You're right, "contemporaries" was a poor choice of words. I should have used "colleagues", since I was primarily referring to others in the Imperial Civil Service.
In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
What's worse: for a government agent to make a law that's unconstitutional, or to just take an action that is without even the color of applying a given law?
With the Wikileaks case, the powers that be have demonstrated quite clearly that they don't give a damn what's legal and what's not legal. They're going to do what they're going to do, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.
Exactly right, and this is probably the scariest thing that's come out of the Wikileaks debacle. I haven't read any of the leaked cables, and I have no idea if Assange et al broke any actual laws in acquiring the documents and releasing them. But the way he's being destroyed by the US Federal government and its allies is frightening, to say the least.
The people complaining about the Feds using the commerce clause to smack this asshat down are simply misinformed, whatever their political inclinations. Doing business over the Internet, especially* when the buyer and seller are in different states, is most definitely interstate commerce and has to be policed by the Feds.
*I say "especially" because it's possible for a buyer to be in one part of a state and the seller in another, but their transaction runs across routers and/or servers in other states, making their transaction fall under interstate commerce. A small mom-and-pop retail store in Oklahoma that hosts with GoDaddy in Arizona is going to be engaging in interstate commerce regardless of their buyer's location (someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong on the legal details involved).
Ignoring pleas of the people isn't exactly the kind of things he advocated.
Are you kidding me? Harmony of the state and living under a strict hierarchy are the linchpins of Confucious thought. The very idea that the "people" should be able to have a voice, let alone use it, would have been anathema to him and his contemporaries.
Confucius was a statist, pure and simple. Trying to paint him otherwise does a disservice to history and distorts the man's beliefs (however much I might disagree with them, I'm not going to deny he had them or that he was proud of them).
"Fraud" has fuck all to do with free speech. You won't find any "libertarian" defense of stalking one's customers and threatening people with bodily harm.
Don't be fooled. This is a power play by employers to take even more power from the deunionized employee base
Yes, because managers sit around all day talking with each other about how they can strip rights from their workers. It's not about making sure the company is safe from being ripped off by unscrupulous employees who see nothing wrong with stealing from the company.
You expect TSA employees, who get flumoxed operating the equipment they've been trained on, to become perfect poker players and pick out the terrorists standing in line? How is that not creating a sea of potential abuse?
The individual "militias" of the other states sometimes have more firepower than entire nations.
The individual states don't normally have diplomatic relations with other countries (under the Constitution, that's the purview of the President and the Senate), but they do enter into trade and other international agreements. Case in point: a quick search for "ontario premier international travel" turned up one link about him going to Italy to talk to Fiat about a new factory. Meanwhile, similar searches for the governors of Texas and California turned up pages and pages of results of them going to foreign countries to enter into bilateral trade agreements with them.
All of which proves the point that you are completely ignoring: the US is a special case, and the states are more than just provinces. They have far more autonomy than Swiss cantons, Japanese Prefectures, English counties, or French departments. Trying to hold to the notion that this is not the case is just asinine.
Actually, I've switched the majority of my searching to Bing over the last few months. I've found their results tend to be much more accurate than Google's for the things I search for.
Granted, not everyone out there is searching for transvestite-dwarf wrestling match information, but the way Bing services that niche is impressive.
I think it's time we had a rating agency for search engines. Something like what Moody's does (or at least is supposed to do) for bonds and what the BBB does for business in general. I'm not sure exactly how one would go about doing that, or what criteria would be selected to govern rankings, but with the number of search engines out there who don't publish their method of ranking things there has to be a way to determine who's system is the most accurate.
So someone says they aren't competing with Wikileaks, yet they're creating a resource that does essentially the same thing in a different way. The editors and submitter simply put more weight on what they're doing rather than what they say they're doing. Makes sense to me.
My guess it was purely a pragmatic decision. Their other customers were being affected by the DDoS, too, so it makes sense to kick Wikileaks off. At least until things calm down.
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you. It makes you look petty and discourages others from changing their opinions in favor of yours in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could, I dunno, get a USB keyboard that has two or four USB ports on it, itself. Try doing that with PS2.
You're right, "contemporaries" was a poor choice of words. I should have used "colleagues", since I was primarily referring to others in the Imperial Civil Service.
Can you use your MasterCard to pay for your New York Times subscription? If so, MasterCard are a bunch of hypocrites.
In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
What's worse: for a government agent to make a law that's unconstitutional, or to just take an action that is without even the color of applying a given law?
With the Wikileaks case, the powers that be have demonstrated quite clearly that they don't give a damn what's legal and what's not legal. They're going to do what they're going to do, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.
