Why would it benefit me personally to have to deal with wads of cash, write checks or directly expose my bank account via debit cards rather then making credit card transactions? And since when did it be OK for someone else to illicitly make that decision for me? How the fuck do you get off talking about limiting freedom and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Talk about hypocritical.
Why aren't you spending your time running a business that allows people to make credit card donations to wikileaks? Your lack of doing so is impeding free speech. You have just as much legal responsibility to as the private citizens that own and run mastercard.
Out of curiosity why do you believe you are entitled to the works without compensating the authors by any means? Specifically the works that you decided were good enough to pay for but that you're not going to anyways like Fallout 3. Is there really logic here beyond I want free stuff? I don't think your a terrible person if you do, it'd actually be refreshing to hear someone say it for once other than going through contortions trying to rationalize it behind some moral veneer.
I don't know what charge they would use, especially since they didn't do that. They just closed his account, as in don't want to do business with him. With seizing the money becomes the banks or the governments, with closing the account you stop by and pick up your cash or have a check mailed to you, big difference.
So what would you like the US to do, invade to set their justice system right? That'd work out great, we'd probably end up occupying Switzerland. Then the world will greet us with roses right? It's none of our business. GP is simply explaining possibilities, not condoning them. It's up to Swedish citizens to fix their justice system/government the way they want it. Maybe they want harsher definition of rape, maybe they don't, I don't fracking know and I don't care because that's up to them, not us.
Tell you what, as a tax-paying citizen I'll make the deal that if he pays for the explosive experts from all over the country, the wind pattern analysis, the chemical testing, the explosive removal and detonation, controlled burn and all the fire department staff and equipment costs associated with cleaning up his absentee landlord mess, then we'll reimburse him for the house. What's that? He'd rather lose his house then pay seven figures to clean up the mess that is his property? That's what I thought.
You were probably just going for the funny play on words, but the Vatican has very deep pockets and has been navigating the legal and political structures of countries across the globe for longer than a lot of countries have existed. I can't think of a less appealing target to get in a legal battle with.
Fucking US diplomats trying to convince people to do things that suit US interests. If only there was another way to solve our disagreements other than diplomacy! Can't someone show us another way?! =P
"Bullying and Manipulating" - Trumped up words for saying our diplomats are engaging in...DIPLOMACY. If they aren't doing whatever they can to make the best possible deals for our country without significantly jeopardizing our international relationships then they aren't doing their jobs. Next people are going to be surprised the used car salesman they bought from didn't convince them to buy that convertible for the purely altruistic reason of wanting to help them out with the ladies.
Twitter's trends are based off growth, not volume. This conspiracy shit is getting ridiculous. If this keeps up we're going to log into slashdot and see a story titled: "Assange orders extra hot Skim Vente Pumpkin Spice Latte at Starbucks but given NON-SKIM MILK INSTEAD in Starbuck/Government conspiracy to SLOWLY KILL HIM!!!`1!"
I thought that the US constitution enumerated most of those rights to people. How can a natural right only cover US citizens?
That's easy, clearly being from outside the US just ain't natural. God, why do you think they call it a natural born citizen and when you immigrate here you get naturalized?;)
When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power, and naked greed THEN we'll have a discussion about it.
Just to be fair largely means >50% doesn't it? I'm pretty sure there's no one that can in good conscious make the argument that over 50% of those diplomatic cables largely cover up US fraud, waste and abuse of power. I'm curious, are you just hearing that there are leaks and blithely assuming all the documents justify your pre-existing world views or just reading some news article and assuming the 5 juicy ones they picked out to get page clicks are representative of the entire corpus?
I find it interesting that the GP claims wikileaks is nothing but a source for actual news organizations to point out specific problems that dumps ridiculous amount of content rather then just relevant information and you argue against this by linking to a bunch of news organizations that point out specific problems using wikileak's massive source dump?
My understanding is that this would not affect results at all. What they are doing is no longer giving points to a site because a negative review linked to that page in the review. Before the change if you wrote a review that said "You should not buy a book from Amazon because their books in particular are absolutely terrible an no one should go there!" Then Amazon's page rank for the keyword "book" would get a bump from the back-link to it. If you think about it this doesn't really make sense as you'd be rewarding Amazon for negative reviews, hence the change.
So writing a site full of negative reviews would cause all the back-links to just get completely ignored and there would be no change to anyone's page rank.
You realize the entire point of that is because the science journals want to give the press time to write accurate summaries of the information so they can release it at the same time as the press conference/announcement instead of the writers trying to play catch-up and releasing inaccurate information about complex scientific findings. And then the rest of the press that isn't reputable enough to get the advanced copy or isn't willing to sign the NDA is then just making shit up beforehand right? It's not NASA making things up and hyping it, it's the press to get your page views.
