Not just developer resources but conference video, which typically is hundreds of dollars.
Seems if they're putting the video up at all it'd be easier to do it without access controls. No, I can't see how that's some great freebie.
And there's lots of other material, also all provided for free, that takes a ton of effort to maintain - the equivalent to an MSDN subscription which is most certainly NOT free.
Sure it is. Every business and interested professional (anyone with an MS cert at any rate) can get a limited MSDN subscription for almost free, or free. They put a large price-tag on it to make it seem valuable.
And isn't that funny, comparing Apple to Microsoft. Quite appropriate really.
The number of publicised rejections is something like 100 (if that many!) compared to 250k apps...
Yeah, and Apple says not to whine about not being approved. How many people (correctly?) hear that as "if you talk to the media you'll never get approved"?
I and many others have never run into an issue with that. It's pretty easy to tell what's a grey area.
So you say. But other developers, including Google, say otherwise. And they provide proof of the otherwises. You offer a low number of reports as evidence that it probably isn't a big deal.
I do run a business solely developing iPhone apps and there is no such uncertainty.
If you ran a public company and said that in your disclosure statements you'd be breaking the law. There's a really large threat and an unknown risk you choose to interpret as low.
The average approval cycle is still seven days, which has been accurate as far as I can tell through multiple submissions.
Unless your experiences aren't a superset of all other developers experiences. Hmmm.
The "lingering" problem was more of an issue early on, these days you pretty much don't see that anymore.
You pretty much never saw any, so why would you see it stop?
there's not been much, if any, slowdown of iOS app submissions. [...] Again, 250k apps in the store.
That's Microsoft's game again - look at how many redundant apps we've got.
And you could do that before the provision was added... so a window of a few months where that was not allowed for app store submissions.
So there's at least a few months of a window where your business, were you unconventional enough to use a different development language, would have been disrupted. That's the threat I was referring to that you refuse to see.
I don't think so. I'm working to push the industry to quality applications, I'm working to build something users will love.
Sure. Whatever Apple says is quality at the moment.
If we can't work ultimately to benefit users, then why even program at all? You would rather harm the users for some kind of purity test that you feel Apple cannot pass, which I think is a pretty piss-poor attitude to really advance the field of computing.
Pft. 'A' for effort fanboy, but ultimately weak. How is, for instance, forcing Apple to disclose its business reasons for blocking apps harming users?
I'm just not so blind that I can't see the same arguments that applied to Microsoft apply just as well to Apple. It's not the name, it's the arbitrary treatment of the users and developers, their profit over progress attitude, and that they'll cripple a product and lock you to it.
They'll tell you they're your friends, and there'll be a lot of people like you who've merely yet to be walked on trumpeting their wonderful treatment, but as soon as anything goes wrong the users and developers are the ones getting screwed.
So where is Apple's helpful feedback saying "Simply include the iPhone contacts in your list and we'll approve your app?"
If there was a problem, any real problem, they'd have told Google what it was so that they could fix the software or work around it.
The problem is that they'll walk all over any developer they feel is getting too close to them, or a feature Jobs feels proprietary about. There's no objective user or developer benefit behind any of their decisions. Any time there's innovation that threatens Apple's stranglehold on something they'll do their best to strangle it. If fortune smiles your app sails through, if not it's just lost for no stated reason and nothing but tons of bad PR will ever sway them.
The problem is that Google Voice shows how the specific phone/device doesn't matter any more than the specific PC you do a search from does, the network can route to you. Those fancy iPhone apps won't follow you? Ohhh, burn. And so Apple can't allow it.
Why would they waste time telling you not to snitch if it didn't work?
The one thing Apple fears is bad PR - that people will think developing for android is easier and quicker, and (this is all the non-techies will hear) that the cool apps will be there.
I'd rather deal with someone who didn't act like a jerk right up until the end when they pull a Eurasia/Oceania switch and pretend they were pro-developer all along.
What every free market libertarian fails to recognize is that they don't want a free market. They want a very controlled market where the people being fucked around by those companies can't just pitch a torch through their window and burn them down like you'd remove dangerous wasps. They're very delusional people.
What if the Java or Ruby code spends most of its time in library calls and so runs at the speed of a native app? And what if someone writes bubble-sort in that blazing fast Lua?
Your rules of thumb belong, with your thumb, up your ass.
Internet service provider. If Rackspace wasn't that their customers wouldn't pay them. It's not all cable-modems and end-users.
And as long as they want the right to distance themselves from their customers content - not be charged for conspiracy for letting you publish your illegal plans for instance - it's only reasonable that they stay out of people's content. Otherwise they would, by not erasing something, be tacitly approving it.
Here's where Rackspace needs to decide if it's as its name says, space for racks - regardless of what they host, or a walled content-screened garden like AOL.
