Wikileaks is randomly dumping documents hoping they sow chaos and fear in his enemies.
Documents that expose corruption.
Leaking secret diplomatic communications helps citizens have oversight over their government how exactly?
Taking into account previously released leaks, by making more people wary of the government so that hopefully something will eventually be done.
Put the word "Internet" into it and everyone looses their frickin mind thinking this idiot is some kind of hero.
Real life, the internet, it doesn't matter to me. The internet is just a useful tool for communication which makes things like this easier. I don't know about 'hero', but I certainly applaud what he's doing.
Some people (but you're right in most cases). But anyway, this is just more proof that we need less power for the few and more (note: not all) for the majority.
Thus we design our social norms accordingly, with checks and balances and limits to minimize the damage.
Yeah, and more effort needs to be put into this, obviously.
If they are all conveniently US banks and companies, then I'd say that lends some credence to the anti-US idea.
But, don't they only release information that they receive? If they don't have information on other banks and companies, they can't release it (assuming that's true).
In many cases, corporations do control the government, but not all. The government is correct as well, and must be reformed, too. Actually, taking down a few corporations won't really change anything. You need to rework the government to try to minimalize the chances of this happening again.
On the other hand, I also believe that it's entirely possible to cross the line and start causing some real harm, even if it hasn't happened yet.
Such as...? If the government committed crimes, all harm is ultimately their fault, as they should not have committed the crimes (if they happened). Exposing the truth is far more important than just shrugging it off because of 'security'.
You're just as bad, corrupt, and potentially tyrannous as those you espouse to hate.
That's a pretty big assumption. Just because some people are corrupt, that doesn't mean that all people are (or people that speak out against said people).
When you're raised in a society that indirectly praises the greedy and corrupt, what do you expect? He was shaped by his environment, if he was shaped at all.
I'm sorry, but after reading your post filled with ad hominems, my question still remains unanswered. I ask again: what is wrong with being someone who infringes upon copyright and what does that have to do with the situation at hand?
Ah, yes. Let's apply this intelligent mentality to the real world! Computers? No, they're not broken, so let's not even bother making them better! My software? Well, it has a few bugs, but it's still usable, so why bother fixing it? It's not broke!
What's funny is that apparently Wikileaks contacted the US government to see which documents exactly had names of people who would be endangered, and instead of telling them, they responded to them with threats. Yeah, they really care about these supposed people and their freedoms...
What? The US government knows that the documents will be released no matter what, and Assange gave them the opportunity to 'save' these supposed lives that are in danger. Instead, they very foolishly responded with threats instead of at least trying to save these supposed people knowing that the documents would be released regardless, only now they would be released with this names (if they exist). Please, tell me, how was that a smart decision?
If they don't want themselves to be thought of as worthless, corrupt politicians, perhaps they shouldn't be worthless, corrupt politicians. Their actions are ultimately their own fault, and there's no reason that their crimes shouldn't be exposed. They violate the privacy of the people all of the time (Patriot Act, TSA, etc), and then they expect the people to care when it happens to them? I think not. If they don't wish their crimes to be exposed, they shouldn't commit them in the first place.
Stop being corrupt. Seriously. They won't have anything on you if you don't abuse your powers like power-hungry idiots. Don't get mad at them for exposing the truth.
You keep saying "eternal life," but that implies that you can't die. From what I see, this just stops/reverses the aging process. It does not make you immortal.
Another issue is, let's say you manage to create a drug that stops aging without the nasty side effects of body wide cancerous growth or a failing brain, then what? Will you patent it, or release it to the public domain?
That's not an issue with the drug itself, but of human stupidity.
is it morally acceptable to let a portion of the world die of because they can't afford the pills?
This is already being done, only with food. Some people could, potentially, be saved, but they don't have any money to get the food.
If you are essentially eternally young, do you still get to go on pension? Will you have to work forever?
If you're able, why shouldn't you work? I'm against the idea of people sitting back and doing nothing while contributing nothing, mostly so if they've never even contributed anything.
There is no reason to assume we can store an infinite amount of data, what happens when we reach that limit?
Unlimited? No, but I'm sure we can hold a reasonably high amount of information. That said, you'd probably forget older things.
Of course, eternal life brings on a whole other problem as well, will the religious people accept the existence of such a drug, or will they do all they can to stop/destroy it?