Exactly right, and this is probably the scariest thing that's come out of the Wikileaks debacle. I haven't read any of the leaked cables, and I have no idea if Assange et al broke any actual laws in acquiring the documents and releasing them. But the way he's being destroyed by the US Federal government and its allies is frightening, to say the least.
The people complaining about the Feds using the commerce clause to smack this asshat down are simply misinformed, whatever their political inclinations. Doing business over the Internet, especially* when the buyer and seller are in different states, is most definitely interstate commerce and has to be policed by the Feds.
*I say "especially" because it's possible for a buyer to be in one part of a state and the seller in another, but their transaction runs across routers and/or servers in other states, making their transaction fall under interstate commerce. A small mom-and-pop retail store in Oklahoma that hosts with GoDaddy in Arizona is going to be engaging in interstate commerce regardless of their buyer's location (someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong on the legal details involved).
Ignoring pleas of the people isn't exactly the kind of things he advocated.
Are you kidding me? Harmony of the state and living under a strict hierarchy are the linchpins of Confucious thought. The very idea that the "people" should be able to have a voice, let alone use it, would have been anathema to him and his contemporaries.
Confucius was a statist, pure and simple. Trying to paint him otherwise does a disservice to history and distorts the man's beliefs (however much I might disagree with them, I'm not going to deny he had them or that he was proud of them).
Italian broadcast after 11pm.
"Fraud" has fuck all to do with free speech. You won't find any "libertarian" defense of stalking one's customers and threatening people with bodily harm.
Don't be fooled. This is a power play by employers to take even more power from the deunionized employee base
Yes, because managers sit around all day talking with each other about how they can strip rights from their workers. It's not about making sure the company is safe from being ripped off by unscrupulous employees who see nothing wrong with stealing from the company.
You expect TSA employees, who get flumoxed operating the equipment they've been trained on, to become perfect poker players and pick out the terrorists standing in line? How is that not creating a sea of potential abuse?
The individual "militias" of the other states sometimes have more firepower than entire nations.
The individual states don't normally have diplomatic relations with other countries (under the Constitution, that's the purview of the President and the Senate), but they do enter into trade and other international agreements. Case in point: a quick search for "ontario premier international travel" turned up one link about him going to Italy to talk to Fiat about a new factory. Meanwhile, similar searches for the governors of Texas and California turned up pages and pages of results of them going to foreign countries to enter into bilateral trade agreements with them.
All of which proves the point that you are completely ignoring: the US is a special case, and the states are more than just provinces. They have far more autonomy than Swiss cantons, Japanese Prefectures, English counties, or French departments. Trying to hold to the notion that this is not the case is just asinine.
Markets can only work with information. What I'm thinking about is a way to provide meaningful information to consumers of search engines.
Actually, I've switched the majority of my searching to Bing over the last few months. I've found their results tend to be much more accurate than Google's for the things I search for.
Granted, not everyone out there is searching for transvestite-dwarf wrestling match information, but the way Bing services that niche is impressive.
I think it's time we had a rating agency for search engines. Something like what Moody's does (or at least is supposed to do) for bonds and what the BBB does for business in general. I'm not sure exactly how one would go about doing that, or what criteria would be selected to govern rankings, but with the number of search engines out there who don't publish their method of ranking things there has to be a way to determine who's system is the most accurate.
So someone says they aren't competing with Wikileaks, yet they're creating a resource that does essentially the same thing in a different way. The editors and submitter simply put more weight on what they're doing rather than what they say they're doing. Makes sense to me.
1: Who cares?
2: Rule 34.
Your right to speak your mind doesn't impose on anyone else the necessity of giving you a megaphone with which to do it.
I'm thinking "rabbit" is his wife's codename. And have you seen pics of her? I'd chase her around an office all day long.
Both of those things [i]require secrecy[/i]. Both of those things [i]require confidential communication[/i].
Slashdot requires proper HTML markup, not BBCode markup. Ensuring you've marked your post properly requires you to preview.
My guess it was purely a pragmatic decision. Their other customers were being affected by the DDoS, too, so it makes sense to kick Wikileaks off. At least until things calm down.
Yes, because that's what rufus_t_firefly's original post was composed of, rational debate. Not sarcasm.
I swear to FSM, some of you people are so stupid I find it amazing you can type without tripping and breaking your own neck.
Really, saying "don't be petty and attack people for not agreeing with you soon enough" is the same as "don't do what's right"?
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you. It makes you look petty and discourages others from changing their opinions in favor of yours in the future.
What about the leaks detailing the views of the Saudis, Egytians, and others towards Iran? How are those "anti-US"?
And here I was thinking "Danegeld" referred to cutting off Dane Cook's nuts. Thanks for ruining my hopes of ending that particular genetic line.