the recent actions of anonymous merely opened up the issue of whether a DDoS can be considered a legitimate form of non-violent political protest. Hell I'd never even considered the possibility before but there's a compelling argument for it.
This merely affirms the point that any tool can be used for multiple purposes and by different people. Protesters can have a sit in in front of a store, gangs of teenagers can sit looking menacing scaring off customers. etc etc.
where did I say anything about any forcefulness or rapeplay?
All of the examples with the exception of pulling a muscle in her back were accompanied with giggles or moans and have nothing to do with pretending force. You've never had a girl whisper "*giggle*,no,we shouldn't" while the 2 of you try not to wake up someone in the next room? If not I feel sorry for you.
I've never picked up a drunk girl or taken advantage of anyone who was drunk though nice absurd strawman there. I'm just a sucker for the long term monogamous committed relationships with a realist view on sex.
Sure you can replace "you meet at a bar in New Orleans." with "who you don't explicitly trust" and it becomes even better advice.
If someone gets mad at you and sets out to screw you over the lack of any uttering of "no" matters not at all unless you record all your sexual encounters as your partner can claim whatever they want.
My problem is that simplifying it down saying that if someone says "no" to pack up and go home ignores real issues, I'm not being facetious when I say that "no" really, genuinely can have different meanings in context. (packing up and going home might even lead to your partner getting mad at you and cause more problems.)
In the context of my girlfriend saying "no" as I go to get out of bed and her pulling me back down it really genuinely can mean "no, don't go, I want to have more sex".
if the guy feels bad afterwards, it goes like this.
She raped me.
No I didn't .
Did he say "no" uh.. yes but he meant "no, a little to the left". No really, you don't understand... he was asking for it and enthusiastic from start to finish.
out of fashion? The point is that what someone is doing at the time makes all the difference.
Your approach sounds lovely and clear on paper until you try to apply it to real life with real people. If all those situations are rape simply because someone said "no" at some point with no regard to context or what they were doing at the time then it would mean my girlfriend has raped me many times, which is absurd.
a wail of "no" when you're stopping often does mean "no, keep going", a simply "no" does not make it rape if the other persons actions at the time provide different context.
and far more importantly it can be rape without "no" ever being uttered if the person clearly in any way expresses that they don't want to have sex.
the finer points however get a little more complex. for example in practice:
"no we shouldn't!" means "yes" "no we can't!" means "yes but shhhhh" and even a shriek of "ACK! NO! eeee!" confusingly often means "kiss there again!" "No" while grabbing your head and pulling it a little to the left or right can simply mean "no, a little to the left/right" "No" while you're slowing down can mean "speed up" or if uttered while speeding up can mean "slow down" "Nooo, damnit!" while doing something acrobatic can mean "Ah, my back, I've pulled something.... but don't stop" depending on physical actions
Meanwhile without any verbal "no" simply pushing you away or grabbing a hand with the appropriate expression can mean very clearly "no".
I was referring to the regulation of ISP's rather than the internet. There are anticompetitive practices and I'd like a large choice of ISP's rather than having to pick between 2 terrible ones.
If my girlfriend wakes me up with a blowjob is that rape? I'm unconscious when she starts, she doesn't ask my permission. yet still the answer is : hell no.
If my girlfriend and I are having sex and I come just before her then the sensation if she keeps going can be overwhelming or even painful. If I utter "wait, stop" but she's a bit too far gone and close to the edge herself to stop and keeps going that doesn't make it rape. It's somewhat rude but it would be absurd to say I was being raped in that scenario.
It says something about the warped view people have on these issues that you have to swap it around male-female in order for anyone to even consider the matter sanely.
There's still a requirement for a certain amount of regulation no matter how many companies are in the field, namely to ensure that people are given accurate information so false advertising regulations, to ensure that contracts are enforced and to prevent anticompetitive practices. even in a market with many competitors (although in a model with infinite traders you're good) deep pockets can give you an unfair advantage. for the grocery store example: if you have deep pockets you can sell loss leaders until your competitors in a town have been driven out of business and then jack up the prices. etc etc
well they'll have to line up behind every single other organization who's documents have ever been put on wikileaks when it comes to the data. Good luck with that.
pretty much every phone has similar systems. phones can be turned on remotely, have components turned on and even place a call at the behest of whoever has the right keys.
This was possible for a long time with phones yet it wasn't phone tracking which for the most part killed phone theft but remote kill switches. I don't like the implications but it could cut down on theft a lot.
"here you go, we found this drive and after looking through it we decided it must be yours, we were concerned that perhaps the data on it might be corrupted or lost in transit so we backed it up to a very reliable network of servers, if anything has happened to your data you can retrieve a copy from this URL..."
"Here you go, we found this drive and after looking through it we decided it must be yours, we were afraid that perhaps the data on the disk might be lost or corrupted in transit so we backed it up to a very reliable global network and if the data has gotten corrupted in transit you can retrieve a copy from this URL"
it might still cause a problem with copyright but then lots of stuff on wikileaks probably has some kind of copyright protection.