As I said they listen to feedback, and have done things like making all WWDC (Apple developer conference) videos free for every registered iPhone developer.
Wow, free access to developer resources. Well, to registered and paid-up developers. Amazing.
There really are no "hoops" at all in application development, and honestly how can you claim there are with 250k approved apps?
Yeah, except for anyone who wanted to code one in LISP or Ruby. Or oh, I don't know, whatever keeps a huge number of apps from being approved or rejected.
It's a great platform to develop for as long as you don't step on a land-mine and for some reason be unable to sell your hard work. If you like running a business with a huge uncertainty like "Will I even be able to show this to customers, let alone sell it" hanging in the air, it's for you.
The only reason Apple is backpedaling now is because they pushed it too far and received some backlash.
Isn't that the reason most people back down from a bad position? People tell them they are wrong, and eventually they see the light...
Do they see the light, or just stop doing the thing that got pressure while someone's watching? One's right, the other is the behavior of a sociopath.
They still don't promise to reject an app quickly with a good reason. They'll still let unpleasant (for them) apps linger forever while their developers' businesses die.
but often not, especially with companies. That's my point, that to me it seems rare that customer complaints change anything about how a company works.
What's really changed? Apple is changing what they're doing here only because with the rise of android they've got less control over app developers. Next time they've got this much lock-in they'll do the same sort of thing - use it to stifle competition right up until they'd lose market share by doing so.
Beyond enabling them by developing for their devices you're also showing you'll work with the Microsoft of the moment. Damn the industry, and open competition, I'm making money attaching myself to their locked-in users!
What's okay on a game box you buy and plug into the TV for your kids to play with isn't okay when it's on a (crippled) smart-phone that holds your data.
Wikileaks showed me a video I'd never seen before. I wouldn't say that was nothing new just because I've also seen a black and white photo of a girl on fire.
Moreover, Wikileaks is committed to showing us videos that are being censored. By definition without the military leak (Manning? Thanks!) and Wikileaks we could not have seen that video.
More important than the horrors of any given gunshot is the nature of those who dispense it. Are they careful and studious - quick to entertain the idea they made a mistake and investigate, or cruel and wanton killers who laugh at their victims? The lack of concern our soldiers show is far more telling than the specific body count or ages.
You obviously agree with my assessment since you are trying to change the subject to Nazis rather than argue with it.
Unjust war? Check. Hidden atrocities? Check. Civilians who let the quasi-hidden nature stop them from looking further? Check.
No sir you are again wrong. Manning was not given an illegal order an illegal order.
No. You're so wrong you're wrong just sitting there. And you play the retard which doesn't disguise it.
Do you really think that no civilian authority at the White House or the Pentagon knew that the video existed? The US government that was freely elected by the people of the US said to not release that video.
So? Presidents can issue illegal orders and nobody is bound to follow them. In fact it should lead to the impeachment of the president and any other officials who knowingly or without due care gave an illegal order.
Manning disobeyed his orders which just can not be tolerated.
No, Manning is now the only one of them who shouldn't be hung if we were hauled before the Nuremberg courts for trial on our conduct.
What you and so many other people don't get is that the US Military is just the gun. It is the Civilian powers that pull the trigger.
Quite right, the people are ultimately responsible for the war and the conduct of the army. That's why it's so important that we know what's going on.
The problem with the war-crimes trials is that they didn't delve deeply enough into the civilian world that enabled the atrocities. Our own courts have ruled that its the mob boss's responsibility to find out how his orders are being obeyed, not just to "hope" they'd be done legally. If we, you and I, don't investigate what's being done in our names we deserve to be hung alongside those who killed in our names.
Manning is the one who's enabled us to see the problem, the rest are trying to hide it - ordered to or not.
In charge... Well you *could* see it like that....
Yeah, imagine one of the partner banks not paying Visa their fees, or trying to put a Visa and Mastercard logo on the same piece of plastic. Visa would put a stop to that instantly.
In charge. Their trademark, their rules.
VISA make transaction fees but have nothing to do with the debt itself. It's not a crazy legal fiction in any sense, your bank offers you an instrument of debt.
Yeah, money is flowing around between you and the bank and Visa because of the debt, but Visa is only involved in the transaction fees, as if that makes any difference and isn't just an excuse to abandon their responsibility.
That's what I mean, legal fiction. Plain as day, they're involved. They make money from it, but they've got excuses why that money is different than this money and thus doesn't count. It's as if the guy who held you while the loanshark beat you claimed innocence because he only got paid hourly, and never money from your pocket.
If they offered a generic service like a telephone line, or a packet-switched-network, they could claim ignorance of its use. When a bank starts to work with Visa do you think Visa comes, hooks up some machines and just leaves?
VISA is just the comms network and the set of standards that go with it.
And the monopoly holder of access to many stores.
And the loansharking franchise that uses that network.
