Anti-US, pro-US, who cares? This is going to get interesting and the knife is going to cut everybody.
Just imagine thousands of years from now and the only proof of history is from randomly archived and backed up blogs sites because some super power decided to re-write history along the way to make themselves look better.
And when Archeologists find a still functioning Hard drive after all this time and are able to read the data off of it, and learn of Wikileaks and how much they impacted our day and age.
It's be even bigger then than it is now!... I'm not getting ahead of myself now am I?
The astrobiological finding is probably that their budget has been cut, once again, and the impact it has on the search for evidence of ET Life is that they won't anymore.
NASA could take a tip from Apple's Marketting department.
Nasa? Seriously? Just get any one of your guys to go any old bar. Leave a moon-rock sample or whatever it is you've found on a table there, someone will find it and post about it on their blog and it'll drive people into hysteria.
None of this "Scheduling announcements" - just deny absolutely everything about what you might actually want to announce and let the geeks build it up.
Much like the problem of people killing each other should eventually result in less people willing to fight left - yes somehow that problem seems to persist throughout the ages.
Theivery is another problem thats lasted the test of time - and even the most strict punishment awarded (death) hasn't been shown to deter this kind of activity.
It just goes to show how illogical we as human beings are - and why "obvious solutions" never quite work as well as you'd think they would.
No, they need to find that perfect balance where the voltage is JUST high enough so cause an arc but aren't sacrificing the current required to toast them.
This effectively lets Facebook track the surfing habits of non-users as well.
Take this moment to make sure you have your browser's cookie acceptance set to "Only from sites I visit."
... Doesn't pretty much every site do that? Any of Google's Doubeclick ads are notorious for going through your cookies and finding the best product to put in front of your eyes. So wouldn't any site that serves up Doubleclick ads essentially have access to that information?
If you even have a facebook session going - and the controls for a "Like this" button are on the page, I wouldn't be surprised if that information gets stored.
"Hey you're logged in! Hey this control knows you're logged in, so it'll work instead of redirecting you to login. Hey, why don't we just send information back to facebook that you visitted this page, even if you didn't hit the like button!"
Would this shock anyone? I haven't proven it but its not far off nor technically impossible. In fact it's pretty easy to embed it in the control, which people just put on their pages, they hardly look at the code.
It's just a difference in laws over there. Essentially if a girl wakes up the next morning and feels she was taken advantage of because she was drunk she can bring up rape charges - even though consenting at the time of the act.
It's just a broader definition, like how "Jealousy" is just a form of "Malcontent" - our definition of rape is just more acute than their definition - which covers more grounds where Sex might not have been wanted, like by being manipulated while not fully aware of the consequences.
I also haven't heard any allegations that Assange forcibly had sex with anyone or anything - but the question now becomes whether or not he was taking advantage of some drunk chicks or not - that's some shakey middle ground where I might be so inclined to dislike him on a personal level for engaging in that kind of activity though I don't think there should be a law about it, but then again I don't live over there so I don't have a say in the rules.
Now the whipped topping is not everyone knows this - especially people this side of the Atlantic, so their minds will automatically assume the worst.
Well, the way you put it would make sense in both contexts.
My interest is piqued and My interest is peaked
both make literal sense in English, though I have never heard of anyone using it in the later sense probably because it'll be misunderstood as the earlier.
However, in his original wording, "I'm peaked" - yes he probably meant "I'm piqued" which actually has many meanings (from pride to resentment to the arousal of thought).
However, we don't know that for sure, he could have actually meant "I'm Peaked" and he has a rather pointy top and wishes everyone to know.
'It would be like forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility for bad drivers.'"
No. It would be like forcing toll road operators to refuse access to cars that are actively spraying oil all over the road surface that have been causing accidents.
Are you saying that if someone is actively spraying oil all over the road surface, and they are coming up on a toll bridge...
The standard policy is for the toll booth operator to do... nothing? Not even like... Call the police or fire department... nor passively detain or interfere?
Yes - but if you have a tap inside your house hooked up to a water supply also inside. You pour a cup of water from the sink - you wouldn't really say "I got this from outside" when you are inside your house. Technically, yes, your house is within the realm of outside, but people would be under the impression you left your house to acquire water.
Same thing here with inner space versus outer space - did the water from from within?
Only when your servers are not designed for massive amounts of traffic at a time will you be harmed by the slashdot effect. Usually it happens on/. because we link to some university Website, who is only used to maybe a couple thousand students and not millions of internet viewers.
Wikileaks is in the business of being read by as many people as possible - You'll notice Wikileaks is still UP during all this. This suggests they expected this kind of stuff and likely they have a sophisticated firewall capable of blocking DoS attacks and seperating the legit requests from the bad.
