How are we supposed to vote intelligently if we don't know what they're doing?
We know very well what they're doing in 95% of the cases. See the Freedom of Information Act for some guidance. It's amazing what we can get.
A prospective employer needs to get a lot of information about me before he hires me and gives me access to the company's trade secrets. But I'm not going to let him search my house.
"We" don't have the authority of government to kick down doors, shoot dogs and children in the head, and proceed to incarcerate our corrupt politicians.
Watch for the point. It's coming now. We gave them these powers in a very considered fashion.
Who suffers when our government pulls shady crap?
It depends on whom the shady crap falls. Usually, it is on criminals and enemies of the republic. Sometimes it gets complicated. And sometimes our representatives fail us.
But its better than fucking anarchy. Anarchy turns into fuedalism, and that pretty much sucked for everyone but the lords.
They keep telling us that if we don't like them knowing what we are doing then maybe we shouldn't be doing it. How come we can't say the same in return?
Because we elected them to do this work for us. The US is a republic. We vote for representatives to run our government. These representatives, and their hired staffers, are the ones that need access. Not us.
We only need to know when when there is malfeasance that is being kept secret. But that does mean we need the ability to rummage through every cabinet looking for it. That's called a fishing expedition.
Right, but was the East India Company as pervasive and powerful overall as large corporations as a whole are today
Far more so. The East India company had far reaching global powers which extended to the use of deadly force, a virtual global monopoly, and a cozy relationship with the British government/empire.
That's not something that Google, Microsoft, Mastercard, or any other company enjoys today.
But a major corporation whose credit and debit vehicles constitute one of the major means for tendering payment, i.e., speech, is permitted to filter your payments to whomever it likes.
No. But it has to consider the legality of certain transactions. Especially when it may involve possible money laundering charges.
In other words, a bank gets to decide when your speech is acceptable and when it isn't. And, of course, if you're wealthy or powerful enough, this isn't a hindrance.
A wealthy and powerful person isn't going to go to the bother of finding alternate ways of paying for content.
But if you're a working stiff, living on a trickle of cash flow and using revolving credit to solve the logistical problems thereof, you're essentially subject to the bank's approval of your fiscal expression.
If you're a working stiff that can't afford a fucking CD, sell your computer, take off your headphones, and stop using credit. You are enslaving yourself.
Yet another distinction between serfs and lords in the information age.
Mastercard didn't make you a serf. You made you a serf.
If you watched the full video, you'd know that they got clearance because they claimed they'd seen an RPG (it was a camera, but they could've just been stupid at that point), and then claim it has been fired (which they cannot possibly believe).
I find it rather odd that you can determine what hey possibly could believe. You and I watched a video and came to different conclusions. Afterwards, many people slowed things down and enlarged and enhanced images and people still disagreed.
Meanwhile, the aircraft crew was there. Not only could they see what was recorded, they had a panoramic view. I think they had a few more data points. Who's to said that an RPG round was not in the air?
If they just wanted to kill people they could've just gone ahead and done it.
I don't know about Swedish law, but I believe that in the US you can plead No Contest in which you don't admit anything, but agree to pay the piper and not defend yourself.
Assange himself said he believed the US had a secret indictment on him. So if he wants to avoid extradition, he should get himself out of government hands. If he were just go to Sweden and answer their questions, he'd likely not be under house arrest.
- When on the other hand you fix the guys broken PC and during the backup come across said photo's you are morally right to report this individual.
Ok, I got you now. If I'm a Swedish Dell employee working on police computers and I happen across upon an investigation report of Assange's rape case, and I don't trust the government to handle it properly, I can release it to the world.
Just black out the name of the accused, then it's easy to publish with a clear conscience. Information wants to be free!
"Iraqi President ***REDACTED*** has contracted syphillus from a member of Saudi King ***REDACTED***'s harem...."
No, wait that doesn't work. May it shoul all b anonymized....
"******** accused ******** of ******** of supplying explosives to ********* which were meant for and attack on **********."
There, much better.
Seriously, in a massive dump of cables, or combat reports, how do you define who an 'accused' is? Especially when there's no accusation. And if there is no accusation, why leak the documents?
But wait, this is a situation where the CIA could be guilty of setting up a foreign activist. Isn't this exactly the sort of case where we need transparency?
