerk, and sometimes the only thing a bully understands is violence. Political bullies moreso.
If anything, he could shut up a bit, but he appears to be an expert troll and the mass media is helpless in going to work for him. It's a pretty rare skill and I'm not even sure someone who is purely altruistic (i.e. to your preferences) could get it done. Degradation is for snobs.
Now the key thing with both of these kinds of spambots is that they do not include any links initially. A couple weeks after posting they come back and change their signature, which results in spam links appearing under all of their previous posts.
FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".
Which is when Domscheit-Berg tries to change the subject, gets all pissy and starts whining about how nobody likes Assange.
Ontario for a counter example has the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) and the RCMP are purely Federal here.
So you're saying that in Ontario the RCMP are *prohibited* from enforcing local laws? That was the OP's point, that there are jurisdictional differences between the RCMP and the FBI.
paying for sex is illegal... unless you film it with the intent to sell the video, in which case it's fine.
I don't even think you have to sell it. The way it was explained to me: it's illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, but it's legal to pay people to have sex with each other.
I think that scenario is just as likely as the idea the US or other western government is behind the rape charges... although I also think NEITHER scenario is likely.
Yeah, but it doesn't really matter who's behind it, right? It serves their interests regardless.
Anything even remotely troublesome that may happen to him or wikileaks will instantly result in a flurry of Pentagon-blaming hand-waving tweets from his twitter feed,
The powers that be may not care whether people think dark forces brought him harm. It make for a hell of a deterrent, that's for sure.
But how does Assuage have any credibility either way? How do we know that everything he posts on Wikileaks is legit and he didn't make the shit up?
Do you have any evidence that anything on the site is made up, or are you just concern-trolling conspiracies? I mean really, be serious, wouldn't he have egg on his face by now? I'm sure the Pentagon and Obama administration would have publicized any irregularities, but the only thing they've been able to come up with is a fake rape charge and an unsupported charge of him having "blood on his hands." Guess what? The Pentagon itself said this week that there isn't any evidence that any Afghans named in the War Diaries have been harmed.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what "hacker" culture does facebook have.
Well, in addition to having oldschool keyboards that still have question marks, Facebook employees have an example of hacker culture in releasing their HipHop PHP runtime to the world.
His irresponsible behavior, by not redacting the documents, will quite likely get people killed. That is not the US government's or Amnesty's responsibility
Afghans who interact with US forces are going to get killed anyway, it doesn't matter what documents are released.
DSL. If you can't live without cable modem, then that's the choice you've made. Those with more flexible connectivity criteria have more options and are not tied to the cable company (Rogers or otherwise). You're pretty much in a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" situation.
Slashdot Mirror
They're going to be too far in debt responding to lawsuits
I think you're getting ahead of yourself, have any suits been filed?
Looking at whois, "cookssource.com" was registered six months ago.
Now a lot of people know who they are, so points for Slashdot giving them free advertising, as well as anybody else who clicked through to such an obvious "HEY LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY." Look for a statement of contrition and a re-launch with original content (which they probably already have on the backburner).
Suckers!
No matter how much we plead with them the group we deal with has their hands tied because the IT department refuses to upgrade
This is what's called "a bad client." It's analogous to writing your code for them in VB4 because they don't want to "upgrade" to msvcrt50.dll (or whatever it was called). I understand that as a large company they may have yours over a barrel and that you really don't have any choice if you want to survive, in which case you should be treating them as if they're asking you to write in COBOL. Why does IE6 cause peoples' brains to forget this basic-business stuff? You start charging $400/hr to implement IE6 and you'll see companies figuring out how to upgrade their standard browser.
as opposed to Iraqi and Afghan governments that sponsored the terrorists.
Hi, I'm having a little trouble understanding your comment, could you elaborate on the following terms?
"the terrorists"
and
"sponsored"
Thanks!
P.S. If you don't reply, I'll assume you regret and retract your comment.
But in the real world, investing is very different, and plenty of legal responsibility is heaped upon the board of directors to act in the investor's best financial interest.
Also in the real world, boardmembers and company officers have stacked the deck against ever having to worry about duty-of-care suits. The "how it is" you describe is just as rare and fanciful as the OP's idea that one investor would buy up a failing asset and (attempt to) bring it back to life, falling for the sunk-cost fallacy or something.
Not only that, but if you rotate the view, you'll see some kind of constable guy standing right next to the GoogleCam. Even da popo be cockblockin' royalties from the Herr'tage wallet.
So you're saying that George W. Bush could have had people charged with..."abuse?" if he really didn't like being called "shrub?" Which "abuse" law are you referring to?
