This guy was the "Spam King". Literally the king of a new form of incredibly low cost high volume advertising. He pioneered it. He made it happen. From a business development or marketing perspective I might be very interested in bringing that kind of person into my organization.
The military is not populated entirely by soulless monsters prosecuting some crazy conspiracy. The military is made of people who have consciences, as you've suggested with Manning.
In what world do you think a Military Officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes would be complicit in sweeping evidence of illegal actions under the rug?
Seriously, take off the tinfoil hat and let some blood get back to your brain. Manning had legitimate recourses for blowing the whistle on illegality that did not include throwing a lot of legitimate clandestine operations under the bus. The guy is a petty vengeful prick that doesn't deserve the altruistic credit he's been given.
Had he presented JAG with real evidence (not simple assertions) of illegal activity they may have ignored it, they may have acted. Unfortunately Manning did not avail himself of that very appropriate option. Instead he skipped right over all the responsible options and openly released a huge pile of unrelated sensitive information.
Manning had legitimate methods for expressing his grievance. He did not use them. Assuming that JAG would have ignored or covered up his evidence is short-sighted.
Actually my understanding of the charges doesn't require that the enemy actually used the information, just that the person provided information that could be used. And when you think about it, that makes sense. Otherwise we would be stuck waiting for US servicemen to actually die before any legal action could be taken.
As a soldier he took an oath, and accepted some limitations to his rights. He did have legitimate avenues to address legitimate concerns, and failed to use them.
And everybody please research the charge of "Treason". Everyone keeps using that word, I do not think it means what you think that it means.
Ego padding may or may not have anything to do with gaining recognition. Had he not been fingered, he would have been able to smugly observe the media frenzy knowing that he was responsible for it. And he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the Military (whom he believed wronged him) was getting what they deserved, by being criticized for the leak.
It's very likely that a huge motivation for his activity was revenge. Considering the international impact of his actions, that makes him a very very selfish prick, in my humble opinion.
Manning had other, more responsible, options for blowing the whistle on any specific activity he believed was illegal. Instead he took the "ima blow the lid of this" approach and leaked a whole bunch of very sensitive information, much of which had absolutely nothing to do with illegal activities.
Leaking the collateral murder video, that was maybe patriotic. It was limited to a very specific instance that he believed was illegal and being covered up.
I am also curious how history will treat him. But I find it hard to believe that he will ever be considered a noble patriot.
I think you are claiming the same thing as the parent. Rather than go through a record label to produce an album to sell in a recordstore, artists can freely distribute their stuff to generate interest and sell merchandise (incl. self published CD's) at their shows.
He said CD when I think he really meant label produced CD for mass distribution.
I forget where I read this, so I lack the citation to back it up, but I recall reading a report finding that more than 90% of US currency in circulation has traces of cocaine. Either from direct contact or proximity to other cocaine tainted bills.
But it sounds like the banks, and I presume Government, would be the ones actually interested in tracking the money.
7-Eleven (for example) doesn't care whose dollars are going into their registers. Of course they might start to care if banks refuse deposits without a data file representing the serial numbers they think they have. But without such drastic measures you're never going to get small businesses to take on the expense/headache of tracking their currency.
To your first point, I don't fully understand how it would work in a US Military court but in an overworked state appointed lawyer is exactly what the vast majority of indigent defendants get in the US legal system.
To your second point...I've got nothing to add. What's happening is atrocious, and downright embarrassing as an American.
Racial Minorities are a protected class. They can of course refuse service to individuals that are African American, but not solely on the basis that they are African American.
The right to refuse service is pretty fundamental to running a business.
And if I were running my own escrow service, I would most definitely would not be interested in handling funds for an organization that is openly supported by a group like Anonymous that has already launched a coordinated attack on my business. As the wise prophet Snoop D oh double G once said, I would "drop it like it's hot".
If you truly support the Constitution and principles like rule of law and due process, then you adhere to them even if the government is not going to use force to make you adhere to them.
The Constitution represents the format of the Government and establishes the relationship between the Government and the People.
The Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between Paypal and it's users.
In my opinion, they're assholes and if you do business with them, it is because you want assholes to prosper. Like you, I have never onced used Paypal and because of behavior like this, I never will. This is not remotely the first example of pathological behavior from this company.
