Climate of fear????? He's trying to create a climate of freedom, of transparency! Sure, a possible consequence of his actions is that governments/corporations will shut themselves in, creating an "information security theater," much like terrorism caused a physical security theater. In fact, that will most likely happen to some extent. But there's a crucial distinction -- leaks are scary for the really bad guys at the top, not the average citizen. It will be waaaay harder for those bad guys to scare ordinary people into giving away their rights like goldfish at a freaking carnival in this case. That's why his tactics are, in fact, likely to lead to more transparency, rather than less. And I say "may the FSM bless him with His noodly appendage."
Ugh, what an infuriating comment. 1) who the hell said he meant himself&co when he said "we"? maybe he just meant "people shouldn't call others criminals until they're sure"? 2) you're absolutely right, it's impossible for anything like wikileaks to be transparent. who ever said it was? that's why it would be very good if someone else followed their example, and created a "competing" leaking site that protected its sources well and did good fact-checking. then if someone sends something important to wikileaks and it doesn't get published, they can send it to the competing site, with a note that said "boo, people at wikileaks didn't show this, they're biased!!!", and BAM! wikileaks' reputation tarnished.
you just have a bone to pick with wikileaks/Assange, probably because you've bought into the [probably very real] smear campaign against them/him, and you're trying to find fault where there is none. i'm sorry, but posts like yours disgust me. nothing personal.
without the cookie it's not personally identifiable. all they know is "i gotz request", they don't know "i gotz request from websites x,y,z,alpha,beta from same user at these times of the day this many timez". so it don't help them none other than counting webpage popularity, which don't bother me.
OK, you're clearly just trolling at this point, but I'll respond - how about you don't call them anything personally, and simply provide clear and civil arguments against their viewpoints, for the benefit of everyone reading the thread, and, perhaps, even the "idiots" themselves?
Hm, that's a good point (about him getting personally dragged into the issue as a result of public appearances). I think you're absolutely right about that, and if he had shunned the spotlight like that Jones lady, who knows if he'd ever "raped" anyone... Still, if I had to guess, I'd say that his interviews were intended to bring visibility to wikileaks, not himself. And note that while you and I have known about wikileaks for a long time, that's probably not true about the general public. He might've though that he needed to appear personally, to make sure people got the correct idea about what kind of people are behind the whole thing/why they're doing it.
wow, dude, take it easy. i get your objections, but the guy was just making a suggestion he though might make sense. what's with the name calling, man?
Or you do what we do: keep trunk pristine - no development should EVER occur in your trunk and it should always be possible to push a stable release from it.
Seems reasonable to me... Don't know why this wouldn't solve the problem, or any other reason why it's not desirable.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Microsoft Research is pretty much the most respected non-academic research institution in CS (at least in systems). Xerox PARC and Intel research are pretty much the only ones on the same level (though that's less and less true of PARC).
And, what's your point? MS research is doing research. They regularly publish in top conferences in many fields. At least in systems, they're on par with the top US universities in terms of output. Though, unfortunately, they're quite unique in this sense, I believe -- can't think of any other company that does this.
(note to arrogant people: the world doesn't revolve around you. if you don't find carlin funny, don't watch his stuff. oh, and, i think the folks at HBO that aired 14 specials would disagree with you)
Antibacterial: Anything that destroys bacteria or suppresses their growth or their ability to reproduce. Heat, chemicals such as chlorine, and antibiotic drugs all have antibacterial properties. Many antibacterial products for cleaning and handwashing are sold today. Such products do not reduce the risk for symptoms of viral infectious diseases in otherwise healthy persons. This does not preclude the potential contribution of antibacterial products to reducing symptoms of bacterial diseases in the home.
They're not synonyms, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. Antibacterial soaps chemically "destroy bacteria or suppress their growth or their ability to reproduce." It is reasonable to expect bacteria to develop a resistance to these chemicals. It is also reasonable to expect that resistance to the antibacterial compounds in soaps to be correlated with resistance to antibiotic medication.
If you know better, please explain. Otherwise, take your smug and... (won't finish that sentence in the interest of being civil).