And the point of a protest is to make noise, get noticed and generally disrupt the local area and traffic. They intend to disrupt things. they intend to pack the street with more people than are on it normally. If protesters delay an ambulance they may not intend to kill anyone yet they still might unintentionally. That doesn't make the protest a violent one even in such an unlikely situation.
If they disrupt a voip call(assuming the local network admins are retards who don't prioritizee voip traffic) they didn't intend to any more than the protesters intended to slow the ambulance. It comes about as a side effect of the general disruption they very intentionally caused. That doesn't make the protest a violent one even in such an unlikely situation.
If you can't understand the difference between violent and non violent protest then you've got some serious problems with your moral compass and a lack of common sense.
I'd settle for a cert signed by a few organizations like the pirate party and any other organizations who could vouch for a particular server. If I really needed to make sure it was secure then I wouldn't care too much about that green padlock symbol so much as it being signed by a number of organizations I do trust who themselves publish their public keys on their own websites in various hard-to-tamper formats.
Forget false flag ops. What are the real wikileaks sites now???
Last time I checked wikileaks used self signed certs and at this point I'd love to simply see a interview with assange where he lists the "official" wikileaks sites and reads out some of their SSL certs.
is wikileaks.org still in the hands of the wikileaks organization or does the DHS control it now or some third party? Or has it just been infected with malware to add a redirect?
Is their twitter account really them?
is there even any way for anyone to anonymously submit documents any more?
every country has this shit, if anything it's that americans talk about it 1: because they're unlikely to be dragged from their beds and killed for speaking out. 2: sometimes things actually change.
A great deal of wikileaks supporters are americans who want to root out the corruption in their own government.
Those mean old activists bulling the multi billion international corporation. And having the GALL to suggest other people not do business with a company which is blocking their donations.
Slashdot Mirror
the recent actions of anonymous merely opened up the issue of whether a DDoS can be considered a legitimate form of non-violent political protest.
Hell I'd never even considered the possibility before but there's a compelling argument for it.
This merely affirms the point that any tool can be used for multiple purposes and by different people.
Protesters can have a sit in in front of a store, gangs of teenagers can sit looking menacing scaring off customers.
etc etc.
where did I say anything about any forcefulness or rapeplay?
All of the examples with the exception of pulling a muscle in her back were accompanied with giggles or moans and have nothing to do with pretending force.
You've never had a girl whisper "*giggle*,no,we shouldn't" while the 2 of you try not to wake up someone in the next room? If not I feel sorry for you.
I've never picked up a drunk girl or taken advantage of anyone who was drunk though nice absurd strawman there.
I'm just a sucker for the long term monogamous committed relationships with a realist view on sex.
I'd probably have a different view with regards to my roomate/acquaintance if we'd had sex the night before and gone to sleep together.
As for the strap on how I reacted upon waking up would probably be the big decider there, if I went along with it or get into it then she'd be good.
Sure you can replace "you meet at a bar in New Orleans." with "who you don't explicitly trust" and it becomes even better advice.
If someone gets mad at you and sets out to screw you over the lack of any uttering of "no" matters not at all unless you record all your sexual encounters as your partner can claim whatever they want.
My problem is that simplifying it down saying that if someone says "no" to pack up and go home ignores real issues, I'm not being facetious when I say that "no" really, genuinely can have different meanings in context.
(packing up and going home might even lead to your partner getting mad at you and cause more problems.)
In the context of my girlfriend saying "no" as I go to get out of bed and her pulling me back down it really genuinely can mean "no, don't go, I want to have more sex".
Arithmetic is math in the same way that paint by numbers is fine art.
This explains it pretty well:
http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
Right so lets swap it around.
if the guy feels bad afterwards, it goes like this.
She raped me.
No I didn't .
Did he say "no"
uh.. yes but he meant "no, a little to the left".
No really, you don't understand...
he was asking for it and enthusiastic from start to finish.
see the absurdity yet?
If my scenario as written is rape then there is something very very wrong with the legislation as written.
Mainly I just detest the simplistic statements which sound great on paper but which are absurd in real life.
Assange's case I'm going to sit back and watch, he sounds like a creep either way.
out of fashion?
The point is that what someone is doing at the time makes all the difference.
Your approach sounds lovely and clear on paper until you try to apply it to real life with real people.
If all those situations are rape simply because someone said "no" at some point with no regard to context or what they were doing at the time then it would mean my girlfriend has raped me many times, which is absurd.
a wail of "no" when you're stopping often does mean "no, keep going", a simply "no" does not make it rape if the other persons actions at the time provide different context.
and far more importantly it can be rape without "no" ever being uttered if the person clearly in any way expresses that they don't want to have sex.
the finer points however get a little more complex.
for example in practice:
"no we shouldn't!" means "yes"
"no we can't!" means "yes but shhhhh"
and even a shriek of "ACK! NO! eeee!" confusingly often means "kiss there again!"
