The main Wikileaks site is not down. I have just been there. Therefore, you have admitted that Wikileaks has taken down all non-U.S. related info from their site. You have proven my point. Thank you, you lose.
Apparently you haven't been to Wikileaks lately. The links on the left lead to, in order: Wikileaks front page, Diary Dig (http://warlogs.wikileaks.org/iraq/diarydig), War Logs (http://warlogs.owni.fr/), Support Us, About Wikileaks, and Submissions. That is all. Please, tell me which one of those will take me to the details of the Tiger Woods gag order.
If he is not targeting the U.S. then what happened to old data on other countries? The only data on Wikileaks is solely about the U.S. By removing the data about other countries, he has made your argument invalid. Even if he returns the old data to the site, the fact that he removed it in the first place shows that he has turned Wikileaks into an anti-U.S. site. Returning it would only prove that he learned from his overt act.
Or, are they the only ones they chose to release. If what you say is true, then the non-U.S. data on Wikileaks should still be there, but it is not. All the old data about other countries, etc. has been pulled.
Really? Is that why when I went to Wikileaks, everything was about the United States? Nice of you to speak out your ass like the moron you are. Maybe next time you will go look at Wikileaks before you shit out your opinion.
That has nothing to do with the reason Wikileaks released the information. Rather that has to do with the information in the cables. The reason for the release was because Assange hates America.
The U.S. is the juiciest target? What about Russia and its corruption and political oppression? Mexico and its corruption and drug cartels? What about Ireland and its corporate tax giveaways? Why aren't they looking at how that continued? How about the collapse of Ireland's banking system? Or, the collapse of Iceland economy? What about human trafficking in China, mostly female North Korean sex workers. Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries covering up physical and sexual abuse of foreign workers, including murder? Sexual abuse of female workers in Chinese factories? Tacit government approval of child sex workers and tourism in Thailand, Viet Nam, and Cambodia?
Yeah, you are right. The U.S. has all the juiciest stories. In fact, there are no other stories worth pursuing any where else.
Did you also notice the pretty much indifferent response of many of the countries concerning many of the revelations? Could it be that they also do the exact same things shown in the cables?
Wikileaks just wants to embarrass the U.S. and damage the ties the U.S. has with other nations. There was nothing criminal or even shocking other than the candid opinions of lower level personal in the state department about other countries and said countries leaders. The worst thing is that this damages the relationship between the U.S. and various other countries, especially those in the Middle East as well as many Middle East countries relationship with Iran.
This is just Assange using wikileaks to attack a country he hates.
Yeah, I will just make all those nasty comments you have made about your family, friends, co-workers, boss(es), and companies publicly available and email everyone you know , have ever worked for or with, work for or with now, or may work for in the future links to said comments.
So, what you are saying is that companies who people claim are super greedy to the point of being evil are actually going to purposefully waste money?
Or,is it actually a case of the company paying for the tour did not let the artist change the tour so the artist claims the company is not being careful with the money?
Who really has more knowledge about tours: a new artist or a company that has been putting artists on tour for decades?
Really? All Mozilla has to do is keep a list of the installed plugins, which is then hashed to create a signature. If the installer adds a plugin, when FF starts up, the list of plugins does not match the signature of the previous list and asks the user if he wants to keep the new plugins. Conversely, it could provide a list of all plugins to the user when it finds a plugin that is new.
The problem is a Firefox problem. As long as a third party can install plugins without the user's consent, it is a Firefox problem.
So, when the malicious software clobbers the public key and re-signs all the plugins, what happens when FireFox uses the private key to check the signatures?
So the installer is going to start and run until the user inputs which password where? No trusted plugin list == make all plugins trusted? That is even more stupid than not having any plugin security at all. Patch which executable to show a bogus password prompt? Firefox? And, why would a user have to put up with a password prompt every time they opened their browser? They would only have to do enter a password to add a plugin or if there was a change to the trusted plugin list.
You can try to defend them all you want, but the end result is the same. Mozilla could easily prevent this, but they would rather claim the issue is not with their security but rather with what other companies are doing because of their lack of security.
Everyone used to slam MS for blaming hackers for it's security problems. But, when it is Mozilla blaming people taking advantage of poor security in Firefox, it is fine. That is hypocrisy in action.