Perhaps this misguided illusion that the government is designed to be serving me and my countrymen as part of a democracy, where if it were put to a vote "Would you like to know what is in the Ambassador's report?" A majority might vote yes - but never such option exists.
There's a reason why working for a government agency makes you a "public servant".
No - I'd think it's my governments job to do that. I think the diplomat is mostly there to relay information - and its the Prime Minister (and whoever leads their country) to ensure the relationship between the two countries is stable.
Now - if my Prime Minister is kissing ass - it's public and everyone knows it, much like how he does to the United States currently.
I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians, so much for our brotherhood. Spying on allies? Sounds like a deal breaker for me.
I don't know what impression you had that really put us in the state of "Brotherhood" - but honestly I can't see why you are surprised to see this - especially after 9/11 where Canada got a lot of flack for its super-lax (or rather, encouraging) refugee/immigrant policies. Let me put it this say:
If you come from the Middle East, you can move to Canada, claim refugee status, and get your living expenses subsidized plus extra for any children/dependants you might have. If you seem to be part of a visible minority, you might get your education covered. It's easier for an immigrant to live in Canada than a Canadian born citizen - and that is especially scary to the US who has made a lot of enemies - unlike Canada which has managed to remain in this friendly kind of spotlight to the rest of the world.
I would be far more concerned if the US wasn't spying on us. Honestly, while I don't agree with a lot of America's political stances, I can at least trust them to try and keep Canadians in power and keeping an eye out for a surge of Pakistanis moving in, taking up Law degrees, and taking over the judicial state of Canada.
That may sound Racist - I don't actually have anything against immigrants or people coming over here, though it does irk me a bit that they get by on our tax dollars. And I don't mean to single out Pakistan but I have a feeling thats one of the countries the US keeps an eye on, and also has a lot of immigrants to Canada.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info?
Isn't that kind of their job?
Randomly speaking... I'm a Canadian...
Isn't the Canadian Ambassador in.. oh lets say France...
Isn't it his job to inform me on his views on the quality of leadership in France?
Witholding that information from me shows that some arm of the Canadian Government isn't acting on my behalf.
Now, whether the citizens of France should have access to it or not - thats a whole different story - but the debate comes down to whether you think its better that none of the public knows, or everyone knows. Me, given the way governments have operated in the past, I could use a little transparency, even if it destabilizes the global community a smidge.
If Relations with France and Canada go sour, it's not going to trigger a War.
Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government.
Eh, no. The US has laid out a set of requirements for passage through their airspace. Unless you're suggesting that our government should have said "screw you, we're sending our planes there anyway", we had no choice but to comply with those regulations. It's got nothing to do with bowing - it has to do with respecting the sovereignty of other nations. The only other alternative is to stop sending aircraft to (and through) the US entirely.
Well yes - that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. We could have said "No, we're not doing that" and either the US could have forced our planes back, causing a huge uproar and likely made them revise their outtake on it - or not. It's exactly like bowing - we went to "respect their soveriegnty" in the same way Iraq is Respecting their sovereignty, fear of the consequences if we don't, despite it not being in our best interest.
Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).
Yeah, because a segregated runway will stop someone from hijacking an airliner in flight, and crashing it into a building. That sounds reasonable.
Which shows how ridiculous it is - I don't even have to fly to the US to hijack a plane and fly it into a US building. A flight from Calgary to Toronto, a Canadian domestic flight, can still make its way into the states and hit a building. So in effect doing it JUST for US flights is no different.
but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it
If both parties really were opposed to it, it would never have happened.
They weren't - because they've been playing off the fear of Americans. If Americans show that they are not afraid and are more concerned about their rights over this issue, it will sway both parties. They weren't against it when it happened, but now that they can see the consequences, they can change their mind.
like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.
It didn't push anything anywhere - the successful "surge" strategy was what finally made a US withdrawal feasible. Obama hasn't really done things any differently than McCain would have. He campaigned on the idealism of his supporters, but the realities of global policies quickly forced him to drop much of what he initially promised.
This is exactly what I'm talking about though - things wouldn't have been different if it were McCain or Obama, but the fact that enough Americans said "We want out" showed that they even had to THINK of US Withdrawl instead of continuing occupation and possibly moving into Iran next.
Like I said, it wasn't exactly implemented as promised - but it was a baby step in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Anti-US, pro-US, who cares? This is going to get interesting and the knife is going to cut everybody.
Just imagine thousands of years from now and the only proof of history is from randomly archived and backed up blogs sites because some super power decided to re-write history along the way to make themselves look better.
And when Archeologists find a still functioning Hard drive after all this time and are able to read the data off of it, and learn of Wikileaks and how much they impacted our day and age.
It's be even bigger then than it is now! ... I'm not getting ahead of myself now am I?
