Assange doesnt think there should be any secrets, and has a known axe to grind with the US. There may be other reasons for why he leaks the way he does, but one only has to see the edits that he did to "collateral murder" (or even the title he gave it) to see that hes hardly some noble unbiased source.
I seem to remember Wikileaks being touted as a clearinghouse for whistleblowers and leakers of information when it was first started. Perhaps my recollection is faulty, I don't know. Regardless, it's obvious that what Wikileaks is now isn't that:
Over the past nine months, WikiLeaks has been releasing US diplomatic cables according to a carefully laid out plan to stimulate profound changes.
That's from Wikileaks' statement about the Guardian's book. Wikileaks isn't an independent way of distributing information, it's a political organization.
If the accused in the case really are guilty (and Im not familiar with the case at all)
Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what it was about, then. Even reading the summary of the previous/. story would have been enough. The case is about iiNet refusing to shut off the internet connections of its customers because AFACT tells them to. No guilt, no trial, no burden of proof.
As usual when dealing with the MPAA et al., even the kneejerk responses are well warranted.
I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. Again, I point to the US Code, specifically from the Definitions section of that same chapter:
(12) “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;
That's incorrect as far as the US Code is concerned:
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how state wiretapping laws are written, but if they follow the federal example, electronic communication counts.
The issue, though, is that the tech wasn't using the webcam to take the pictures, he was intercepting them as she sent them to her boyfriend. Wiretapping statues are very broad in the US; if they can be applied to videotaping cops, I'm sure they could be made to fit a situation where someone's communication was actually intercepted.
Add to that the fact that there was enough uncertainty that she knew it was stolen for the prosecutor to drop charges against her and the fact that the case survived this motion for summary judgement, and it certainly seems like she has a better case than you think.
As for how it's possible, Wikipedia has a brief description of the process. Because of the satellite's distance, it's signal is relatively weak when it reaches the ground (you're familiar with the inverse-square law, right?). A terrestrial broadcast will be much stronger and can drown out the signal from the satellite.
(reposting this because I forgot to login. whoops)
Their business isn't selling games, it's selling used games. That's what makes them money. It's no wonder they have an antagonistic relationship with publishers.
However, regardless of what you think about things like included day one DLC or paid multiplayer passes, this was absolutely unacceptable behavior on Gamestop's part. And they know it. This is a pretty blatant attempt to dodge a class-action suit.
Given the number of games that have (and have had) activation servers, I suspect you haven't been playing PC games for awhile.
Having just online activation is far worse than having a whole platform, like Steam or Impulse. If the publisher/developer goes under or even just decides to shut the servers off, better hope they're nice enough to patch out activation. Otherwise, you're boned. At least with Steam you have a reasonable certainty that it'll be around in a few years.
It's also a great way to kill off any small online retailers. Suddenly anyone who wants to sell something online needs "a few extra" employees who add no value to the company? That'll help start ups.
Honestly, your method seems less tied to reality than theirs. How often do you listen to music for 10 hours straight or read fifty stories in one sitting? The result from a study like that might be more interesting for you, but I don't think it would be any more meaningful (I'd suspect less, actually).
Having to constantly add new conditions to your invented scenario is generally a good sign that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're unwilling to listen to anyone else's arguments (despite the fact that there are a number of people pointing out why what you're saying runs contrary to what any expert on self defense would tell you).
What part of the obvious contradiction of attempting to use a lethal weapon for a non-lethal purpose is unclear to you?
Let me spell it out for you: GUNS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS. Any time you use a gun, you have the potential to kill someone. Where you shoot them doesn't matter.
People who think the way you do are dangerous. Your kind of thinking will result in pulling a gun in a situation where it is not absolutely necessary to protect your life, and regardless of your intentions there is a very real possibility that someone will die.
From your other post:
And if you're cornered and can't overpower them with anything else but you still don't want to kill them?
No one (well, no one who isn't psychotic) wants to kill someone. But that is something you have to be prepared to do if you're using a firearm.
What if you felt that they were indeed a threat to your life, but couldn't kill them (either because you would feel bad, or because you simply didn't want to for some reason)? Why isn't that possible?
