While that's true, I think the point of these people wanting to set up a completely new site is to distance themselves from Julian's rantings (and the huge target he's managed to paint on himself).
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, you may even be absolutely spot on in you assessment, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks loses credibility when it does that. A much less incendiary title could have done just as well, but that wouldn't have attracted as much attention to Wikileaks.
I didn't claim it was a quote, I can't look it up from work. That's why I said "or similar". It got the jist of the title. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Either way, it's still editorializing, which was my point.
I think your point about not generalizing the entire organization is probably exactly while these people want to set up a separate, different site. And most of these generalization come about because of the BS that Julian spouts about how he intends to harm the US.
That's part of the reason why I said it might be impossible. But actually it's not as bad as you think. Journalists will wade through those documents and bring attention to them (with their own spin and editorializing). The difference is that you'd be able to go back to Wikileaks (or whatever), see the originals (unspun), and make your OWN decisions on what it means.
Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.
I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.
I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda. I don't think that's what a lot of people thought Wikileaks would be. I can understand why some members might want to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks.
A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.
You give up too quickly. Based on the furor with which some people where insisting it must be the government yesterday, I'm fully expecting to see people arguing that "The Joker" is a patsy taking the fall to distract attention from the government and their elite squad of script kiddies.
Way back in 1991, InfoWorld reported on an advanced threat hitchhiking inside printers shipped to Iraq. The virus, known as AF/91 and implanted by the U.S. government, reportedly shut down Iraqi radar installations before escaping to spread among Windows computers.
The article, published on April 1, was a spoof. But it spawned an urban myth that has been reported as fact in many circles.
A) it is assuming that we will always have a technological breakthrough at the right moment to allow the doubling of computing power every 18 months. Maybe this is the case, but it's still a big assumption.
Yeah, that's what stopped me reading Age of Spiritual Machines. I was so annoyed by the way he just waved off the technical challenges related to continuing to double computing power because admitting we might hit a wall completely kills his whole thesis.
On A, the important thing to remember about Moore's law is that it isn't a law; it's an observation. Just because it may have held relatively true for the past few decades doesn't mean it will continue forever. Exponential growth is not sustainable.
Fair enough, but beside the point. The point is that throwing in this stuff about rape is irrelevant to the original story. Nobody is calling to extradite him for rape (except maybe the Swedish), they want to extradite him for espionage.
Rubbish. The US government has no motive (the information is already out there), they have the resources but so does a 15 year old in their mothers basement. The DDoS attack is ineffective and the US government has much better tools for blocking access to websites.
And what does ANY of that have to do with a DDoS attack on Wikileaks? A bunch of unrelated stuff isn't evidence of anything. Hence why I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the US government is engaged in a juvenile and ineffective DDoS attack on Wikileaks. Unless they plan on continuing a DDoS forever (and on ALL mirrors) they know it won't stop Wikileaks and besides, the information in this particular leak is already out, so what's the point?
Although technically true, "Julius" [sic - his name is Julian] is accused of rape, so he qualifies as a "suspected rapist", I agree that throwing that into the summary is irrelevant to the story and unnecessarily prejudice.
Their aim is to produce chaos in the hope that they can then sweep in with their own brand of authoritarian lunacy and have people flock to them as their only hope for peace. Economic collapse can make people grab onto any crazy thing that seems moderately organized and "safe". At the risk of invoking Goodwin's law, see Germany circa 1930's and remember that Hitler was originally elected.
Undoubtedly, but given that I've already lost you and you've stated with "certainty" that I've lost you, I may as well cut my loses at this point. You've made it clear that nothing I can do at this point will result in me being able to extract more money from you in the future.
My point is that you shouldn't say that you'll never do business with them again (even if it's true), only threaten that you'll never do business with them again, or better yet that you'll never do business with them again and you'll tell all your friends/family/colleagues to avoid them.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFS:
Did it really look like anybody else was going to solve this problem?
...that Billy Mays didn't have to live to see this day.
While that's true, I think the point of these people wanting to set up a completely new site is to distance themselves from Julian's rantings (and the huge target he's managed to paint on himself).