He says these plug-ins install themselves like trojan horses.
If MS, Apple, and Google all decided to stop doing it, the real problem would still exist and be dangerous. What is to stop someone from coding up a malicious plugin, and a free, fun little game, and distributing them together, installing the plugin as a trojan horse.
This is a security issue with Firefox. Why isn't there any outrage this is even possible? If this were IE, everyone would be ripping on MS and complaining that MS made a product where something like this is possible and on the tactics to distract from the real issue. Why isn't that happening here?
This solution requires Mozilla to fix things on their end rather than complaining about big companies doing something Mozilla didn't bother to prevent.
Where do you think the money for the tours, the t-shirts, posters, etc. comes from? Unless the band is living in a van and playing bars and other tiny venues, it is going to come from a contract with a record company who is probably a member of the RIAA.
Those reports you read, did you find them via anti-copyright, anti-DRM, anti-corporate, anti-RIAA websites? Or, did you go out and try to find balanced, neutral information?
As far as I can tell you are praising those that provide nothing to the artists while lambasting those who give at least something to the artist.
I suggest you check your list again and this time go check the laws. Most, if not all, of those countries have laws that effect free speech against one or more of religion(s), the government, the past, food products, corporations, and many other things.
But, there was no coercion, no attempt to force one's ideology, political, or religious beliefs upon others through the use of fear inspired by violence or threat of violence. This was just "a prank", a very dangerous, malicious, vicious prank on the level of shouting fire in a crowded theater after baring most of the doors.
Really? So, if someone breaks into your house and steals from you, the cops should say "Sorry, asshat, next time don't use a crappy lock with short screws in the plate, don't use glass in your windows, buy a monitored alarm and use it, and blame the rest of the world for your folly.
Slashdot Mirror
The main Wikileaks site is not down. I have just been there. Therefore, you have admitted that Wikileaks has taken down all non-U.S. related info from their site. You have proven my point. Thank you, you lose.
Apparently you haven't been to Wikileaks lately. The links on the left lead to, in order: Wikileaks front page, Diary Dig (http://warlogs.wikileaks.org/iraq/diarydig), War Logs (http://warlogs.owni.fr/), Support Us, About Wikileaks, and Submissions. That is all. Please, tell me which one of those will take me to the details of the Tiger Woods gag order.
If he is not targeting the U.S. then what happened to old data on other countries? The only data on Wikileaks is solely about the U.S. By removing the data about other countries, he has made your argument invalid. Even if he returns the old data to the site, the fact that he removed it in the first place shows that he has turned Wikileaks into an anti-U.S. site. Returning it would only prove that he learned from his overt act.
Or, are they the only ones they chose to release. If what you say is true, then the non-U.S. data on Wikileaks should still be there, but it is not. All the old data about other countries, etc. has been pulled.
Really? Then explain where all the non-U.S. leaks went. Until you do that, your argument is invalid.
Really? Is that why when I went to Wikileaks, everything was about the United States? Nice of you to speak out your ass like the moron you are. Maybe next time you will go look at Wikileaks before you shit out your opinion.
That has nothing to do with the reason Wikileaks released the information. Rather that has to do with the information in the cables. The reason for the release was because Assange hates America.
The U.S. is the juiciest target?
What about Russia and its corruption and political oppression?
Mexico and its corruption and drug cartels?
What about Ireland and its corporate tax giveaways? Why aren't they looking at how that continued?
How about the collapse of Ireland's banking system? Or, the collapse of Iceland economy?
What about human trafficking in China, mostly female North Korean sex workers.
Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries covering up physical and sexual abuse of foreign workers, including murder?
Sexual abuse of female workers in Chinese factories?
Tacit government approval of child sex workers and tourism in Thailand, Viet Nam, and Cambodia?
Yeah, you are right. The U.S. has all the juiciest stories. In fact, there are no other stories worth pursuing any where else.
Did you also notice the pretty much indifferent response of many of the countries concerning many of the revelations? Could it be that they also do the exact same things shown in the cables?