Does the world seem more peaceful to you now? I mean, damaging diplomatic processes between China and North Korea when NK and SK are at the verge of war that would cause death on a scale not seen in decades? That's what qualifies for a Nobel peace prize these days? Since when did Nobel Peace Prize = "I agree with what they're doing". You can agree with wikileaks, but understand the process that they are putting the world through is not causing peace.
Hindsight is 20/20 eh? I'm sure there's also some secret reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor that's finally paying off for them and making them tons of money because no one would do that just to end up getting NUKED right? It couldn't possibly be that the government is led by humans who sometimes both react emotionally and don't have a perfect foresight and planning to realize we'll still be on the ground sans bin-laden 9 years later.
Since when did it require propaganda for American's to be ignorant about the middle east? What's the saying about attributing to malice what stupidity easily explains?
While that certainly casts doubt on her story, if she is already personally interested in doing that to men for revenge so has a motive and means, how exactly do you make the leap to claiming the US was making her do it?
That you think it was designed to make people feel the use of nukes is normal so politicians/army were free to USE nuclear weapons offensively vs people doing it to not feel helpless about the fact that an enemy state could easily do so to them. I'm disagreeing with your supposition that the government wanted to normalize the expectation of using nuclear weapons because they were just so gun ho about popping them off and seeing how the cards fell.
Cue this message running a high change of instantly disappearing because a teabagger is upset and mods it down to never be seen again.
I have a hard time signing onto any of your other world perceptions if you believe tea party members make up the majority of slashdot's userbase and control all the modding.
Riiiiigght, because it was in the country's best interest to get people to be OK with nuclear war? That makes zero sense. Nobody in power gave a shit about school drills. The drills were the populaces way of feeling like they were somehow prepared to deal with a very real threat that they truly could do nothing about. When people are threatened they don't like to feel helpless, so if there isn't something they can do to meaningfully prepare they will often make meaningless preparations. Especially when it's local and state officials who are being asked to do something to prepare. The destructive power of the weapons were not secret, people knew exactly how terrible they were. But when your talking about one hitting you, you want to believe that maybe you can do something to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would it benefit me personally to have to deal with wads of cash, write checks or directly expose my bank account via debit cards rather then making credit card transactions? And since when did it be OK for someone else to illicitly make that decision for me? How the fuck do you get off talking about limiting freedom and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Talk about hypocritical.
Why aren't you spending your time running a business that allows people to make credit card donations to wikileaks? Your lack of doing so is impeding free speech. You have just as much legal responsibility to as the private citizens that own and run mastercard.
Out of curiosity why do you believe you are entitled to the works without compensating the authors by any means? Specifically the works that you decided were good enough to pay for but that you're not going to anyways like Fallout 3. Is there really logic here beyond I want free stuff? I don't think your a terrible person if you do, it'd actually be refreshing to hear someone say it for once other than going through contortions trying to rationalize it behind some moral veneer.
Now? Demos lead to consistent monthly rip-offs of money.
You're paying a monthly fee for demos? I think you're doing it wrong.
I don't know what charge they would use, especially since they didn't do that. They just closed his account, as in don't want to do business with him. With seizing the money becomes the banks or the governments, with closing the account you stop by and pick up your cash or have a check mailed to you, big difference.
So what would you like the US to do, invade to set their justice system right? That'd work out great, we'd probably end up occupying Switzerland. Then the world will greet us with roses right? It's none of our business. GP is simply explaining possibilities, not condoning them. It's up to Swedish citizens to fix their justice system/government the way they want it. Maybe they want harsher definition of rape, maybe they don't, I don't fracking know and I don't care because that's up to them, not us.
Tell you what, as a tax-paying citizen I'll make the deal that if he pays for the explosive experts from all over the country, the wind pattern analysis, the chemical testing, the explosive removal and detonation, controlled burn and all the fire department staff and equipment costs associated with cleaning up his absentee landlord mess, then we'll reimburse him for the house. What's that? He'd rather lose his house then pay seven figures to clean up the mess that is his property? That's what I thought.
You were probably just going for the funny play on words, but the Vatican has very deep pockets and has been navigating the legal and political structures of countries across the globe for longer than a lot of countries have existed. I can't think of a less appealing target to get in a legal battle with.
Fucking US diplomats trying to convince people to do things that suit US interests. If only there was another way to solve our disagreements other than diplomacy! Can't someone show us another way?! =P
"Bullying and Manipulating" - Trumped up words for saying our diplomats are engaging in...DIPLOMACY. If they aren't doing whatever they can to make the best possible deals for our country without significantly jeopardizing our international relationships then they aren't doing their jobs. Next people are going to be surprised the used car salesman they bought from didn't convince them to buy that convertible for the purely altruistic reason of wanting to help them out with the ladies.