I'm in total agreement. They've clearly established that they do support an agenda and will inconvenience their user's to push that agenda. Anyone that continues to use Paypal after all this is, at best, tacitly supporting them.
That's clearly not going to happen. We just have to wait until the overreaches in power become clear enough to average folks, and correct these issues in the next American Revolution.
Right... because the last revolution we had in America definitely resulted in less Federal authority.
God I'm reading your post in two entirely different ways.
On one hand, I totally agree that people need to hold Sony accountable for their shady business practices.
On the other hand, as a former customer service call center ape, I hold a seething hatred for people who have no intention of ever legitimately using a product but harass the company just to make a point.
The only time it becomes a crime is when you publish full details of how they stop people running pirated disks.
At that point you start falling foul of the DMCA
At that point the DMCA falls foul of the First Amendment.
Not if those details include portions of Sony code. We have no First Amendment protection for distributing someone else's intellectual property against their will.
That's because they're also going so far as to publish how they went about doing it. Which means they are releasing Sony code without Sony's consent.
If you or I wanted to play around with Sony code for our own machines there would be nothing legally they could do to stop us. Once we start distributing methods for circumventing DRM measures then we are violating laws. One might argue those laws are stupid, but right now they are the law.
How many calls of this nature did AT&T drop? T-Mobile? (insert other wireless carrier here)? Is it exclusive to Verizon?
This wasn't Verizon Wireless, but Verizon the landline provider. Evidently a number of trunks at some point in the link between the cell towers and the 911 centers went down. It was an issue with Verizon's landlines that happened to effect only cell towers, and thus local cell coverage.
True, at the individual level we expect that our calls for emergency assistance will be received. It's tragic and terrifying when they're not.
But the parents point was that, from the perspective of service level to society at large, a 100% dropped call rate is very different than a 1% dropped call rate.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.
I don't think it'll be the slashdot traffic that will make them do this.
A different perspective if you'll indulge:
This guy was the "Spam King". Literally the king of a new form of incredibly low cost high volume advertising. He pioneered it. He made it happen. From a business development or marketing perspective I might be very interested in bringing that kind of person into my organization.
The military is not populated entirely by soulless monsters prosecuting some crazy conspiracy. The military is made of people who have consciences, as you've suggested with Manning.
In what world do you think a Military Officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes would be complicit in sweeping evidence of illegal actions under the rug?
Seriously, take off the tinfoil hat and let some blood get back to your brain. Manning had legitimate recourses for blowing the whistle on illegality that did not include throwing a lot of legitimate clandestine operations under the bus. The guy is a petty vengeful prick that doesn't deserve the altruistic credit he's been given.
Had he presented JAG with real evidence (not simple assertions) of illegal activity they may have ignored it, they may have acted. Unfortunately Manning did not avail himself of that very appropriate option. Instead he skipped right over all the responsible options and openly released a huge pile of unrelated sensitive information.
Manning had legitimate methods for expressing his grievance. He did not use them. Assuming that JAG would have ignored or covered up his evidence is short-sighted.
Actually my understanding of the charges doesn't require that the enemy actually used the information, just that the person provided information that could be used. And when you think about it, that makes sense. Otherwise we would be stuck waiting for US servicemen to actually die before any legal action could be taken.
As a soldier he took an oath, and accepted some limitations to his rights. He did have legitimate avenues to address legitimate concerns, and failed to use them.
And everybody please research the charge of "Treason". Everyone keeps using that word, I do not think it means what you think that it means.
Ego padding may or may not have anything to do with gaining recognition. Had he not been fingered, he would have been able to smugly observe the media frenzy knowing that he was responsible for it. And he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the Military (whom he believed wronged him) was getting what they deserved, by being criticized for the leak.
It's very likely that a huge motivation for his activity was revenge. Considering the international impact of his actions, that makes him a very very selfish prick, in my humble opinion.
Manning had other, more responsible, options for blowing the whistle on any specific activity he believed was illegal. Instead he took the "ima blow the lid of this" approach and leaked a whole bunch of very sensitive information, much of which had absolutely nothing to do with illegal activities.
Leaking the collateral murder video, that was maybe patriotic. It was limited to a very specific instance that he believed was illegal and being covered up.