If you don't want to kill them, don't use lethal force. It's that simple.
Knives are considered lethal weapons in some jurisdictions (I know for sure they are where I live, it might be the same everywhere in the US). If someone comes at you with a lethal weapon, they are trying to kill you. That is a justification for using lethal force to defend yourself.
And to the AC above who talks about shooting the guy in the leg, I sincerely hope you aren't actually a gun owner. If you can shoot someone without the intention of killing them, you shouldn't have shot them at all (and you've opened yourself to serious legal trouble by doing so). The guy you are replying to has the correct attitude. If you shoot someone, you must be prepared to kill them. Using lethal force in a situation where it is not required (i.e. a situation where you can get away with not killing the attacker) will get you sent to prison and/or absolutely destroyed in a civil suit.
He's not saying that it's a Nexus S from Verizon (the Nexus S isn't available from Verizon, incidentally), he's pointing out that Verizon phones don't have SIM cards.
Where have you seen them break down profit by platform? Looking at their official numbers, all I was able to find was the distribution of sales by platform (page 4):
Nintendo DS 4%
Nintendo 3 DS 1%
PC 11%
PLAYSTATION®3 19%
PSP 2%
Wii 27%
XBOX 360 36%
Other 1%
TOTAL 100%
Of note is that the PC figure was 7% for Q1 last year, up to 11% this year. So the PC, while not comprising most of Ubisoft's sales, has been increasing in marketshare even while their DRM was on hold.
I would be interested in seeing a profit breakdown by platform, though. With some publishers saying that 90% of their sales are digital, it wouldn't surprise me if PC games are making more profit.
Slashdot Mirror
by Anonymous' own words
Ah, but how do you know that was Anonymous?
The redactions aren't like the black pages you get back on an FOIA request.
That's because they just omit those cables altogether.
Assange doesnt think there should be any secrets, and has a known axe to grind with the US. There may be other reasons for why he leaks the way he does, but one only has to see the edits that he did to "collateral murder" (or even the title he gave it) to see that hes hardly some noble unbiased source.
I seem to remember Wikileaks being touted as a clearinghouse for whistleblowers and leakers of information when it was first started. Perhaps my recollection is faulty, I don't know. Regardless, it's obvious that what Wikileaks is now isn't that:
Over the past nine months, WikiLeaks has been releasing US diplomatic cables according to a carefully laid out plan to stimulate profound changes.
That's from Wikileaks' statement about the Guardian's book. Wikileaks isn't an independent way of distributing information, it's a political organization.
Are you familiar with the facts of this case? iiNet is getting sued because it refused to shut off customers' internet access without a court case.
If the accused in the case really are guilty (and Im not familiar with the case at all)
Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what it was about, then. Even reading the summary of the previous /. story would have been enough. The case is about iiNet refusing to shut off the internet connections of its customers because AFACT tells them to. No guilt, no trial, no burden of proof.
As usual when dealing with the MPAA et al., even the kneejerk responses are well warranted.
(12) “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;
Emphasis mine again.
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how state wiretapping laws are written, but if they follow the federal example, electronic communication counts.
The issue, though, is that the tech wasn't using the webcam to take the pictures, he was intercepting them as she sent them to her boyfriend. Wiretapping statues are very broad in the US; if they can be applied to videotaping cops, I'm sure they could be made to fit a situation where someone's communication was actually intercepted.
Add to that the fact that there was enough uncertainty that she knew it was stolen for the prosecutor to drop charges against her and the fact that the case survived this motion for summary judgement, and it certainly seems like she has a better case than you think.
Iran has been accused of jamming satellite connections in the past, as has Libya. The US apparently has the capability.
As for how it's possible, Wikipedia has a brief description of the process. Because of the satellite's distance, it's signal is relatively weak when it reaches the ground (you're familiar with the inverse-square law, right?). A terrestrial broadcast will be much stronger and can drown out the signal from the satellite.
(reposting this because I forgot to login. whoops)
rickparry.xxx
I feel like there's a "thrust" joke in there somewhere.
Their business isn't selling games, it's selling used games. That's what makes them money. It's no wonder they have an antagonistic relationship with publishers.
