helping the opposition figures does not help the United States in any way
People who are lending their support are not trying to help the United States, they're trying to help the Iranians. This isn't about the US.
What makes you think that if they opposition was successful in their political ambitions that they would become pro-American?
Because the Iranian people would realize that the American people, if not the American government, are willing to step up and help them out when they ask for it. There have already been messages from Iranians acknowledging the support they're getting from Americans and expressing their surprise and gratitude, even while acknowledging a lack of coverage by US media. If the Iranian people understand that the American people are their friends, they will be considerably less likely to view America as an enemy and considerably more likely to oppose an anti-American viewpoint by their own government.
This is more about Americans bonding with Iranians than it is about the US government bonding with the Iranian government.
Although I don't have proof, I believe those numbers released are contrary to what was initially reported officially, I think that the picture is changing as days go by. One of the arguments by Mousavi was that he didn't even win his home province, those numbers show that he did win by the narrowest of margins. I think the numbers are being made up as we go, I don't any actual ballots were even counted (or saved), so it doesn't really matter which numbers get released. What I'm reporting here is what I've heard from other sources. Including here:
Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?
Yes, each ballot has a personal ID number so that it can be traced to an actual person. What is being reported is what the government says actually happened, the government says that A'nejad beat Mousavi in Azerbaijan (among ethnic Azeris), regardless of whether or not that actually happened.
I've yet to find any that actually show evidence of vote-rigging
I doubt there is any. No detailed official results have been released, and I doubt that the ballots even exist at this point.
Regardless of whether or not the vote was actually rigged, the troubling part is the communication cutoff and the militias being ordered to attack the civilians. If the vote was not rigged, the government could simply release the detailed results to calm the people instead of ordering attacks against them. Even university dorms have been destroyed, several people have been killed at this point.
I understand that, but everything I've heard coming out of Iran or from people who are from Iran (but might not be there now) seems to indicate that there are some major irregularities.
But you're right: A'nejad was favored in rural areas, and rural areas make up 75% of Iran's population. It's impossible to know exactly what happened at this point, but the consistency of the numbers across ethnic and age groups is very inconsistent with any election results I've seen. The old seem to differ from the young, the religious from the non-religious, various ethnic groups disagree, etc. It's just a tough thing for the current leaders (those who benefit) to sell.
Just in case it's not clear, when you get to Fark and find the right thread, click on the number of comments to view the thread. Clicking on the headline won't take you to the Fark discussion.
I know, I know, Nancy Grace. I can't stand that person, I've never been able to sit through her show. I forgive them for that, since I avoid it, but they really seemed like the best information for most international stories. Glenn Beck is just there for amusement. If I don't trust CNN anymore I'm not sure who I'll go to for news, I might just have to settle for reading BBC online.
I know that a lot of social sites are considered pretty bad news sources, but you really should check out fark.com. Load the home page, and look down the "comments" column on the right for whatever has the highest number and check the headline to see if it's about Iran. I think they're on thread #11 or 12 now. There is a lot of information people are posting there and they're citing the sources where they got it from, a lot of people are monitoring the known "good" twitter accounts and posting updates (there are apparently now fake government-run accounts misinforming). One user in particular, Tatsuma, will post a good summary every now and then detailing the players and the timeline of events.
The most timely information comes from Twitter, the clearest picture comes from Fark, and 4chan is helping the resistance set up communications. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!
Right, they have Christiane Amanpour over there. She's typically given the Iranian government the benefit of the doubt. She's probably relaying to CNN exactly what she's being told by her minders there, and that's what CNN is reporting as truth.
In truth, if a CNN newsperson was attacked or injured in the riots, that would not be a good thing for the government. CNN doesn't need to protect her, the government is. CNN can report whatever they want.
I know that CNN has received a lot of flak over this via email, I expect them to devote some more time to it over the next few days and look at the real issues.
They are being aided by people worldwide who want to see the current government of Iran removed and who think the election was rigged and the violence against the Iranian people is extreme. The Germans are among those lending a lot of IT help to people trying to communicate.
That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.
Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas. Mousavi was heavily favored in cities. A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything. Mousavi was heavily favored among young students. It's too uniform to be plausible. For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan. That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.
In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1% of the total. In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.
CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth. Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video. The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places. The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each. Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated. Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.
Right, I thought I was clear this was happening after I cleared the cache and on 2 separate ISPs, I guess both ISPs might be caching though, but it only happens with cnn.com.
If there is a web server running on an un-patched (or not patched up to date, rather) and improperly firewalled it could be compromised in a small amount of time.
[citation needed]
I've got IIS running on my Win XP SP3 box with a grand total of 9 security updates installed, and it's been running there for years waiting for me to get home and develop PHP. I guess "small amount of time" is relative, especially concerning galactic and universal periods of time, but how long exactly do you think it would take to compromise my server if it's more than a few years? I have a NAT router, but no software firewall or virus scanner either.
I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all browsers, and really all applications in general, have the same level of filesystem access. Browsers aren't limited, or allowed, more than or less than any other program. If I make a call to the Win API, for example, to open a file or save a file, is it going to check whether I'm a browser or a word processor?