Twitter's trends are based off growth, not volume. This conspiracy shit is getting ridiculous. If this keeps up we're going to log into slashdot and see a story titled: "Assange orders extra hot Skim Vente Pumpkin Spice Latte at Starbucks but given NON-SKIM MILK INSTEAD in Starbuck/Government conspiracy to SLOWLY KILL HIM!!!`1!"
I thought that the US constitution enumerated most of those rights to people. How can a natural right only cover US citizens?
That's easy, clearly being from outside the US just ain't natural. God, why do you think they call it a natural born citizen and when you immigrate here you get naturalized? ;)
When the government stops using its authority to make things secret to largely cover up fraud, waste, abuse of power, and naked greed THEN we'll have a discussion about it.
Just to be fair largely means >50% doesn't it? I'm pretty sure there's no one that can in good conscious make the argument that over 50% of those diplomatic cables largely cover up US fraud, waste and abuse of power. I'm curious, are you just hearing that there are leaks and blithely assuming all the documents justify your pre-existing world views or just reading some news article and assuming the 5 juicy ones they picked out to get page clicks are representative of the entire corpus?
I find it interesting that the GP claims wikileaks is nothing but a source for actual news organizations to point out specific problems that dumps ridiculous amount of content rather then just relevant information and you argue against this by linking to a bunch of news organizations that point out specific problems using wikileak's massive source dump?
Sorry, I think the thread you meant to reply to was several months ago in a different story, there were no helicopter videos in the diplomatic cables.
I think you're missing the idea of what a back link is.
My understanding is that this would not affect results at all. What they are doing is no longer giving points to a site because a negative review linked to that page in the review. Before the change if you wrote a review that said "You should not buy a book from Amazon because their books in particular are absolutely terrible an no one should go there!" Then Amazon's page rank for the keyword "book" would get a bump from the back-link to it. If you think about it this doesn't really make sense as you'd be rewarding Amazon for negative reviews, hence the change.
So writing a site full of negative reviews would cause all the back-links to just get completely ignored and there would be no change to anyone's page rank.
You realize the entire point of that is because the science journals want to give the press time to write accurate summaries of the information so they can release it at the same time as the press conference/announcement instead of the writers trying to play catch-up and releasing inaccurate information about complex scientific findings. And then the rest of the press that isn't reputable enough to get the advanced copy or isn't willing to sign the NDA is then just making shit up beforehand right? It's not NASA making things up and hyping it, it's the press to get your page views.
Does the world seem more peaceful to you now? I mean, damaging diplomatic processes between China and North Korea when NK and SK are at the verge of war that would cause death on a scale not seen in decades? That's what qualifies for a Nobel peace prize these days? Since when did Nobel Peace Prize = "I agree with what they're doing". You can agree with wikileaks, but understand the process that they are putting the world through is not causing peace.
Hindsight is 20/20 eh? I'm sure there's also some secret reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor that's finally paying off for them and making them tons of money because no one would do that just to end up getting NUKED right? It couldn't possibly be that the government is led by humans who sometimes both react emotionally and don't have a perfect foresight and planning to realize we'll still be on the ground sans bin-laden 9 years later.
Since when did it require propaganda for American's to be ignorant about the middle east? What's the saying about attributing to malice what stupidity easily explains?
While that certainly casts doubt on her story, if she is already personally interested in doing that to men for revenge so has a motive and means, how exactly do you make the leap to claiming the US was making her do it?
That you think it was designed to make people feel the use of nukes is normal so politicians/army were free to USE nuclear weapons offensively vs people doing it to not feel helpless about the fact that an enemy state could easily do so to them. I'm disagreeing with your supposition that the government wanted to normalize the expectation of using nuclear weapons because they were just so gun ho about popping them off and seeing how the cards fell.
Cue this message running a high change of instantly disappearing because a teabagger is upset and mods it down to never be seen again.
I have a hard time signing onto any of your other world perceptions if you believe tea party members make up the majority of slashdot's userbase and control all the modding.
Riiiiigght, because it was in the country's best interest to get people to be OK with nuclear war? That makes zero sense. Nobody in power gave a shit about school drills. The drills were the populaces way of feeling like they were somehow prepared to deal with a very real threat that they truly could do nothing about. When people are threatened they don't like to feel helpless, so if there isn't something they can do to meaningfully prepare they will often make meaningless preparations. Especially when it's local and state officials who are being asked to do something to prepare. The destructive power of the weapons were not secret, people knew exactly how terrible they were. But when your talking about one hitting you, you want to believe that maybe you can do something to survive.