I feel the same way you do about the military secrets and assets that could have, and might have, put our soldiers at risk, but I don't think it was possible for Manning to be entirely selective about the data he was getting. He did not have time to do so, or the expertise. That was Wikileaks responsibility as journalists and facilitators of whistle-blowers, and they failed.
what? an international company exposing american spies breaking international law, they had no responsibility to protect them
Don't we already have a wonderfully diverse way of interfacing with each others brains?
and thanks to how wonderfully and unique each brain is, its impossible to get significantly more direct access to it..
For example. when i think "flower" i'm thinking something compleatly different in every concieveable way than whne you think flower. different groups of neurons are firing compaired to you.. the very way i think about "flower" is compleatly unique to myself. the best they could do is interface with the input routs your ears / eyes use to transmit information into your brain, so they could plant a chip, sync it up to your auditory system, and then when they triggered it you would hear a noise as if you were wearing earphones.
this may however allow for intergration into computer systems, so instead of looking at a monitor you could enter a dream state where images would be directly fed to your visual & auditory cortex. this is less about communicating with other minds and more about "entering the matrix". pretty cool none the less.
he acknowledges it, but doesn't care. he is already costing the CC company money by claiming rewards without paying yearly fees or interest. however for every dollar he costs them they are making $1000 back on those who have had the same mindset, found they needed to lean on the credit card for any period of time, and had to pay back the interest. i doubt they are worried because someone can stick to a budget, where as thankfully to them not many people can.
tldr; the CC company make their money back on idiots, not on every single user. they make money of business regardless of if you use your CC or not.
I think its important to note that the safest thing for Assange to do is make sure this remains in the spot light. its going to be a lot harder to make him disappear.
its also possible that America are happy to make this a big spot light event, even if it pisses off its allies (which America has never really had a problem with before) and hang him anyway (you piss off us, doesn't matter who you are we will get you).
this is the same prime minister that stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, luckily its up to Rudd to deal with extradition, and Rudd is somewhat supportive of Assange. I guess he is still bitter about being kicked out of the top job by the oil companies.
if it goes to a jury they almost always side with the victim. the problem is it almost never goes to a jury.
they listen to your evidence, then they attempt to charge the accused, its then up to the accused to poke holes in the arguments until it gets dismissed from court. if it goes to a jury trial then there is a good chance they will be found guilty of at least some charges unless they have a really good lawyer, nothing says justice like lots of money.
He just "happens" to have hacking charges? Uh, don't brush those off. If I had hacking charges, that would be a big deal for me.
you don't release "secret" documents without acquiring hacking charges along the way.
also only hacking charges indicate to me that he only hacked, he would have gotten charged with other crimes if he did anything with that information like blackmail, fraud etc.
sounds like he had a snoop when he discovered an insecure website. i've done it once (Google search gave a link to the admin page), i could have been charged with hacking too, and I'm not crazy.
I find it hard to believe the charges.
1) coincidence, you can't deny its suspicious.
2) If you've been raped, the last thing you really want to do is tell a room full of strangers about it, let alone the rest of the world. the shear amount of shame you feel (regardless of society look on it) makes you want to forget it and pretend it never happened. the elephant in the room looms when you talk to someone who knows what happened to you. its exceptionally uncomfortable.
although this doesn't apply to random sexual assaults, this really only applies if someone you've invested trust into takes advantage of you.
Obviously my anecdotal evidence isn't conclusive, but it certainly enough for me to question the validity of the claims.
but America kills its criminals too? you have the death penalty.
in fact, most European countries don't support or use the death penalty.
Belarus China Ecuador Egypt India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Malaysia Mongolia North Korea Pakistan Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore South Korea Taiwan Tonga United States
from wikipedia.
Still doesn't defend your high incarceration rate. if "suppressive china" has less prisoners, more people and supports the death penalty, then whats americas excuse?
so, if you pay me for a service or a product, AFTER you've paid me i can then say "i don't want to do business with you any more" without providing the service you paid for?
this is a company using loop holes to game the system.