Without changing anything in Opera, the nwolb site says that it is not supported, but does link to a page that lists Opera 9.6 as a supported browser. I would assume that once 10 is out of beta they would detect it as well, they can't have to change a lot (anything?) to get it to work with 10 if it already works with 9.6.
Speaking of CNN.com, if you use Opera to look at it, do you ever have caching issues? At both work and home I'll pull up CNN in Opera and get cached content, even though I might clear everything out and see it downloading everything and whatnot. When I open cnn.com now I see this on the main page:
updated 12:45 p.m. EDT, Thu June 11, 2009
That's 5 days old. The headline story is something about the museum shooting that happened last week. I can refresh all day and see the same thing. cnn.com is the only site I notice that happening on. I don't really read it in other browsers so I'm not sure if it's limited to Opera, but like I said it does happen at both work and home, which are 2 separate ISPs (Qwest and Cox). I know there's no network-level caching going on at either place (on our side of the gateway, anyway). I assumed it was some "quirk" between cnn.com and Opera.
This web browser is 100% compliant with the proper web rendering standards.
That's not strictly true, the ACID test does not test 100% of all used standards. A 100% score on ACID3 would indicate that the browser does not suffer from most of the common rendering bugs going around, and handles even little-used standards the way they should be handled. But it's not strictly correct to say the browser is 100% compliant with all web standards.
Slashdot Mirror
helping the opposition figures does not help the United States in any way
People who are lending their support are not trying to help the United States, they're trying to help the Iranians. This isn't about the US.
What makes you think that if they opposition was successful in their political ambitions that they would become pro-American?
Because the Iranian people would realize that the American people, if not the American government, are willing to step up and help them out when they ask for it. There have already been messages from Iranians acknowledging the support they're getting from Americans and expressing their surprise and gratitude, even while acknowledging a lack of coverage by US media. If the Iranian people understand that the American people are their friends, they will be considerably less likely to view America as an enemy and considerably more likely to oppose an anti-American viewpoint by their own government.
This is more about Americans bonding with Iranians than it is about the US government bonding with the Iranian government.
Although I don't have proof, I believe those numbers released are contrary to what was initially reported officially, I think that the picture is changing as days go by. One of the arguments by Mousavi was that he didn't even win his home province, those numbers show that he did win by the narrowest of margins. I think the numbers are being made up as we go, I don't any actual ballots were even counted (or saved), so it doesn't really matter which numbers get released. What I'm reporting here is what I've heard from other sources. Including here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p06s01-wome.html
Do Iranians vote with ballots that mark their age, sex, and income?
Yes, each ballot has a personal ID number so that it can be traced to an actual person. What is being reported is what the government says actually happened, the government says that A'nejad beat Mousavi in Azerbaijan (among ethnic Azeris), regardless of whether or not that actually happened.
I've yet to find any that actually show evidence of vote-rigging
I doubt there is any. No detailed official results have been released, and I doubt that the ballots even exist at this point.
Regardless of whether or not the vote was actually rigged, the troubling part is the communication cutoff and the militias being ordered to attack the civilians. If the vote was not rigged, the government could simply release the detailed results to calm the people instead of ordering attacks against them. Even university dorms have been destroyed, several people have been killed at this point.
I understand that, but everything I've heard coming out of Iran or from people who are from Iran (but might not be there now) seems to indicate that there are some major irregularities.
But you're right: A'nejad was favored in rural areas, and rural areas make up 75% of Iran's population. It's impossible to know exactly what happened at this point, but the consistency of the numbers across ethnic and age groups is very inconsistent with any election results I've seen. The old seem to differ from the young, the religious from the non-religious, various ethnic groups disagree, etc. It's just a tough thing for the current leaders (those who benefit) to sell.
Here's another good article via The Independent from a reporter who defied the ban on reporters to go out and see what it's like on the streets:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-has-gone-in-a-land-that-has-tasted-freedom-1706912.html
Just in case it's not clear, when you get to Fark and find the right thread, click on the number of comments to view the thread. Clicking on the headline won't take you to the Fark discussion.
Well here's hoping they see fit to dig a little deeper in the coming days.
I know, I know, Nancy Grace. I can't stand that person, I've never been able to sit through her show. I forgive them for that, since I avoid it, but they really seemed like the best information for most international stories. Glenn Beck is just there for amusement. If I don't trust CNN anymore I'm not sure who I'll go to for news, I might just have to settle for reading BBC online.
I know that a lot of social sites are considered pretty bad news sources, but you really should check out fark.com. Load the home page, and look down the "comments" column on the right for whatever has the highest number and check the headline to see if it's about Iran. I think they're on thread #11 or 12 now. There is a lot of information people are posting there and they're citing the sources where they got it from, a lot of people are monitoring the known "good" twitter accounts and posting updates (there are apparently now fake government-run accounts misinforming). One user in particular, Tatsuma, will post a good summary every now and then detailing the players and the timeline of events.