"No" while grabbing your head and pulling it a little to the left or right can simply mean "no, a little to the left/right"
"No" while you're slowing down can mean "speed up" or if uttered while speeding up can mean "slow down"
"Nooo, damnit!" while doing something acrobatic can mean "Ah, my back, I've pulled something.... but don't stop" depending on physical actions
Meanwhile without any verbal "no" simply pushing you away or grabbing a hand with the appropriate expression can mean very clearly "no".
I was referring to the regulation of ISP's rather than the internet.
There are anticompetitive practices and I'd like a large choice of ISP's rather than having to pick between 2 terrible ones.
TFA is of course completely separate.
If my girlfriend wakes me up with a blowjob is that rape?
I'm unconscious when she starts, she doesn't ask my permission.
yet still the answer is : hell no.
If my girlfriend and I are having sex and I come just before her then the sensation if she keeps going can be overwhelming or even painful.
If I utter "wait, stop" but she's a bit too far gone and close to the edge herself to stop and keeps going that doesn't make it rape.
It's somewhat rude but it would be absurd to say I was being raped in that scenario.
It says something about the warped view people have on these issues that you have to swap it around male-female in order for anyone to even consider the matter sanely.
There's still a requirement for a certain amount of regulation no matter how many companies are in the field, namely to ensure that people are given accurate information so false advertising regulations, to ensure that contracts are enforced and to prevent anticompetitive practices.
even in a market with many competitors (although in a model with infinite traders you're good) deep pockets can give you an unfair advantage.
for the grocery store example: if you have deep pockets you can sell loss leaders until your competitors in a town have been driven out of business and then jack up the prices.
etc etc
well they'll have to line up behind every single other organization who's documents have ever been put on wikileaks when it comes to the data.
Good luck with that.
[citation needed]
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
even schneier tends to fall on the side of it all being software.
so no.
It's not a myth.
for the last 10 years every phone I've had, even the non-smartphones have had a respectable amount of software.
perhaps if you carry a brick from the 1980's you might not need to worry about this.
pretty much every phone has similar systems.
phones can be turned on remotely, have components turned on and even place a call at the behest of whoever has the right keys.
unless you physically take out the battery your phone could be transmitting everything you say already.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
of course it will be misused eventually but such tech isn't new, it's been around for years.
This was possible for a long time with phones yet it wasn't phone tracking which for the most part killed phone theft but remote kill switches.
I don't like the implications but it could cut down on theft a lot.
"here you go, we found this drive and after looking through it we decided it must be yours, we were concerned that perhaps the data on it might be corrupted or lost in transit so we backed it up to a very reliable network of servers, if anything has happened to your data you can retrieve a copy from this URL..."
Just send it back to them with this letter:
"Here you go, we found this drive and after looking through it we decided it must be yours, we were afraid that perhaps the data on the disk might be lost or corrupted in transit so we backed it up to a very reliable global network and if the data has gotten corrupted in transit you can retrieve a copy from this URL"
it might still cause a problem with copyright but then lots of stuff on wikileaks probably has some kind of copyright protection.
And the point of a protest is to make noise, get noticed and generally disrupt the local area and traffic.
They intend to disrupt things. they intend to pack the street with more people than are on it normally.
If protesters delay an ambulance they may not intend to kill anyone yet they still might unintentionally.
That doesn't make the protest a violent one even in such an unlikely situation.
If they disrupt a voip call(assuming the local network admins are retards who don't prioritizee voip traffic) they didn't intend to any more than the protesters intended to slow the ambulance.
It comes about as a side effect of the general disruption they very intentionally caused.
That doesn't make the protest a violent one even in such an unlikely situation.
If you can't understand the difference between violent and non violent protest then you've got some serious problems with your moral compass and a lack of common sense.
I'd settle for a cert signed by a few organizations like the pirate party and any other organizations who could vouch for a particular server.
If I really needed to make sure it was secure then I wouldn't care too much about that green padlock symbol so much as it being signed by a number of organizations I do trust who themselves publish their public keys on their own websites in various hard-to-tamper formats.
hell, is there even any verifiable way to communicate with any wikileaks staff any more?
Any PGP public keys? etc etc
Forget false flag ops.
What are the real wikileaks sites now???
Last time I checked wikileaks used self signed certs and at this point I'd love to simply see a interview with assange where he lists the "official" wikileaks sites and reads out some of their SSL certs.
is wikileaks.org still in the hands of the wikileaks organization or does the DHS control it now or some third party?
Or has it just been infected with malware to add a redirect?
Is their twitter account really them?
is there even any way for anyone to anonymously submit documents any more?
I imagine because they have lots of lawyers and money and he does not.
every country has this shit, if anything it's that americans talk about it
1: because they're unlikely to be dragged from their beds and killed for speaking out.
2: sometimes things actually change.
A great deal of wikileaks supporters are americans who want to root out the corruption in their own government.
Those mean old activists bulling the multi billion international corporation.
And having the GALL to suggest other people not do business with a company which is blocking their donations.
when will these peasants learn!