Wikileaks just wants to embarrass the U.S. and damage the ties the U.S. has with other nations. There was nothing criminal or even shocking other than the candid opinions of lower level personal in the state department about other countries and said countries leaders. The worst thing is that this damages the relationship between the U.S. and various other countries, especially those in the Middle East as well as many Middle East countries relationship with Iran.
This is just Assange using wikileaks to attack a country he hates.
Yeah, I will just make all those nasty comments you have made about your family, friends, co-workers, boss(es), and companies publicly available and email everyone you know , have ever worked for or with, work for or with now, or may work for in the future links to said comments.
You have no problem with that, right?
So, what you are saying is that companies who people claim are super greedy to the point of being evil are actually going to purposefully waste money?
Or,is it actually a case of the company paying for the tour did not let the artist change the tour so the artist claims the company is not being careful with the money?
Who really has more knowledge about tours: a new artist or a company that has been putting artists on tour for decades?
Really? All Mozilla has to do is keep a list of the installed plugins, which is then hashed to create a signature. If the installer adds a plugin, when FF starts up, the list of plugins does not match the signature of the previous list and asks the user if he wants to keep the new plugins. Conversely, it could provide a list of all plugins to the user when it finds a plugin that is new.
The problem is a Firefox problem. As long as a third party can install plugins without the user's consent, it is a Firefox problem.
So, when the malicious software clobbers the public key and re-signs all the plugins, what happens when FireFox uses the private key to check the signatures?
So the installer is going to start and run until the user inputs which password where?
No trusted plugin list == make all plugins trusted? That is even more stupid than not having any plugin security at all.
Patch which executable to show a bogus password prompt? Firefox? And, why would a user have to put up with a password prompt every time they opened their browser? They would only have to do enter a password to add a plugin or if there was a change to the trusted plugin list.
You can try to defend them all you want, but the end result is the same. Mozilla could easily prevent this, but they would rather claim the issue is not with their security but rather with what other companies are doing because of their lack of security.
Everyone used to slam MS for blaming hackers for it's security problems. But, when it is Mozilla blaming people taking advantage of poor security in Firefox, it is fine. That is hypocrisy in action.
Define "careful" in the context in which you use it.
See the below comments about how to control this without having to do anything you suggest.
He says these plug-ins install themselves like trojan horses.
If MS, Apple, and Google all decided to stop doing it, the real problem would still exist and be dangerous. What is to stop someone from coding up a malicious plugin, and a free, fun little game, and distributing them together, installing the plugin as a trojan horse.
This is a security issue with Firefox. Why isn't there any outrage this is even possible? If this were IE, everyone would be ripping on MS and complaining that MS made a product where something like this is possible and on the tactics to distract from the real issue. Why isn't that happening here?
This solution requires Mozilla to fix things on their end rather than complaining about big companies doing something Mozilla didn't bother to prevent.
Where do you think the money for the tours, the t-shirts, posters, etc. comes from? Unless the band is living in a van and playing bars and other tiny venues, it is going to come from a contract with a record company who is probably a member of the RIAA.
Those reports you read, did you find them via anti-copyright, anti-DRM, anti-corporate, anti-RIAA websites? Or, did you go out and try to find balanced, neutral information?
As far as I can tell you are praising those that provide nothing to the artists while lambasting those who give at least something to the artist.
And, what do downloaders, the makers of unauthorized copies, what do THEY give to the artists?
Or, someone figured out he has been modbombing people.
Absolute free speech is what you want? Are you sure about that? Have you thought through the consequences?
I suggest you check your list again and this time go check the laws. Most, if not all, of those countries have laws that effect free speech against one or more of religion(s), the government, the past, food products, corporations, and many other things.
But, there was no coercion, no attempt to force one's ideology, political, or religious beliefs upon others through the use of fear inspired by violence or threat of violence. This was just "a prank", a very dangerous, malicious, vicious prank on the level of shouting fire in a crowded theater after baring most of the doors.
Really? So, if someone breaks into your house and steals from you, the cops should say "Sorry, asshat, next time don't use a crappy lock with short screws in the plate, don't use glass in your windows, buy a monitored alarm and use it, and blame the rest of the world for your folly.
As opposed to whom, exactly? Please, do inform us of the country with greater free speech protections.