I am also curious how history will treat him. But I find it hard to believe that he will ever be considered a noble patriot.
I wish I had a mod point for you. Thank you for a dose of sanity.
America was a better place back when they used to teach English in the schools.
I think you are claiming the same thing as the parent. Rather than go through a record label to produce an album to sell in a recordstore, artists can freely distribute their stuff to generate interest and sell merchandise (incl. self published CD's) at their shows.
He said CD when I think he really meant label produced CD for mass distribution.
and unvetted GPS data wouldnt cut it if it were my decision.
But the defense argument was that the state could not provide proof that the radar gun was ever vetted either. Thereby eliminating any real evidence.
I forget where I read this, so I lack the citation to back it up, but I recall reading a report finding that more than 90% of US currency in circulation has traces of cocaine. Either from direct contact or proximity to other cocaine tainted bills.
But it sounds like the banks, and I presume Government, would be the ones actually interested in tracking the money.
7-Eleven (for example) doesn't care whose dollars are going into their registers. Of course they might start to care if banks refuse deposits without a data file representing the serial numbers they think they have. But without such drastic measures you're never going to get small businesses to take on the expense/headache of tracking their currency.
To your first point, I don't fully understand how it would work in a US Military court but in an overworked state appointed lawyer is exactly what the vast majority of indigent defendants get in the US legal system.
To your second point ...I've got nothing to add. What's happening is atrocious, and downright embarrassing as an American.
Racial Minorities are a protected class. They can of course refuse service to individuals that are African American, but not solely on the basis that they are African American.
The right to refuse service is pretty fundamental to running a business.
And if I were running my own escrow service, I would most definitely would not be interested in handling funds for an organization that is openly supported by a group like Anonymous that has already launched a coordinated attack on my business. As the wise prophet Snoop D oh double G once said, I would "drop it like it's hot".
If you truly support the Constitution and principles like rule of law and due process, then you adhere to them even if the government is not going to use force to make you adhere to them.
The Constitution represents the format of the Government and establishes the relationship between the Government and the People.
The Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between Paypal and it's users.
In my opinion, they're assholes and if you do business with them, it is because you want assholes to prosper. Like you, I have never onced used Paypal and because of behavior like this, I never will. This is not remotely the first example of pathological behavior from this company.
I'm in total agreement. They've clearly established that they do support an agenda and will inconvenience their user's to push that agenda. Anyone that continues to use Paypal after all this is, at best, tacitly supporting them.
That's clearly not going to happen. We just have to wait until the overreaches in power become clear enough to average folks, and correct these issues in the next American Revolution.
Right... because the last revolution we had in America definitely resulted in less Federal authority.
God I'm reading your post in two entirely different ways.
On one hand, I totally agree that people need to hold Sony accountable for their shady business practices.
On the other hand, as a former customer service call center ape, I hold a seething hatred for people who have no intention of ever legitimately using a product but harass the company just to make a point.
The only time it becomes a crime is when you publish full details of how they stop people running pirated disks.
At that point you start falling foul of the DMCA
At that point the DMCA falls foul of the First Amendment.
Not if those details include portions of Sony code. We have no First Amendment protection for distributing someone else's intellectual property against their will.
That's because they're also going so far as to publish how they went about doing it. Which means they are releasing Sony code without Sony's consent.
If you or I wanted to play around with Sony code for our own machines there would be nothing legally they could do to stop us. Once we start distributing methods for circumventing DRM measures then we are violating laws. One might argue those laws are stupid, but right now they are the law.
But surely you have defined and appropriate channels for contacting a Union rep that don't rely on using someone else's internet access.
Bravely defending liberty and lulz from the frontlines of Mom's basement.
But not for more than an hour on school nights.
How many calls of this nature did AT&T drop? T-Mobile? (insert other wireless carrier here)? Is it exclusive to Verizon?
This wasn't Verizon Wireless, but Verizon the landline provider. Evidently a number of trunks at some point in the link between the cell towers and the 911 centers went down. It was an issue with Verizon's landlines that happened to effect only cell towers, and thus local cell coverage.
True, at the individual level we expect that our calls for emergency assistance will be received. It's tragic and terrifying when they're not.
But the parents point was that, from the perspective of service level to society at large, a 100% dropped call rate is very different than a 1% dropped call rate.