Again - the leak should be making a point. It should be a smoking gun. There should be something so egregious that it's worth ignoring personal duty and putting people at risk to bring light to an issue that so badly needs it.
Looks like somebody's got a case of the "s'postas."
You don't get to decide this. Just because you don't value whatever was released doesn't mean nobody else does and that it shouldn't have happened. Also, the DoD themselves have admitted that there isn't any evidence that anybody has been harmed as a result of Wikileaks's publication choices, so you can stop with that tired canard. I do think it's funny that you would overstep your bounds and pass judgement on Manning's attitude toward personal duty. Condescending, to say the least.
Exactly what was the big story that justified publishing this material?
That the DoD would respond as your parent said, with self-preservation in mind. This revealed them to be idiots when the facts revealed themselves as facts. The DoD didn't care what was in it, they just responded like a priestly sexual abuse victim: with pure anger and vengeance. Turns out they're really just a bunch of crybabies who fly off half-cocked. What a wonderful tradition of discipline and honor you have there, Eisenhower.
All people involved acted like asses on 'both' sides.
Congratulations on your gymnastic equivocation, but from where I sit lying is worse than having an abrasive personality.
I don't like him at all. I believe he is doing things for the wrong reason.
Why do you care to fantasize about why he's doing it? Facts are facts, and he achieves the same result whether you dig his schtick or not. Dick Cheney is also a jerk, and sometimes the only thing a bully understands is violence. Political bullies moreso.
If anything, he could shut up a bit, but he appears to be an expert troll and the mass media is helpless in going to work for him. It's a pretty rare skill and I'm not even sure someone who is purely altruistic (i.e. to your preferences) could get it done. Degradation is for snobs.
Now the key thing with both of these kinds of spambots is that they do not include any links initially. A couple weeks after posting they come back and change their signature, which results in spam links appearing under all of their previous posts.
You might consider disabling .sigs.
FTA: "When he quizzed Assange in an online chat, Assange responded by accusing Domscheit-Berg of leaking information about discontent within WikiLeaks to a columnist for Newsweek".
Which is when Domscheit-Berg tries to change the subject, gets all pissy and starts whining about how nobody likes Assange.
You know, FTA...
Even the sourced stuff is usually bullshit.
It's not bullshit that Assange is free to leave Sweden now, but do continue quibbling about minor details.
Ontario for a counter example has the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) and the RCMP are purely Federal here.
So you're saying that in Ontario the RCMP are *prohibited* from enforcing local laws? That was the OP's point, that there are jurisdictional differences between the RCMP and the FBI.
I don't even think you have to sell it. The way it was explained to me: it's illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, but it's legal to pay people to have sex with each other.
I think that scenario is just as likely as the idea the US or other western government is behind the rape charges... although I also think NEITHER scenario is likely.
Yeah, but it doesn't really matter who's behind it, right? It serves their interests regardless.
Anything even remotely troublesome that may happen to him or wikileaks will instantly result in a flurry of Pentagon-blaming hand-waving tweets from his twitter feed,
The powers that be may not care whether people think dark forces brought him harm. It make for a hell of a deterrent, that's for sure.
But how does Assuage have any credibility either way? How do we know that everything he posts on Wikileaks is legit and he didn't make the shit up?
Do you have any evidence that anything on the site is made up, or are you just concern-trolling conspiracies? I mean really, be serious, wouldn't he have egg on his face by now? I'm sure the Pentagon and Obama administration would have publicized any irregularities, but the only thing they've been able to come up with is a fake rape charge and an unsupported charge of him having "blood on his hands." Guess what? The Pentagon itself said this week that there isn't any evidence that any Afghans named in the War Diaries have been harmed.
As a C student I'm completely enraged by the teachers flawed standardized tests.
As an B student I'm totaly in agreeing with u.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what "hacker" culture does facebook have.
Well, in addition to having oldschool keyboards that still have question marks, Facebook employees have an example of hacker culture in releasing their HipHop PHP runtime to the world.
His irresponsible behavior, by not redacting the documents, will quite likely get people killed. That is not the US government's or Amnesty's responsibility
Afghans who interact with US forces are going to get killed anyway, it doesn't matter what documents are released.
It's just not very clear how the second statement follows from the first one.
"...and then a miracle occurs"
I'm pretty skeptical about this story.
And switch to what, exactly?
DSL. If you can't live without cable modem, then that's the choice you've made. Those with more flexible connectivity criteria have more options and are not tied to the cable company (Rogers or otherwise). You're pretty much in a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" situation.
If anyone doesn't like anything you like, they must be retarded or shills.
Thank you for your input, Maureen O'Gara.