If I understand his statement, his line of reasoning ends when there is no patients, to which i agree.
If you have an invention (you spent thousands developing let say) but you struggle to make money off it because competitors are doing it cheaper, is that a fault of "the system" or just the inventors bad business sense. if a competitor is able to copy your design / idea before you can re-coup your losses then its not a very ingenious invention is it?
I think there is a failure here to recognize what aspects of the information should remain private and what should be public.
I would not expect the receptionist for company xyz to have her personal information shared like the location of her house or her political persuasion. why would you hold anon at a higher standard then you would hold the government?
the way anon operate is more public than any other company or collective known to man. Also, it was Anon that published the list that was compiled by Aaron Barr to the public as a whole. Mr. Barr had no intent on publishing the information publicly and instead wanted to use it to commit fraud.
don't forget, terrorists are only a threat to you because of your beliefs. Terrorists aren't against you because you're in their land stealing their resources and shooting at them.. no... terrorists are against your "freedom".
they could treat it like a terrorist / espionage act & therefor "for the security of the nation, we will pursue those who engage in this behaviour across country borders".
which makes things interesting because the government who receives the information would consider the American "spy" would be conducting espionage and breaking their law.
Best way to ruin relations with your allies though.
America: "this Australian has told everyone about the spy we've got in australia, we are going to charge him as a terrorist"
Australia should say : "Illegally kidnapping an Australian for a terrorist act by informing the Australian public about illegal spying against the Australian government... this is an act of war."
Australia will say : "Naughty reporters... here you go America, wanna BJ while we are here too?"
Slashdot Mirror
I feel the same way you do about the military secrets and assets that could have, and might have, put our soldiers at risk, but I don't think it was possible for Manning to be entirely selective about the data he was getting. He did not have time to do so, or the expertise. That was Wikileaks responsibility as journalists and facilitators of whistle-blowers, and they failed.
what? an international company exposing american spies breaking international law, they had no responsibility to protect them
Don't we already have a wonderfully diverse way of interfacing with each others brains?
and thanks to how wonderfully and unique each brain is, its impossible to get significantly more direct access to it..
For example. when i think "flower" i'm thinking something compleatly different in every concieveable way than whne you think flower. different groups of neurons are firing compaired to you.. the very way i think about "flower" is compleatly unique to myself. the best they could do is interface with the input routs your ears / eyes use to transmit information into your brain, so they could plant a chip, sync it up to your auditory system, and then when they triggered it you would hear a noise as if you were wearing earphones.
this may however allow for intergration into computer systems, so instead of looking at a monitor you could enter a dream state where images would be directly fed to your visual & auditory cortex. this is less about communicating with other minds and more about "entering the matrix". pretty cool none the less.
you'd only be given user rights to your brain, a boss is admin and has access to all aspects. I'm lucky cause my boss is sexy..
he acknowledges it, but doesn't care. he is already costing the CC company money by claiming rewards without paying yearly fees or interest. however for every dollar he costs them they are making $1000 back on those who have had the same mindset, found they needed to lean on the credit card for any period of time, and had to pay back the interest. i doubt they are worried because someone can stick to a budget, where as thankfully to them not many people can. tldr; the CC company make their money back on idiots, not on every single user. they make money of business regardless of if you use your CC or not.
I think its important to note that the safest thing for Assange to do is make sure this remains in the spot light. its going to be a lot harder to make him disappear. its also possible that America are happy to make this a big spot light event, even if it pisses off its allies (which America has never really had a problem with before) and hang him anyway (you piss off us, doesn't matter who you are we will get you).
this is the same prime minister that stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, luckily its up to Rudd to deal with extradition, and Rudd is somewhat supportive of Assange. I guess he is still bitter about being kicked out of the top job by the oil companies.
if it goes to a jury they almost always side with the victim. the problem is it almost never goes to a jury. they listen to your evidence, then they attempt to charge the accused, its then up to the accused to poke holes in the arguments until it gets dismissed from court. if it goes to a jury trial then there is a good chance they will be found guilty of at least some charges unless they have a really good lawyer, nothing says justice like lots of money.