I saw that post too, but I suspect there's more to it.
I was thinking about it from Assange's perspective. Why wouldn't he go voluntarily to Sweden, plead no contest, and pay the fine and go free. As it is, he's a sitting duck should the US file its own charges and seek extradition.
So I bet there's a lot more at stake than a few hundred bucks.
I don't know if you've watched the full video, or just Assange's edit of it. If you watched the full one you know that at several points they asked for clearance to fire, and spent some time trying to figure the situation out.
How do I know you haven't committed severe crimes and covered them up? We'd better violate your privacy and put everything up on the web so we can all see. How can anyone trust you otherwise?
By defining truth in their own way, they are causing a correlation. Consider this 'result'...
"72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit"
Apparently, the inferrence to be made is that the health reform law will not increase the deficit. This cannot be supported by facts because the law hasn't even been implemented yet. There are still regulations to be made. The CBO did do an estimate, but it stopped short of showing the long term effects. And this doesn't even address the necessary changes to the law whose need will become clear as people decide not to purchase the mandated coverage and instead pay the much cheaper fine.
Anyone who claims that the health reform laws will not affect the deficit is at least as big of an idiot as Steve Ducey.
Remind me again, why we aren't using hemp instead of oil and corn? Oh right, something to do backdoor deals made to vilify hemp back in the day. I guess this isn't the first time political agenda has come before the good of people.. and it sure won't be the last.
Because hemp fuel only seems a viable option if you're smoking a joint.
Gas != hemp or corn or sugarcane. Even Al Gore finally gets it.
Slashdot Mirror
How are we supposed to vote intelligently if we don't know what they're doing?
We know very well what they're doing in 95% of the cases. See the Freedom of Information Act for some guidance. It's amazing what we can get.
A prospective employer needs to get a lot of information about me before he hires me and gives me access to the company's trade secrets. But I'm not going to let him search my house.
I helped elect the bastards (and/or their bosses) that are trying to prosecute Wikileaks and Assange and they have my full support.
"We" don't have the authority of government to kick down doors, shoot dogs and children in the head, and proceed to incarcerate our corrupt politicians.
Watch for the point. It's coming now. We gave them these powers in a very considered fashion.
Who suffers when our government pulls shady crap?
It depends on whom the shady crap falls. Usually, it is on criminals and enemies of the republic. Sometimes it gets complicated. And sometimes our representatives fail us.
But its better than fucking anarchy. Anarchy turns into fuedalism, and that pretty much sucked for everyone but the lords.
They keep telling us that if we don't like them knowing what we are doing then maybe we shouldn't be doing it. How come we can't say the same in return?
Because we elected them to do this work for us. The US is a republic. We vote for representatives to run our government. These representatives, and their hired staffers, are the ones that need access. Not us.
We only need to know when when there is malfeasance that is being kept secret. But that does mean we need the ability to rummage through every cabinet looking for it. That's called a fishing expedition.
Right, but was the East India Company as pervasive and powerful overall as large corporations as a whole are today
Far more so. The East India company had far reaching global powers which extended to the use of deadly force, a virtual global monopoly, and a cozy relationship with the British government/empire.
That's not something that Google, Microsoft, Mastercard, or any other company enjoys today.
So let me get this right, money equals speech, according to various Supreme Court Rulings.
Yes.
But a major corporation whose credit and debit vehicles constitute one of the major means for tendering payment, i.e., speech, is permitted to filter your payments to whomever it likes.
No. But it has to consider the legality of certain transactions. Especially when it may involve possible money laundering charges.
In other words, a bank gets to decide when your speech is acceptable and when it isn't. And, of course, if you're wealthy or powerful enough, this isn't a hindrance.
A wealthy and powerful person isn't going to go to the bother of finding alternate ways of paying for content.
But if you're a working stiff, living on a trickle of cash flow and using revolving credit to solve the logistical problems thereof, you're essentially subject to the bank's approval of your fiscal expression.
If you're a working stiff that can't afford a fucking CD, sell your computer, take off your headphones, and stop using credit. You are enslaving yourself.
Yet another distinction between serfs and lords in the information age.
Mastercard didn't make you a serf. You made you a serf.
So this bit in .htaccess should suffice to alleviate the DDoS attack?