The astrobiological finding is probably that their budget has been cut, once again, and the impact it has on the search for evidence of ET Life is that they won't anymore.
That's far too wordy.
NASA could take a tip from Apple's Marketting department.
Nasa? Seriously? Just get any one of your guys to go any old bar. Leave a moon-rock sample or whatever it is you've found on a table there, someone will find it and post about it on their blog and it'll drive people into hysteria.
None of this "Scheduling announcements" - just deny absolutely everything about what you might actually want to announce and let the geeks build it up.
You'd think so - wouldn't you?
Much like the problem of people killing each other should eventually result in less people willing to fight left - yes somehow that problem seems to persist throughout the ages.
Theivery is another problem thats lasted the test of time - and even the most strict punishment awarded (death) hasn't been shown to deter this kind of activity.
It just goes to show how illogical we as human beings are - and why "obvious solutions" never quite work as well as you'd think they would.
No, they need to find that perfect balance where the voltage is JUST high enough so cause an arc but aren't sacrificing the current required to toast them.
Woah - how does that fall under fair use grounds?
From what I understand, THESE constitute fair use:
commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
I can't stamp a Microsoft logo on a coffee mug and claim fair use. What kind of wacky world are you living in?
They'll be met with resistance soon enough, if this current trend continues.
This effectively lets Facebook track the surfing habits of non-users as well.
Take this moment to make sure you have your browser's cookie acceptance set to "Only from sites I visit."
... Doesn't pretty much every site do that? Any of Google's Doubeclick ads are notorious for going through your cookies and finding the best product to put in front of your eyes. So wouldn't any site that serves up Doubleclick ads essentially have access to that information?
If you even have a facebook session going - and the controls for a "Like this" button are on the page, I wouldn't be surprised if that information gets stored.
"Hey you're logged in! Hey this control knows you're logged in, so it'll work instead of redirecting you to login. Hey, why don't we just send information back to facebook that you visitted this page, even if you didn't hit the like button!"
Would this shock anyone? I haven't proven it but its not far off nor technically impossible. In fact it's pretty easy to embed it in the control, which people just put on their pages, they hardly look at the code.
Research SHOULD fail regularly ("fail" in this sense being "did not lead to areas to develop.").
Sometimes, somewhere along that chain, Research SHOULD have failed but somehow hiccuped and still went into development.
And then we got Windows Millenium Edition.
It's just a difference in laws over there. Essentially if a girl wakes up the next morning and feels she was taken advantage of because she was drunk she can bring up rape charges - even though consenting at the time of the act.
It's just a broader definition, like how "Jealousy" is just a form of "Malcontent" - our definition of rape is just more acute than their definition - which covers more grounds where Sex might not have been wanted, like by being manipulated while not fully aware of the consequences.
I also haven't heard any allegations that Assange forcibly had sex with anyone or anything - but the question now becomes whether or not he was taking advantage of some drunk chicks or not - that's some shakey middle ground where I might be so inclined to dislike him on a personal level for engaging in that kind of activity though I don't think there should be a law about it, but then again I don't live over there so I don't have a say in the rules.
Now the whipped topping is not everyone knows this - especially people this side of the Atlantic, so their minds will automatically assume the worst.
Well, the way you put it would make sense in both contexts.
My interest is piqued
and
My interest is peaked
both make literal sense in English, though I have never heard of anyone using it in the later sense probably because it'll be misunderstood as the earlier.
However, in his original wording, "I'm peaked" - yes he probably meant "I'm piqued" which actually has many meanings (from pride to resentment to the arousal of thought).
However, we don't know that for sure, he could have actually meant "I'm Peaked" and he has a rather pointy top and wishes everyone to know.
I know. Linus is such a Linux Fanboy. Its so obvious.
'It would be like forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility for bad drivers.'"
No. It would be like forcing toll road operators to refuse access to cars that are actively spraying oil all over the road surface that have been causing accidents.
Are you saying that if someone is actively spraying oil all over the road surface, and they are coming up on a toll bridge...
The standard policy is for the toll booth operator to do... nothing? Not even like... Call the police or fire department... nor passively detain or interfere?
from from. Come from... I need my coffee this morning. No more posting for me till I get some.
Yes - but if you have a tap inside your house hooked up to a water supply also inside. You pour a cup of water from the sink - you wouldn't really say "I got this from outside" when you are inside your house. Technically, yes, your house is within the realm of outside, but people would be under the impression you left your house to acquire water.
Same thing here with inner space versus outer space - did the water from from within?
A DDoS is more than a simple /. effect.
Only when your servers are not designed for massive amounts of traffic at a time will you be harmed by the slashdot effect. Usually it happens on /. because we link to some university Website, who is only used to maybe a couple thousand students and not millions of internet viewers.