The most timely information comes from Twitter, the clearest picture comes from Fark, and 4chan is helping the resistance set up communications. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!
Right, they have Christiane Amanpour over there. She's typically given the Iranian government the benefit of the doubt. She's probably relaying to CNN exactly what she's being told by her minders there, and that's what CNN is reporting as truth.
In truth, if a CNN newsperson was attacked or injured in the riots, that would not be a good thing for the government. CNN doesn't need to protect her, the government is. CNN can report whatever they want.
I know that CNN has received a lot of flak over this via email, I expect them to devote some more time to it over the next few days and look at the real issues.
Good to know, thanks. Here's hoping they improve the performance for the final.
The note posting is interesting, it would be nice to be in contact with my friends a'la Twitter, but I have no desire to put that in the public.
They are being aided by people worldwide who want to see the current government of Iran removed and who think the election was rigged and the violence against the Iranian people is extreme. The Germans are among those lending a lot of IT help to people trying to communicate.
That's correct. But the opposition candidate, Mousavi, said that he received a phone call at 2am the evening of the election indicating that he had won. When the results were announced later, it was Ahmadinejad by a landslide.
Additionally, A'nejad officially had consistent support all across the country and all through demographics. He officially did equally well in cities vs. rural areas. Mousavi was heavily favored in cities. A'nejad officially did equally well among sexes, age groups, class levels, ethnic groups, everything. Mousavi was heavily favored among young students. It's too uniform to be plausible. For example, A'nejad even beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home Azeri province, Iranian Azerbaijan. That was compared to Obama losing the African-American vote to McCain, it's just very suspect and highly improbable.
In addition to that, the other 2 candidates each officially received less than 1% of the total. In the pre-election polls each of those candidates had much higher support.
CNN has done an absolutely terrible job at covering this, the line that CNN is reporting is essentially the government's spin being reported as truth. Fox seems to be the only US network with the balls to show much protest video. The BBC's coverage has been among the best outside of Arabic media, which is difficult to receive in a lot of places. The most up-to-date information about this can usually be found in whichever fark.com thread people are currently posting in, they've gone through 9 or 10 now with several thousand posts in each. Needless to say, any respect I had for CNN has essentially evaporated. Their international coverage used to be among the best in the US, now they might as well be the US-based Iranian spin machine.
I understand that the term "well before" is relative, but Opera was released in 1996, Opera Software was founded in 1995.
Right, I thought I was clear this was happening after I cleared the cache and on 2 separate ISPs, I guess both ISPs might be caching though, but it only happens with cnn.com.
Right, there's no searching (AFAIK), but if you know that user XYZ has a file you're looking for, you can connect to them and download it.
If there is a web server running on an un-patched (or not patched up to date, rather) and improperly firewalled it could be compromised in a small amount of time.
[citation needed]
I've got IIS running on my Win XP SP3 box with a grand total of 9 security updates installed, and it's been running there for years waiting for me to get home and develop PHP. I guess "small amount of time" is relative, especially concerning galactic and universal periods of time, but how long exactly do you think it would take to compromise my server if it's more than a few years? I have a NAT router, but no software firewall or virus scanner either.
In either case the application can read and write whatever it wants, subject to filesystem permissions.
And when is that not the case, for any application?
I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all browsers, and really all applications in general, have the same level of filesystem access. Browsers aren't limited, or allowed, more than or less than any other program. If I make a call to the Win API, for example, to open a file or save a file, is it going to check whether I'm a browser or a word processor?
I guess running opera unite with administrative rights on windows, would be dangerous.
[citation needed]
Which exploits for Opera Unite are you aware of?
FYI it's not Opera that everyone hates, it's people like you that everyone hates. Opera is doing good things for the internet, what are you doing?
Without changing anything in Opera, the nwolb site says that it is not supported, but does link to a page that lists Opera 9.6 as a supported browser. I would assume that once 10 is out of beta they would detect it as well, they can't have to change a lot (anything?) to get it to work with 10 if it already works with 9.6.
Speaking of CNN.com, if you use Opera to look at it, do you ever have caching issues? At both work and home I'll pull up CNN in Opera and get cached content, even though I might clear everything out and see it downloading everything and whatnot. When I open cnn.com now I see this on the main page:
updated 12:45 p.m. EDT, Thu June 11, 2009
That's 5 days old. The headline story is something about the museum shooting that happened last week. I can refresh all day and see the same thing. cnn.com is the only site I notice that happening on. I don't really read it in other browsers so I'm not sure if it's limited to Opera, but like I said it does happen at both work and home, which are 2 separate ISPs (Qwest and Cox). I know there's no network-level caching going on at either place (on our side of the gateway, anyway). I assumed it was some "quirk" between cnn.com and Opera.
This web browser is 100% compliant with the proper web rendering standards.
That's not strictly true, the ACID test does not test 100% of all used standards. A 100% score on ACID3 would indicate that the browser does not suffer from most of the common rendering bugs going around, and handles even little-used standards the way they should be handled. But it's not strictly correct to say the browser is 100% compliant with all web standards.