Who cares? They can't do anything about it. The process of change shouldn't be halted simply because some ignorant people disagree. Nothing would get done that way.
we aren't ready for eternal life
I disagree. Not much would change. People would still die, though it would be from other causes. Even now, the world's population is in need of some thinning.
we as a species are still driven by greed and superstition
You speak of many people, but not all. Your environment is largely what shapes you. If people grow up in a society where it is normal to be a greedy, superstitious person, chances are (if they are weak-minded) they will be a greedy, superstitious person themselves. Change that environment and the hoards are sure to follow.
Having some sort of forum to decide who gets to live on & who gets to die?
What? No. I meant that people are too uncaring about the future and constantly pump out child after child. If it wasn't for the stupidity of humans, we wouldn't be overpopulated.
And how do you plan to do that?
Perhaps some sort of chemical that lessens the chances of successful births.
Imagine not growing old, ever, and then contemplate the fact that you can experience all possible experiences for an infinite number of times
Create new experiences, then. Actually, that would take a really, really long time. Probably worth it in the end.
That said, imagine how dull the afterlife would be if it existed.
Terrorism! Oh no! When absolutely anything is labeled as terrorism, it instantly becomes bad. Including DDoSing a website and causing it to go down temporarily.
Consequences? Such as idiotic people believing every lie they hear? That's really the only 'consequence' that I see, and it can be solved by people researching on their own.
That said, any 'consequences' are worth it in order to gain true free speech. It's just becoming more and more restrictive, largely due to the stupidity of humans, not the fault of free speech.
As opposed to no one. I said nothing about another country having more free speech protections. It's just that the term "free speech" doesn't make any sense if it's not absolute. It's more like "mostly free speech."
As for other countries, they're either the same or worse. Still, the situation could be better.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks is randomly dumping documents hoping they sow chaos and fear in his enemies.
Documents that expose corruption.
Leaking secret diplomatic communications helps citizens have oversight over their government how exactly?
Taking into account previously released leaks, by making more people wary of the government so that hopefully something will eventually be done.
Put the word "Internet" into it and everyone looses their frickin mind thinking this idiot is some kind of hero.
Real life, the internet, it doesn't matter to me. The internet is just a useful tool for communication which makes things like this easier. I don't know about 'hero', but I certainly applaud what he's doing.
When the status quo is more painful than the pain caused by changing the status quo
Which is when? What are the signs?
Attempting to do so before then is simply causing more pain that it is worth.
Hurt who?
Power corrupts.
Some people (but you're right in most cases). But anyway, this is just more proof that we need less power for the few and more (note: not all) for the majority.
Thus we design our social norms accordingly, with checks and balances and limits to minimize the damage.
Yeah, and more effort needs to be put into this, obviously.
If you carefully maintain it and promote stability, nature can run its course without causing more of an impact to people than it should.
How? Nothing will change if nothing is done. It will just get worse until something actually is done.
If they are all conveniently US banks and companies, then I'd say that lends some credence to the anti-US idea.
But, don't they only release information that they receive? If they don't have information on other banks and companies, they can't release it (assuming that's true).
It is exactly like AQ and their suicide bombers
No, it's not. It's like someone exposing (or trying to) corruption.
Assange is on the same team, just attacking a different weak link in modern society.
You mean the fact that the people hardly have any control over their governments at all?
That there is a third option. Kill them. While we still can.
Yes, kill someone for exposing corruption. Good idea! Or, they could just, you know, not be corrupt.
This is about corporations, not government.
In many cases, corporations do control the government, but not all. The government is correct as well, and must be reformed, too. Actually, taking down a few corporations won't really change anything. You need to rework the government to try to minimalize the chances of this happening again.
You're making a false assumption.
Not really, considering I also said:
(or people that speak out against said people)
If you incite chaos you sacrifice stability
When is a good time, then? There's never a time when this won't happen. It's gone on for far too long already.
and in the process you end up hurting the innocent along with the guilty.
Like?
On the other hand, I also believe that it's entirely possible to cross the line and start causing some real harm, even if it hasn't happened yet.
Such as...? If the government committed crimes, all harm is ultimately their fault, as they should not have committed the crimes (if they happened). Exposing the truth is far more important than just shrugging it off because of 'security'.
You're just as bad, corrupt, and potentially tyrannous as those you espouse to hate.
That's a pretty big assumption. Just because some people are corrupt, that doesn't mean that all people are (or people that speak out against said people).
When you're raised in a society that indirectly praises the greedy and corrupt, what do you expect? He was shaped by his environment, if he was shaped at all.
I'm sorry, but after reading your post filled with ad hominems, my question still remains unanswered. I ask again: what is wrong with being someone who infringes upon copyright and what does that have to do with the situation at hand?