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, you may even be absolutely spot on in you assessment, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks loses credibility when it does that. A much less incendiary title could have done just as well, but that wouldn't have attracted as much attention to Wikileaks.
I didn't claim it was a quote, I can't look it up from work. That's why I said "or similar". It got the jist of the title. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Either way, it's still editorializing, which was my point.
I think your point about not generalizing the entire organization is probably exactly while these people want to set up a separate, different site. And most of these generalization come about because of the BS that Julian spouts about how he intends to harm the US.
That's part of the reason why I said it might be impossible. But actually it's not as bad as you think. Journalists will wade through those documents and bring attention to them (with their own spin and editorializing). The difference is that you'd be able to go back to Wikileaks (or whatever), see the originals (unspun), and make your OWN decisions on what it means.
Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.
I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.
I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda. I don't think that's what a lot of people thought Wikileaks would be. I can understand why some members might want to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks.
A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.
You give up too quickly. Based on the furor with which some people where insisting it must be the government yesterday, I'm fully expecting to see people arguing that "The Joker" is a patsy taking the fall to distract attention from the government and their elite squad of script kiddies.
Urban myth, read the first two paragraphs of TFA
Full of yourself much?
Some do, some don't even bother with the "suspected" part, but it's off-topic.
Yeah, so you didn't read the rest of the article did you? Otherwise you would have see that the author addressed these points.
A) it is assuming that we will always have a technological breakthrough at the right moment to allow the doubling of computing power every 18 months. Maybe this is the case, but it's still a big assumption.
Yeah, that's what stopped me reading Age of Spiritual Machines. I was so annoyed by the way he just waved off the technical challenges related to continuing to double computing power because admitting we might hit a wall completely kills his whole thesis.
On A, the important thing to remember about Moore's law is that it isn't a law; it's an observation. Just because it may have held relatively true for the past few decades doesn't mean it will continue forever. Exponential growth is not sustainable.
Fair enough, but beside the point. The point is that throwing in this stuff about rape is irrelevant to the original story. Nobody is calling to extradite him for rape (except maybe the Swedish), they want to extradite him for espionage.
Some punishment. Moron. So the site is briefly taken offline and runs a bit slower. Oh, that'll show them.
You've got nothing but wild speculation. Not convincing.
Rubbish. The US government has no motive (the information is already out there), they have the resources but so does a 15 year old in their mothers basement. The DDoS attack is ineffective and the US government has much better tools for blocking access to websites.
And what does ANY of that have to do with a DDoS attack on Wikileaks? A bunch of unrelated stuff isn't evidence of anything. Hence why I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the US government is engaged in a juvenile and ineffective DDoS attack on Wikileaks. Unless they plan on continuing a DDoS forever (and on ALL mirrors) they know it won't stop Wikileaks and besides, the information in this particular leak is already out, so what's the point?
Although technically true, "Julius" [sic - his name is Julian] is accused of rape, so he qualifies as a "suspected rapist", I agree that throwing that into the summary is irrelevant to the story and unnecessarily prejudice.
Seems very likely the US Gov't, through one of it's shadowy connections, hired and paid for this DDoS attack. Interesting trend. I wonder what's next.
Seems very likely to you maybe, but those of us in the non-tin foil hat crowd are less inclined to jump to such a ridiculous conclusion.
Their aim is to produce chaos in the hope that they can then sweep in with their own brand of authoritarian lunacy and have people flock to them as their only hope for peace. Economic collapse can make people grab onto any crazy thing that seems moderately organized and "safe". At the risk of invoking Goodwin's law, see Germany circa 1930's and remember that Hitler was originally elected.
If dogs are soooo smart, then explain this!
Undoubtedly, but given that I've already lost you and you've stated with "certainty" that I've lost you, I may as well cut my loses at this point. You've made it clear that nothing I can do at this point will result in me being able to extract more money from you in the future.
My point is that you shouldn't say that you'll never do business with them again (even if it's true), only threaten that you'll never do business with them again, or better yet that you'll never do business with them again and you'll tell all your friends/family/colleagues to avoid them.