OK, you get +5 most awesome analogies. That being said, I just watched one of the Colbert interviews, and I didn't get the same impression as obviously you did. It was the interview about the apache attack, and Colbert did raise a very good question -- that they called the [edited] video "collateral murder" to essentially manipulate public opinion for maximum outrage, hence turning Wikileaks into an editorial, rather than a pure journalistic outlet. That I agree with, and it is perhaps a regrettable aspect of how they do things. But I'm still not sure that that demonstrates spotlight-seeking behavior. A more innocuous explanation would be that they themselves felt very strongly that a wrong had been committed, and decided that "editorializing" the release would increase the chances that justice would be served, by maximizing visibility. In other words, perhaps they were seeking the spotlight, but for the information they were releasing, rather than themselves. I believe this is not an inconsequential distinction.
My prediction for most common question: "Mr. President! Mr. President! How did you manage to be so super-awesome that people over the entire political spectrum, from tree-hugging hippies to gun-toting Alabama rednecks, wanted to blow you day and night?"
not sure i get what the speed of light has to do with anything. when transmitting, the speed of light limits only the latency, not bandwidth.
there's another limit that's much more important - the Bekenstein bound, which places a limit on the density of storage devices. And, now that I think about it, it places a limit on the bandwidth of a link too - if you think of a link as a cylinder (crude approximation), it has limited volume, and hence can contain a limited amount of information. Combined with the speed of light, you get a limit on the bandwidth of the link...
it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
Uh huh, and what exactly are you basing this on? Not saying it's not true, but I've seen this opinion on/. pretty much every time there's a wikileaks related article, and I'm just trying to figure out what I missed ('cause I don't recall any incident that'd justify such an opinion about Assange).
Don't have much experience with GUI, but if you need to draw stuff, I found Flash+ActionScript to be pretty easy to jump into, w/o much tutorialling (though this was 7-8 years ago, no idea what's going on with it now; don't even know if there's a free version for non-commercial users of flash).
Slashdot Mirror
Climate of fear????? He's trying to create a climate of freedom, of transparency! Sure, a possible consequence of his actions is that governments/corporations will shut themselves in, creating an "information security theater," much like terrorism caused a physical security theater. In fact, that will most likely happen to some extent. But there's a crucial distinction -- leaks are scary for the really bad guys at the top, not the average citizen. It will be waaaay harder for those bad guys to scare ordinary people into giving away their rights like goldfish at a freaking carnival in this case. That's why his tactics are, in fact, likely to lead to more transparency, rather than less. And I say "may the FSM bless him with His noodly appendage."
Ugh, what an infuriating comment. 1) who the hell said he meant himself&co when he said "we"? maybe he just meant "people shouldn't call others criminals until they're sure"? 2) you're absolutely right, it's impossible for anything like wikileaks to be transparent. who ever said it was? that's why it would be very good if someone else followed their example, and created a "competing" leaking site that protected its sources well and did good fact-checking. then if someone sends something important to wikileaks and it doesn't get published, they can send it to the competing site, with a note that said "boo, people at wikileaks didn't show this, they're biased!!!", and BAM! wikileaks' reputation tarnished.
you just have a bone to pick with wikileaks/Assange, probably because you've bought into the [probably very real] smear campaign against them/him, and you're trying to find fault where there is none. i'm sorry, but posts like yours disgust me. nothing personal.
more embarassing for us than for USA.
uhh... but.. we... you... who are?.. AAAHH!!!!
without the cookie it's not personally identifiable. all they know is "i gotz request", they don't know "i gotz request from websites x,y,z,alpha,beta from same user at these times of the day this many timez". so it don't help them none other than counting webpage popularity, which don't bother me.
OK, you're clearly just trolling at this point, but I'll respond - how about you don't call them anything personally, and simply provide clear and civil arguments against their viewpoints, for the benefit of everyone reading the thread, and, perhaps, even the "idiots" themselves?
Hm, that's a good point (about him getting personally dragged into the issue as a result of public appearances). I think you're absolutely right about that, and if he had shunned the spotlight like that Jones lady, who knows if he'd ever "raped" anyone... Still, if I had to guess, I'd say that his interviews were intended to bring visibility to wikileaks, not himself. And note that while you and I have known about wikileaks for a long time, that's probably not true about the general public. He might've though that he needed to appear personally, to make sure people got the correct idea about what kind of people are behind the whole thing/why they're doing it.
wow, dude, take it easy. i get your objections, but the guy was just making a suggestion he though might make sense. what's with the name calling, man?
oh god, MAKE THEM STOP!
that should be "on chrome" (although "oh chrome!" isn't far off, either. not that you couldn't do this with other browsers...)
oh chrome: wrench->options->under the hood->privacy->content settings->cookies->exceptions->add([*.]facebook.com,block). thumb defeated
Or you do what we do: keep trunk pristine - no development should EVER occur in your trunk and it should always be possible to push a stable release from it.