But that doesn't mean letting self proclaimed pirates be in charge
What's wrong with being a 'pirate'? I fail to see how that's relevant to this.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Ah, yes. Let's apply this intelligent mentality to the real world! Computers? No, they're not broken, so let's not even bother making them better! My software? Well, it has a few bugs, but it's still usable, so why bother fixing it? It's not broke!
it's trusted because well
I'm pretty sure it's not trusted at this point in time. At least, more people are getting increasingly angry.
What's funny is that apparently Wikileaks contacted the US government to see which documents exactly had names of people who would be endangered, and instead of telling them, they responded to them with threats. Yeah, they really care about these supposed people and their freedoms...
What? The US government knows that the documents will be released no matter what, and Assange gave them the opportunity to 'save' these supposed lives that are in danger. Instead, they very foolishly responded with threats instead of at least trying to save these supposed people knowing that the documents would be released regardless, only now they would be released with this names (if they exist). Please, tell me, how was that a smart decision?
If they don't want themselves to be thought of as worthless, corrupt politicians, perhaps they shouldn't be worthless, corrupt politicians. Their actions are ultimately their own fault, and there's no reason that their crimes shouldn't be exposed. They violate the privacy of the people all of the time (Patriot Act, TSA, etc), and then they expect the people to care when it happens to them? I think not. If they don't wish their crimes to be exposed, they shouldn't commit them in the first place.
Stop being corrupt. Seriously. They won't have anything on you if you don't abuse your powers like power-hungry idiots. Don't get mad at them for exposing the truth.
You keep saying "eternal life," but that implies that you can't die. From what I see, this just stops/reverses the aging process. It does not make you immortal.
Another issue is, let's say you manage to create a drug that stops aging without the nasty side effects of body wide cancerous growth or a failing brain, then what? Will you patent it, or release it to the public domain?
That's not an issue with the drug itself, but of human stupidity.
is it morally acceptable to let a portion of the world die of because they can't afford the pills?
This is already being done, only with food. Some people could, potentially, be saved, but they don't have any money to get the food.
If you are essentially eternally young, do you still get to go on pension? Will you have to work forever?
If you're able, why shouldn't you work? I'm against the idea of people sitting back and doing nothing while contributing nothing, mostly so if they've never even contributed anything.
There is no reason to assume we can store an infinite amount of data, what happens when we reach that limit?
Unlimited? No, but I'm sure we can hold a reasonably high amount of information. That said, you'd probably forget older things.
Of course, eternal life brings on a whole other problem as well, will the religious people accept the existence of such a drug, or will they do all they can to stop/destroy it?
Who cares? They can't do anything about it. The process of change shouldn't be halted simply because some ignorant people disagree. Nothing would get done that way.
we aren't ready for eternal life
I disagree. Not much would change. People would still die, though it would be from other causes. Even now, the world's population is in need of some thinning.
we as a species are still driven by greed and superstition
You speak of many people, but not all. Your environment is largely what shapes you. If people grow up in a society where it is normal to be a greedy, superstitious person, chances are (if they are weak-minded) they will be a greedy, superstitious person themselves. Change that environment and the hoards are sure to follow.
Having some sort of forum to decide who gets to live on & who gets to die?
What? No. I meant that people are too uncaring about the future and constantly pump out child after child. If it wasn't for the stupidity of humans, we wouldn't be overpopulated.
And how do you plan to do that?
Perhaps some sort of chemical that lessens the chances of successful births.
Imagine not growing old, ever, and then contemplate the fact that you can experience all possible experiences for an infinite number of times
Create new experiences, then. Actually, that would take a really, really long time. Probably worth it in the end.
That said, imagine how dull the afterlife would be if it existed.
but after some time you'll wish you died
So kill yourself.
but I'm also realistic enough to know that current population growth is heading straight for disaster
Not because of long lives, but because of the stupidity and selfishness of many humans who don't think about the future.
putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me.
Perhaps they should be working on a way to reduce the amount of successful births.
Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare.
Except if it wasn't a nightmare.
Terrorism! Oh no! When absolutely anything is labeled as terrorism, it instantly becomes bad. Including DDoSing a website and causing it to go down temporarily.
Consequences? Such as idiotic people believing every lie they hear? That's really the only 'consequence' that I see, and it can be solved by people researching on their own.
That said, any 'consequences' are worth it in order to gain true free speech. It's just becoming more and more restrictive, largely due to the stupidity of humans, not the fault of free speech.
As opposed to no one. I said nothing about another country having more free speech protections. It's just that the term "free speech" doesn't make any sense if it's not absolute. It's more like "mostly free speech."
As for other countries, they're either the same or worse. Still, the situation could be better.