Calling our government "horribly, horribly corrupt" is nothing but hyperbolics that only serve the purpose of propping up the argument that nothing can be done short of revolution.
The civil rights sit-ins are not the same as the temper tantrum being thrown by Anonymous.
The cause of the civil rights protesters was just. They did break laws to achieve their aims. They also knowingly accepted the very likely (unlike the script kiddies' very unlikely chance) of arrest or worse. Their willingness to sacrifice added to the cause. Remaining peaceful (largely) when confronted with violence added to the cause.
Anonymous is in it for the lulz and the destruction.
Perhaps it's because if you picket legally you won't get arrested. It's a difficult concept but legal protests are legal as long as they continue to obey the relevant laws. Of course there's more to lose when engaging in an illegal activity. The Anonymous thugs aren't heroes that should be lionized. They can't be bothered with an actual protest because they are too busy smashing windows.
Really, I didn't trample on your ability to speak. I just killed your family because of what you said. That totally isn't affecting your ability to speak freely.
You might want to look into the Freedom of Information Act.
It's where we, the people, politely ask our government to tell us their secrets.
Is the winning touchdown/goal/whatever really the *winning* one since any other the others that preceded it were necessary to achieve the win? Your vote *is* insignificant. Your vote combine with all the other similar is less so. Is your one vote ever likely going to change the system on its own? No. And that's the point. Your vote along with all the others is what matter.
If you think ours is the epitome of corrupt you should see some of the other governments people have put up with.
Corrupt? Yes. (Redundant question. All politics are corrupt at some level). Horribly, horribly corrupt? Only if you ignore all the actually horribly, horribly corrupt governments out there.
Apathetic in general or doesn't care that a(n insult to) weasel(s) found out he had to play by the rules. Or they do care and want to reward Amazon for supporting freedom of association.
With a sit in, the protestor faces the (immediate) risk of arrest. With a sit in once they are asked to leave and they refuse it becomes trespass and the cops can be called in to clear them out. Not so with a DDoS.
Equating DDoS with sit-ins is a disservice to the sit-in as a valid form of protest.
Of course they never launched that attack. They never tried and spectacularly (in its lack of effect) failed. To say that they tried would be admitting they were as effective as a gnat is against a freight train.
You don't defend with retaliation. You deter with retaliation. The Anonymous thugs were not defending anything. Wikileaks was already cut off when they went into "action". The damage was done, their "defense" was too late. And now they've made sure no sane business will work with Wikileaks lest the mob turn on them too on some whim as well as evaporating whatever little goodwill the public had left for Wikileaks.
I won't say what I did but I will say what I didn't do: throw a temper tantrum or resort to petty thuggery.
There are still four boxes. You don't get to use the fourth while you still have the first three. Just because the first three are inconvenient to you is not an excuse to not use them.
Slashdot Mirror
My singular vote is, and should be, insignificant in a properly functioning system.
Calling our government "horribly, horribly corrupt" is nothing but hyperbolics that only serve the purpose of propping up the argument that nothing can be done short of revolution.
The civil rights sit-ins are not the same as the temper tantrum being thrown by Anonymous.
The cause of the civil rights protesters was just. They did break laws to achieve their aims. They also knowingly accepted the very likely (unlike the script kiddies' very unlikely chance) of arrest or worse. Their willingness to sacrifice added to the cause. Remaining peaceful (largely) when confronted with violence added to the cause.
Anonymous is in it for the lulz and the destruction.
Start a facebook (or whatever is popular) campaign.
Cancel your Mastercard credit cards and tell them why you are doing so.
Don't use services that use Mastercard systems and explain the reason for not using someone's service.
Perhaps it's because if you picket legally you won't get arrested. It's a difficult concept but legal protests are legal as long as they continue to obey the relevant laws. Of course there's more to lose when engaging in an illegal activity. The Anonymous thugs aren't heroes that should be lionized. They can't be bothered with an actual protest because they are too busy smashing windows.
Epic history fail.
And you can be against the Anonymous thuggery and the DDoSing of Wikileaks (while not support Wikileaks current actions) at the same time.
Really, I didn't trample on your ability to speak. I just killed your family because of what you said. That totally isn't affecting your ability to speak freely.
Trying takes effort.
You might want to look into the Freedom of Information Act.
It's where we, the people, politely ask our government to tell us their secrets.
Is the winning touchdown/goal/whatever really the *winning* one since any other the others that preceded it were necessary to achieve the win? Your vote *is* insignificant. Your vote combine with all the other similar is less so. Is your one vote ever likely going to change the system on its own? No. And that's the point. Your vote along with all the others is what matter.
If you think ours is the epitome of corrupt you should see some of the other governments people have put up with.
Corrupt? Yes. (Redundant question. All politics are corrupt at some level). Horribly, horribly corrupt? Only if you ignore all the actually horribly, horribly corrupt governments out there.
So change freedom of speech to freedom of association.
The Anonymous thugs are out to stifle freedom of association. Amazon should be free to associate or disassociate as they please.
If you can't associate freely you can't speak freely because who you are speaking with (or not with) will draw retribution.
More like cyber-thuggery.
Apathetic in general or doesn't care that a(n insult to) weasel(s) found out he had to play by the rules. Or they do care and want to reward Amazon for supporting freedom of association.
Simple. If you are not paid to carry a company phone after hours, don't. Leave it at home or on your desk. Voicemail exists for a reason.
If you are paid to be on call 24/7/365.25 carry a personal phone and forward the number to that one.
Has Wikileaks told Anonymous to stop? Especially when it'd be in their "good guy" interests to do so?
I thought Wikileaks doesn't approve or disapprove of the attacks, a tacit condoning of the attacks by not condemning them.
The people bending logic to its limits to make DDoS a valid form of protest won't care about trifling things like fire codes.
With a sit in, the protestor faces the (immediate) risk of arrest. With a sit in once they are asked to leave and they refuse it becomes trespass and the cops can be called in to clear them out. Not so with a DDoS.
Equating DDoS with sit-ins is a disservice to the sit-in as a valid form of protest.
Of course they never launched that attack. They never tried and spectacularly (in its lack of effect) failed. To say that they tried would be admitting they were as effective as a gnat is against a freight train.
Go for the newborns. Babies get gamey in a couple weeks.
And here I thought pregnancy was a sign of a parasitic infection transmitted by intercourse.
Internet libertarian: I am free to do as I please and you are free to do as I demand when I demand it.
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, and then ammo box. Use in that order.
You don't defend with retaliation. You deter with retaliation. The Anonymous thugs were not defending anything. Wikileaks was already cut off when they went into "action". The damage was done, their "defense" was too late. And now they've made sure no sane business will work with Wikileaks lest the mob turn on them too on some whim as well as evaporating whatever little goodwill the public had left for Wikileaks.
I won't say what I did but I will say what I didn't do: throw a temper tantrum or resort to petty thuggery.
There are still four boxes. You don't get to use the fourth while you still have the first three. Just because the first three are inconvenient to you is not an excuse to not use them.