He just "happens" to have hacking charges? Uh, don't brush those off. If I had hacking charges, that would be a big deal for me.
you don't release "secret" documents without acquiring hacking charges along the way.
also only hacking charges indicate to me that he only hacked, he would have gotten charged with other crimes if he did anything with that information like blackmail, fraud etc.
sounds like he had a snoop when he discovered an insecure website. i've done it once (Google search gave a link to the admin page), i could have been charged with hacking too, and I'm not crazy.
I find it hard to believe the charges.
1) coincidence, you can't deny its suspicious.
2) If you've been raped, the last thing you really want to do is tell a room full of strangers about it, let alone the rest of the world. the shear amount of shame you feel (regardless of society look on it) makes you want to forget it and pretend it never happened. the elephant in the room looms when you talk to someone who knows what happened to you. its exceptionally uncomfortable.
although this doesn't apply to random sexual assaults, this really only applies if someone you've invested trust into takes advantage of you.
Obviously my anecdotal evidence isn't conclusive, but it certainly enough for me to question the validity of the claims.
you know your referring to the voting public right?
no more so than if your naked image gets released on the internet.
no, perhaps you should read what the U part stands for in USA.
considering your freedoms are mostly controlled by the federal government & constitution your point is invalid in regards to freedom.
Belarus China Ecuador Egypt India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Malaysia Mongolia North Korea Pakistan Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore South Korea Taiwan Tonga United States
from wikipedia. Still doesn't defend your high incarceration rate. if "suppressive china" has less prisoners, more people and supports the death penalty, then whats americas excuse?
so, if you pay me for a service or a product, AFTER you've paid me i can then say "i don't want to do business with you any more" without providing the service you paid for? this is a company using loop holes to game the system.
if they still need humans to repair and build robots, can i apply for the "human breeding" program :D
If I understand his statement, his line of reasoning ends when there is no patients, to which i agree. If you have an invention (you spent thousands developing let say) but you struggle to make money off it because competitors are doing it cheaper, is that a fault of "the system" or just the inventors bad business sense. if a competitor is able to copy your design / idea before you can re-coup your losses then its not a very ingenious invention is it?
source? that's pretty big news.
I think there is a failure here to recognize what aspects of the information should remain private and what should be public.
I would not expect the receptionist for company xyz to have her personal information shared like the location of her house or her political persuasion. why would you hold anon at a higher standard then you would hold the government?
the way anon operate is more public than any other company or collective known to man. Also, it was Anon that published the list that was compiled by Aaron Barr to the public as a whole. Mr. Barr had no intent on publishing the information publicly and instead wanted to use it to commit fraud.
don't forget, terrorists are only a threat to you because of your beliefs. Terrorists aren't against you because you're in their land stealing their resources and shooting at them.. no... terrorists are against your "freedom".
the guy with a sign isn't actually doing anything wrong?
And the KKK lynched Black men that raped white women. The Nazi's attacked communist that where a threat to the German way of life and their freedom.
and the Americans are torturing terrorists for the good of the nation.
and since when was it ok for the government to put a sign on a front door of a shop saying "closed due to pedophile investigation"
I think you're missing the point.
they could treat it like a terrorist / espionage act & therefor "for the security of the nation, we will pursue those who engage in this behaviour across country borders".
which makes things interesting because the government who receives the information would consider the American "spy" would be conducting espionage and breaking their law.
Best way to ruin relations with your allies though.
America: "this Australian has told everyone about the spy we've got in australia, we are going to charge him as a terrorist"
Australia should say : "Illegally kidnapping an Australian for a terrorist act by informing the Australian public about illegal spying against the Australian government... this is an act of war."
Australia will say : "Naughty reporters... here you go America, wanna BJ while we are here too?"
Now what this would do it make it illegal for Wikileaks to release more information along the lines specified in the bill.
no it wont, Wikileaks isn't under American jurisdiction.
ISWYDT