Seems reasonable to me... Don't know why this wouldn't solve the problem, or any other reason why it's not desirable.
Do you even know what you're talking about? Microsoft Research is pretty much the most respected non-academic research institution in CS (at least in systems). Xerox PARC and Intel research are pretty much the only ones on the same level (though that's less and less true of PARC).
And, what's your point? MS research is doing research. They regularly publish in top conferences in many fields. At least in systems, they're on par with the top US universities in terms of output. Though, unfortunately, they're quite unique in this sense, I believe -- can't think of any other company that does this.
(note to arrogant people: the world doesn't revolve around you. if you don't find carlin funny, don't watch his stuff. oh, and, i think the folks at HBO that aired 14 specials would disagree with you)
Antibacterial: Anything that destroys bacteria or suppresses their growth or their ability to reproduce. Heat, chemicals such as chlorine, and antibiotic drugs all have antibacterial properties. Many antibacterial products for cleaning and handwashing are sold today. Such products do not reduce the risk for symptoms of viral infectious diseases in otherwise healthy persons. This does not preclude the potential contribution of antibacterial products to reducing symptoms of bacterial diseases in the home.
They're not synonyms, but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. Antibacterial soaps chemically "destroy bacteria or suppress their growth or their ability to reproduce." It is reasonable to expect bacteria to develop a resistance to these chemicals. It is also reasonable to expect that resistance to the antibacterial compounds in soaps to be correlated with resistance to antibiotic medication.
... (won't finish that sentence in the interest of being civil).
If you know better, please explain. Otherwise, take your smug and
source: medicinenet.com
OK, you get +5 most awesome analogies. That being said, I just watched one of the Colbert interviews, and I didn't get the same impression as obviously you did. It was the interview about the apache attack, and Colbert did raise a very good question -- that they called the [edited] video "collateral murder" to essentially manipulate public opinion for maximum outrage, hence turning Wikileaks into an editorial, rather than a pure journalistic outlet. That I agree with, and it is perhaps a regrettable aspect of how they do things. But I'm still not sure that that demonstrates spotlight-seeking behavior. A more innocuous explanation would be that they themselves felt very strongly that a wrong had been committed, and decided that "editorializing" the release would increase the chances that justice would be served, by maximizing visibility. In other words, perhaps they were seeking the spotlight, but for the information they were releasing, rather than themselves. I believe this is not an inconsequential distinction.
You can't know that. All that data could be just colcats and porn.
My prediction for most common question: "Mr. President! Mr. President! How did you manage to be so super-awesome that people over the entire political spectrum, from tree-hugging hippies to gun-toting Alabama rednecks, wanted to blow you day and night?"
ummm, seniority???!!!!ONE!@!!!
media limited by the speed of light.
not sure i get what the speed of light has to do with anything. when transmitting, the speed of light limits only the latency, not bandwidth.
there's another limit that's much more important - the Bekenstein bound, which places a limit on the density of storage devices. And, now that I think about it, it places a limit on the bandwidth of a link too - if you think of a link as a cylinder (crude approximation), it has limited volume, and hence can contain a limited amount of information. Combined with the speed of light, you get a limit on the bandwidth of the link...
not buyin' it, mr. or ms. over-1.5-meg-slashdot-ID.
it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
Uh huh, and what exactly are you basing this on? Not saying it's not true, but I've seen this opinion on /. pretty much every time there's a wikileaks related article, and I'm just trying to figure out what I missed ('cause I don't recall any incident that'd justify such an opinion about Assange).
Don't have much experience with GUI, but if you need to draw stuff, I found Flash+ActionScript to be pretty easy to jump into, w/o much tutorialling (though this was 7-8 years ago, no idea what's going on with it now; don't even know if there's a free version for non-commercial users of flash).
http://xkcd.com/644/ It's the hardware/price, stupid. "The rest is software".
OR IS IT???????