I mentioned it was a repost. On her site, when she posted this, she used a picture of a man on a couch in between two women, snuggled up to one and secretly holding the other one's hand. It had a caption about revenge for romantic reasons.
I think you are being a little pedantic about this. I may have gotten some details wrong, but the point is, she has published an article about getting revenge.
So you believe that corporations should be allowed to use any old dirty tricks they want, and we should simply wait until enough people catch on and decide not to do business with them? That approach leads to fascism, my friend, and then you won't get to vote with your wallet, because there won't be any non-fascist options.
What, exactly, is the property of ISPs? The public land their wires pass over and under? I don't think so. The public airwaves their signals pass over? Again, not their property. The physical wires themselves? Okay, let them put those wires some place they own, and then they can have total control over them. Until then, the wires are NOT their property.
The do not call list is not censorship. It is an opt in plan. It allows the owner of a telephone to control their personal property. "Free speech" does not give you the right to interrupt me, in my house, at dinner, sorry.
It is better for a democratically elected government to control a shared resource than it is for an unaccountable monopoly powered private enterprise to have control. Those are your only two options: control it democratically, or let the powerful control it.
The report says that. Follow the timeline. Assange meets woman A, who arranged a party for him and put him up. They have sex. They hang out for days. She arranges another party. He meets woman B, who practically stalks him. They have sex. They go out for breakfast the next morning. Women A and B meet, compare notes. They realize he had condomless sex with both of them. They want him to get tested for HIV. He refuses. They both go to the police. The original prosecutor drops the charges, says there is no case. Months later, a new prosecutor (who just so happens to be instrumental in pushing the new Swedish anti-rape laws) convinces the women to reopen the case.
These facts have been reported in the UK Guardian and many, many other places.
And another fun fact, Woman A has posted an essay on her blog about using the legal system to extract revenge on men who have wronged a woman romantically.
Just to be clear, in the transcripts of Slashdotter's sexual exploits, when you read something along the lines of [REDACTED] kissed [REDACTED] on the [REDACTED], what that actually means is something like JOE SLASHDOT kissed HIS GRANDMA on the CHEEK.
Assange tried to sidestep the investigation by turning himself in to Scotland Yard?!? You have an interesting definition of 'sidestep.' And to repeat, NO ONE is opposing investigation! Why do you keep claiming your opponents in this debate are opposing investigation?
Nobody is saying that Julian shouldn't be questioned. We are saying, the facts, as outlined in the police report, show a particular pattern of behavior from the women in question. That pattern, hanging out with the guy for days afterward, throwing a party for him, and so on, do not indicate that the women felt that any sort of crime had taken place until they met each other and determined that Julian was sleeping with them both. Actually, several people HAVE said that Julian does not need to be questioned. That includes the original prosecutor. The fellow prosecuting now was also instrumental in getting Sweden's rape laws changed to their current incarnation. Coincidence? Possibly.
I hear two things being said, quite clearly. One: no one is guilty until PROVEN innocent. Two: the women did not behave like rape victims, they behaved like jilted lovers.
We will win, and enact real communism here in America. All you bourgeois fuckwits will be put up against the wall and shot. Then we will invite Al Qaeda in to tear down churches and put up mosques. We will make it compulsory for white women to have sex with big black studs. In short, our goal of turning all white, male Americans into sex slaves for brown skinned foreigners is almost complete, and there is nothing you can do to stop us, bwahaha.
So in Sweden you are guilty until proven innocent? I know that women's groups in Sweden were trying to make rape a "guilty until proven innocent" crime, but I thought the Swedes sensibly rejected that unjust notion.
Thanks for a good laugh. I always see people publishing emails like this, for a good laugh, but I always thought they were fake, I mean, nobody actually writes like that, right? Well, I was wrong. People do write like that.
There we go. That is a pretty simple answer. You want the protections that come with common carrier status? You have to act like a common carrier.
It seems to me that law, as it exists in many countries, functions more as a barrier to entry to the marketplace for "justice" than as sensible set of rules. Imagine having a set of laws that the common man can read and comprehend in a single lifetime. If wanting that makes me a "small government" type, well, I'll still call myself an anarchist rather than a libertarian because I'd rather be associated with crusty circle-A street punks than most libertarians.
Has the FCC censored telephone communications? No? Then what makes you think they will censor the Internet? The Internet is more like telephone service, it is something you pay to have delivered over the wires, it is not broadcast over the public airwaves.
I could have had a two or three digit ID, but I hesitated to register initially, because some of us back then thought "user accounts" were a tool of the MAN.
NO, it does not open up such an opportunity, because Comcast andQwest have natural monopolies.
A natural monopoly arises where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity. It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines); therefore, it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist's market.
Holding private property is oppression of my natural right to go wherever I please in the world. Privacy involves giving up my natural right to sense the real world. All freedoms are like that, because the world is interconnected. All freedoms limit certain actions.
Can I provide an example? Sure, private company calls police on thief. Police come and arrest thief, using force if necessary. That is using force. How is calling the police any different from holding the gun yourself?
I don't think the economy is a zero sum game, but the rich seem to think that, as they seek to capture ALL the created value in every transaction. What you end up with is something that you value only marginally more than the cash you paid for it, while the rich end up with something they value far more than the product or service they traded.
Slashdot Mirror
I mentioned it was a repost. On her site, when she posted this, she used a picture of a man on a couch in between two women, snuggled up to one and secretly holding the other one's hand. It had a caption about revenge for romantic reasons.
I think you are being a little pedantic about this. I may have gotten some details wrong, but the point is, she has published an article about getting revenge.