.* - [F]
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} d0z\.me [NC]
RewriteRule
It says "\. me"
If you watched the full video, you'd know that they got clearance because they claimed they'd seen an RPG (it was a camera, but they could've just been stupid at that point), and then claim it has been fired (which they cannot possibly believe).
I find it rather odd that you can determine what hey possibly could believe. You and I watched a video and came to different conclusions. Afterwards, many people slowed things down and enlarged and enhanced images and people still disagreed.
Meanwhile, the aircraft crew was there. Not only could they see what was recorded, they had a panoramic view. I think they had a few more data points. Who's to said that an RPG round was not in the air?
If they just wanted to kill people they could've just gone ahead and done it.
I don't know about Swedish law, but I believe that in the US you can plead No Contest in which you don't admit anything, but agree to pay the piper and not defend yourself.
Assange himself said he believed the US had a secret indictment on him. So if he wants to avoid extradition, he should get himself out of government hands. If he were just go to Sweden and answer their questions, he'd likely not be under house arrest.
- When on the other hand you fix the guys broken PC and during the backup come across said photo's you are morally right to report this individual.
Ok, I got you now. If I'm a Swedish Dell employee working on police computers and I happen across upon an investigation report of Assange's rape case, and I don't trust the government to handle it properly, I can release it to the world.
Just black out the name of the accused, then it's easy to publish with a clear conscience. Information wants to be free!
"Iraqi President ***REDACTED*** has contracted syphillus from a member of Saudi King ***REDACTED***'s harem...."
No, wait that doesn't work. May it shoul all b anonymized....
"******** accused ******** of ******** of supplying explosives to ********* which were meant for and attack on **********."
There, much better.
Seriously, in a massive dump of cables, or combat reports, how do you define who an 'accused' is? Especially when there's no accusation. And if there is no accusation, why leak the documents?
But wait, this is a situation where the CIA could be guilty of setting up a foreign activist. Isn't this exactly the sort of case where we need transparency?
I saw that post too, but I suspect there's more to it.
I was thinking about it from Assange's perspective. Why wouldn't he go voluntarily to Sweden, plead no contest, and pay the fine and go free. As it is, he's a sitting duck should the US file its own charges and seek extradition.
So I bet there's a lot more at stake than a few hundred bucks.
I don't know if you've watched the full video, or just Assange's edit of it. If you watched the full one you know that at several points they asked for clearance to fire, and spent some time trying to figure the situation out.
How do I know you haven't committed severe crimes and covered them up? We'd better violate your privacy and put everything up on the web so we can all see. How can anyone trust you otherwise?
Is this not a government document?
I for one would prefer for DPRK to know it won't have allies if push comes to shove.
Yes, let's corner a nuclear armed animal and make him very afraid.
Kim Jong * will not survive any governmental change. They know it.
Ok, I must not know something about the phrase war pigs
Yes, here's an amazingly precient book from 1920 101 Successful Businesses You can Start on the Internet
By defining truth in their own way, they are causing a correlation. Consider this 'result'...
"72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit"
Apparently, the inferrence to be made is that the health reform law will not increase the deficit. This cannot be supported by facts because the law hasn't even been implemented yet. There are still regulations to be made. The CBO did do an estimate, but it stopped short of showing the long term effects. And this doesn't even address the necessary changes to the law whose need will become clear as people decide not to purchase the mandated coverage and instead pay the much cheaper fine.
Anyone who claims that the health reform laws will not affect the deficit is at least as big of an idiot as Steve Ducey.
Remind me again, why we aren't using hemp instead of oil and corn? Oh right, something to do backdoor deals made to vilify hemp back in the day. I guess this isn't the first time political agenda has come before the good of people.. and it sure won't be the last.
Because hemp fuel only seems a viable option if you're smoking a joint.
Gas != hemp or corn or sugarcane. Even Al Gore finally gets it.
Brilliant!
No, PayPal said they weren't going to hold the money.
WikiLeaks Spending Rises Dramatically to $500,000
The accounts weren't frozen. They just aren't accepting donations on Wikileak's behalf.
Related to this, Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement for 5 months. And there doesn't seem to be an end, or even a trial, in sight.
And the legal defense funding promised by Wikileaks hasn't found its way to Manning's attorney. I wonder if they've found a 'better' use for it.