Wikileaks is in the business of being read by as many people as possible - You'll notice Wikileaks is still UP during all this. This suggests they expected this kind of stuff and likely they have a sophisticated firewall capable of blocking DoS attacks and seperating the legit requests from the bad.
It's not just a popularity thing.
I prefer idealist but they sound similar enough.
Since when does the ambassador report to you?
Perhaps this misguided illusion that the government is designed to be serving me and my countrymen as part of a democracy, where if it were put to a vote "Would you like to know what is in the Ambassador's report?" A majority might vote yes - but never such option exists.
There's a reason why working for a government agency makes you a "public servant".
Which is what a Vaccine is for.
No - I'd think it's my governments job to do that. I think the diplomat is mostly there to relay information - and its the Prime Minister (and whoever leads their country) to ensure the relationship between the two countries is stable.
Now - if my Prime Minister is kissing ass - it's public and everyone knows it, much like how he does to the United States currently.
Heck, if you can get a kid to wash their hands as often as they should - let alone use soap every time, you should write a parenting book.
I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians, so much for our brotherhood. Spying on allies? Sounds like a deal breaker for me.
I don't know what impression you had that really put us in the state of "Brotherhood" - but honestly I can't see why you are surprised to see this - especially after 9/11 where Canada got a lot of flack for its super-lax (or rather, encouraging) refugee/immigrant policies. Let me put it this say:
If you come from the Middle East, you can move to Canada, claim refugee status, and get your living expenses subsidized plus extra for any children/dependants you might have. If you seem to be part of a visible minority, you might get your education covered. It's easier for an immigrant to live in Canada than a Canadian born citizen - and that is especially scary to the US who has made a lot of enemies - unlike Canada which has managed to remain in this friendly kind of spotlight to the rest of the world.
I would be far more concerned if the US wasn't spying on us. Honestly, while I don't agree with a lot of America's political stances, I can at least trust them to try and keep Canadians in power and keeping an eye out for a surge of Pakistanis moving in, taking up Law degrees, and taking over the judicial state of Canada.
That may sound Racist - I don't actually have anything against immigrants or people coming over here, though it does irk me a bit that they get by on our tax dollars. And I don't mean to single out Pakistan but I have a feeling thats one of the countries the US keeps an eye on, and also has a lot of immigrants to Canada.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info?
Isn't that kind of their job?
Randomly speaking... I'm a Canadian...
Isn't the Canadian Ambassador in.. oh lets say France...
Isn't it his job to inform me on his views on the quality of leadership in France?
Witholding that information from me shows that some arm of the Canadian Government isn't acting on my behalf.
Now, whether the citizens of France should have access to it or not - thats a whole different story - but the debate comes down to whether you think its better that none of the public knows, or everyone knows. Me, given the way governments have operated in the past, I could use a little transparency, even if it destabilizes the global community a smidge.
If Relations with France and Canada go sour, it's not going to trigger a War.
Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government.
Eh, no. The US has laid out a set of requirements for passage through their airspace. Unless you're suggesting that our government should have said "screw you, we're sending our planes there anyway", we had no choice but to comply with those regulations. It's got nothing to do with bowing - it has to do with respecting the sovereignty of other nations. The only other alternative is to stop sending aircraft to (and through) the US entirely.
Well yes - that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. We could have said "No, we're not doing that" and either the US could have forced our planes back, causing a huge uproar and likely made them revise their outtake on it - or not. It's exactly like bowing - we went to "respect their soveriegnty" in the same way Iraq is Respecting their sovereignty, fear of the consequences if we don't, despite it not being in our best interest.
Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).
Yeah, because a segregated runway will stop someone from hijacking an airliner in flight, and crashing it into a building. That sounds reasonable.
Which shows how ridiculous it is - I don't even have to fly to the US to hijack a plane and fly it into a US building. A flight from Calgary to Toronto, a Canadian domestic flight, can still make its way into the states and hit a building. So in effect doing it JUST for US flights is no different.
but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it
If both parties really were opposed to it, it would never have happened.
They weren't - because they've been playing off the fear of Americans. If Americans show that they are not afraid and are more concerned about their rights over this issue, it will sway both parties. They weren't against it when it happened, but now that they can see the consequences, they can change their mind.
like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.
It didn't push anything anywhere - the successful "surge" strategy was what finally made a US withdrawal feasible. Obama hasn't really done things any differently than McCain would have. He campaigned on the idealism of his supporters, but the realities of global policies quickly forced him to drop much of what he initially promised.
This is exactly what I'm talking about though - things wouldn't have been different if it were McCain or Obama, but the fact that enough Americans said "We want out" showed that they even had to THINK of US Withdrawl instead of continuing occupation and possibly moving into Iran next.
Like I said, it wasn't exactly implemented as promised - but it was a baby step in the right direction.