So you believe that corporations should be allowed to use any old dirty tricks they want, and we should simply wait until enough people catch on and decide not to do business with them? That approach leads to fascism, my friend, and then you won't get to vote with your wallet, because there won't be any non-fascist options.
One person, one vote. Not, one dollar, one vote. Understand the difference?
I'm curious, why do you despise Franken?
Well, it was in Swedish, so I ran it through Google translate, and that is how it looked to me, but who knows? Machine translation still sucks.
What, exactly, is the property of ISPs? The public land their wires pass over and under? I don't think so. The public airwaves their signals pass over? Again, not their property. The physical wires themselves? Okay, let them put those wires some place they own, and then they can have total control over them. Until then, the wires are NOT their property.
There is a link to the UK Guardian right in the summary. Are you saying the Guardian is lying about the contents of the report?
The do not call list is not censorship. It is an opt in plan. It allows the owner of a telephone to control their personal property. "Free speech" does not give you the right to interrupt me, in my house, at dinner, sorry.
It is better for a democratically elected government to control a shared resource than it is for an unaccountable monopoly powered private enterprise to have control. Those are your only two options: control it democratically, or let the powerful control it.
The report says that. Follow the timeline. Assange meets woman A, who arranged a party for him and put him up. They have sex. They hang out for days. She arranges another party. He meets woman B, who practically stalks him. They have sex. They go out for breakfast the next morning. Women A and B meet, compare notes. They realize he had condomless sex with both of them. They want him to get tested for HIV. He refuses. They both go to the police. The original prosecutor drops the charges, says there is no case. Months later, a new prosecutor (who just so happens to be instrumental in pushing the new Swedish anti-rape laws) convinces the women to reopen the case.
These facts have been reported in the UK Guardian and many, many other places.
And another fun fact, Woman A has posted an essay on her blog about using the legal system to extract revenge on men who have wronged a woman romantically.
Is, uh,...Is that Swedish girl a goer, eh? Know whatahmean, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?
Just to be clear, in the transcripts of Slashdotter's sexual exploits, when you read something along the lines of [REDACTED] kissed [REDACTED] on the [REDACTED], what that actually means is something like JOE SLASHDOT kissed HIS GRANDMA on the CHEEK.
Assange tried to sidestep the investigation by turning himself in to Scotland Yard?!? You have an interesting definition of 'sidestep.' And to repeat, NO ONE is opposing investigation! Why do you keep claiming your opponents in this debate are opposing investigation?
I meant proven guilty...
Nobody is saying that Julian shouldn't be questioned. We are saying, the facts, as outlined in the police report, show a particular pattern of behavior from the women in question. That pattern, hanging out with the guy for days afterward, throwing a party for him, and so on, do not indicate that the women felt that any sort of crime had taken place until they met each other and determined that Julian was sleeping with them both. Actually, several people HAVE said that Julian does not need to be questioned. That includes the original prosecutor. The fellow prosecuting now was also instrumental in getting Sweden's rape laws changed to their current incarnation. Coincidence? Possibly.
I hear two things being said, quite clearly. One: no one is guilty until PROVEN innocent. Two: the women did not behave like rape victims, they behaved like jilted lovers.
We will win, and enact real communism here in America. All you bourgeois fuckwits will be put up against the wall and shot. Then we will invite Al Qaeda in to tear down churches and put up mosques. We will make it compulsory for white women to have sex with big black studs. In short, our goal of turning all white, male Americans into sex slaves for brown skinned foreigners is almost complete, and there is nothing you can do to stop us, bwahaha.
So in Sweden you are guilty until proven innocent? I know that women's groups in Sweden were trying to make rape a "guilty until proven innocent" crime, but I thought the Swedes sensibly rejected that unjust notion.
Thanks for a good laugh. I always see people publishing emails like this, for a good laugh, but I always thought they were fake, I mean, nobody actually writes like that, right? Well, I was wrong. People do write like that.
There we go. That is a pretty simple answer. You want the protections that come with common carrier status? You have to act like a common carrier.
It seems to me that law, as it exists in many countries, functions more as a barrier to entry to the marketplace for "justice" than as sensible set of rules. Imagine having a set of laws that the common man can read and comprehend in a single lifetime. If wanting that makes me a "small government" type, well, I'll still call myself an anarchist rather than a libertarian because I'd rather be associated with crusty circle-A street punks than most libertarians.
Has the FCC censored telephone communications? No? Then what makes you think they will censor the Internet? The Internet is more like telephone service, it is something you pay to have delivered over the wires, it is not broadcast over the public airwaves.
I could have had a two or three digit ID, but I hesitated to register initially, because some of us back then thought "user accounts" were a tool of the MAN.
NO, it does not open up such an opportunity, because Comcast andQwest have natural monopolies.
A natural monopoly arises where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity. It is very expensive to build transmission networks (water/gas pipelines, electricity and telephone lines); therefore, it is unlikely that a potential competitor would be willing to make the capital investment needed to even enter the monopolist's market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
In telecommunications, the cost of entry into the marketplace is too high for new businesses to compete with entrenched players.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Why not? Do they regulate what you can say over the phone lines?
Holding private property is oppression of my natural right to go wherever I please in the world. Privacy involves giving up my natural right to sense the real world. All freedoms are like that, because the world is interconnected. All freedoms limit certain actions.
Can I provide an example? Sure, private company calls police on thief. Police come and arrest thief, using force if necessary. That is using force. How is calling the police any different from holding the gun yourself?
I don't think the economy is a zero sum game, but the rich seem to think that, as they seek to capture ALL the created value in every transaction. What you end up with is something that you value only marginally more than the cash you paid for it, while the rich end up with something they value far more than the product or service they traded.