However, regardless of what you think about things like included day one DLC or paid multiplayer passes, this was absolutely unacceptable behavior on Gamestop's part. And they know it. This is a pretty blatant attempt to dodge a class-action suit.
Given the number of games that have (and have had) activation servers, I suspect you haven't been playing PC games for awhile.
Having just online activation is far worse than having a whole platform, like Steam or Impulse. If the publisher/developer goes under or even just decides to shut the servers off, better hope they're nice enough to patch out activation. Otherwise, you're boned. At least with Steam you have a reasonable certainty that it'll be around in a few years.
From the headline I figured it was a service to wake me up when my torrents finish in the middle of the night.
reading a webpage on the screen is fine, reading a whole book is not.
That's what ereaders are for.
It's also a great way to kill off any small online retailers. Suddenly anyone who wants to sell something online needs "a few extra" employees who add no value to the company? That'll help start ups.
Honestly, your method seems less tied to reality than theirs. How often do you listen to music for 10 hours straight or read fifty stories in one sitting? The result from a study like that might be more interesting for you, but I don't think it would be any more meaningful (I'd suspect less, actually).
Having to constantly add new conditions to your invented scenario is generally a good sign that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're unwilling to listen to anyone else's arguments (despite the fact that there are a number of people pointing out why what you're saying runs contrary to what any expert on self defense would tell you).
What part of the obvious contradiction of attempting to use a lethal weapon for a non-lethal purpose is unclear to you?
Don't shoot them in a place that could kill them.
Let me spell it out for you: GUNS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS. Any time you use a gun, you have the potential to kill someone. Where you shoot them doesn't matter.
People who think the way you do are dangerous. Your kind of thinking will result in pulling a gun in a situation where it is not absolutely necessary to protect your life, and regardless of your intentions there is a very real possibility that someone will die. From your other post:
And if you're cornered and can't overpower them with anything else but you still don't want to kill them?
No one (well, no one who isn't psychotic) wants to kill someone. But that is something you have to be prepared to do if you're using a firearm.
What if you felt that they were indeed a threat to your life, but couldn't kill them (either because you would feel bad, or because you simply didn't want to for some reason)? Why isn't that possible?
If you don't want to kill them, don't use lethal force. It's that simple.
Knives are considered lethal weapons in some jurisdictions (I know for sure they are where I live, it might be the same everywhere in the US). If someone comes at you with a lethal weapon, they are trying to kill you. That is a justification for using lethal force to defend yourself.
And to the AC above who talks about shooting the guy in the leg, I sincerely hope you aren't actually a gun owner. If you can shoot someone without the intention of killing them, you shouldn't have shot them at all (and you've opened yourself to serious legal trouble by doing so). The guy you are replying to has the correct attitude. If you shoot someone, you must be prepared to kill them. Using lethal force in a situation where it is not required (i.e. a situation where you can get away with not killing the attacker) will get you sent to prison and/or absolutely destroyed in a civil suit.
Yeah, one guy prompted 3 days of rioting.
Or, the tuition hikes, massive youth unemployment, and harsh police reaction to previous protests might have had a contributing effect.
He's not saying that it's a Nexus S from Verizon (the Nexus S isn't available from Verizon, incidentally), he's pointing out that Verizon phones don't have SIM cards.
Adobe Edge? I think someone is about to receive a lawsuit from Tim Langdell.
Nintendo DS 4%
Nintendo 3 DS 1%
PC 11%
PLAYSTATION®3 19%
PSP 2%
Wii 27%
XBOX 360 36%
Other 1%
TOTAL 100%
Of note is that the PC figure was 7% for Q1 last year, up to 11% this year. So the PC, while not comprising most of Ubisoft's sales, has been increasing in marketshare even while their DRM was on hold.
I would be interested in seeing a profit breakdown by platform, though. With some publishers saying that 90% of their sales are digital, it wouldn't surprise me if PC games are making more profit.
They aren't threatening to publish it, they've put up some documents to substantiate their claim and have said they will publish it.
Seeing as they didn't make any demands in that press release, I think they're seeking media hype rather than attempting extortion.