Yes, I do understand what you're trying to say but I think artificial barriers like that are just used to avoid responsibility.
If you really knew all of that about our government and were still paying taxes you're a war criminal too.
Anybody with half a brain knows this already.
So I guess you weren't paying taxes. Either that or you're willing to catch your bullet for supporting an unjust war. Right?
But anyways. If it's not secret, and you'd have to be a syphilitic reject from an idiot-farm to not know that these atrocities are going on, why do we censor video of it when there's nothing tactical or strategic to hide?
Our military is trying to hide the reality war from us instead of letting the true horrors influence us to find better means of dealing with things. They're prolonging the conflict and hiding victims - both war crimes that we hung Nazis for, and should keep hanging people for.
That they're doing this by order from their civilian commanders is no excuse. We'd expect all soldiers to refuse an illegal order, and that includes the highest command. However, they should not let these illegal orders merely be passed to their successors - they should be used to impeach the president and other lawmakers for giving them.
We're the bad guys here, because of a few things like hiding information and faking up reasons for war. Were we in Iraq's place, I would wish the world would come to our rescue from the tyrannical bullies who've invaded without a real reason (and thus will never go because they can't find what wasn't here.)
I dunno, let me ship you to a military prison in another country and have you held without actually charging you or letting you speak to anyone.
Let me know how it goes.
Simply put if the US government is as evil as you think and as powerful as you think then this guy is dead.
They're far more evil than they'd like people to know. Otherwise they wouldn't be censoring images of their soldiers blowing away civilian rescuers.
So yeah, of course they could kill him. But they'd only do so if the benefits outweigh the negative publicity. But they could easily (politically) throw him in prison in Syria forever and achieve much the same effect.
And as too Manning that last thing that anybody really wants is for the people of the military to feel that they can just refuse [...] orders.
Actually, you fucking retard, we do want that. We don't want soldiers committing war crimes, and we especially don't want them doing so because they were just following orders.
They must answer to civilan authorities. Manning violated that trust.
Not at all. Manning is the only one actually living up to that. Civilians can't authorize anything they don't know about and if videos of military conduct are censored all a soldier can reasonably conclude is that the public, those in whose name the war is being fought, don't know about their actions.
Yeah, because when someone casually says "I'll bet the CIA assassinates him" they're referring specifically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and nothing else.
Hard to keep my palm off of my forehead on slashdot these days. You clearly have NO IDEA how the CIA operates.
You clearly cannot comprehend sarcasm.
The point is that the CIA isn't the totality of the USA's forces and while the CIA themselves might not be involved it's only because another federal agency, likely simply the armed forces, would be involved instead.
These days, if an assassination can be credibly linked back to the CIA, all of the agents involved go to jail. That wasn't always the case. Thusly, it used to be the CIA both assassinated and sponsored assassinations. These days, its all but impossible unless an immediate national security threat is identified.
They say they've changed anyways.
Changed the address they hold the detainees at, more like.
Yea that wins for the stupidest thing I heard today.
You don't read your own posts? That explains a lot.
Given how they're treating Bradley Manning who they suspect of being involved in the CollateralMurder leak I think it's pretty safe to say they want to ruin, by any useful standard, the rest of Julian Assange's life.
You're certainly naive though if you think our government is or has been above flat-out murder of people, foreign or USA citizens. Though indefinite imprisonment hidden in a foreign jail is the norm these days.
This shit is so obvious I don't think I need to actually Link-ify Maher Arar or Guantanamo Bay Abuses here but let me know.
As far as a transparent society goes. Better read his comments about how people need to stay out of his "personal" life.
Saying "Piss Off" is different than threatening those who publish facts. If you have any information about him censoring anything I'd love to see it.
Gutsier?
Yes, he's putting the enjoyment of the rest of his life, if not his life itself, on the line.
Normally when people post videos of mob slayings people recognize them as heroes. But when the mob is big enough, victims of theirs - like you, side with them in a combination of Stockholm-syndrome and wanting to toe the party line. That you can't recognize the atrocities WikiLeaks has leaked and thus the importance of leaking these otherwise secret videos just shows how fucked up you are.
If someone shot up your family in a mall on as lousy a pretense as was used to kill the rescuers in Collateral Murder, or sent a missile into a building occupied by you on the suspicion an enemy was there, you'd scream. But here you condone it because it was your side.
You act as if I'd be naive to not know this was happening, or what our government could do, but these videos were secret. They desperately want me to not know. They are counting on the vast majority not knowing.
That's because everyone who has official secrets views themselves as his opponent.
If I think Assange and WikiLeaks are only serving half the truth I'm free to get the rest. I'm not worried that he may not be perfect. He/they don't seek to bind my ears. I'd even thank an a revenge-motivated whistle-blower (though I would not forgive them their role).
How about that our soldiers laugh while delivering death with a standard of proof so low that it's almost a joke.
Or that, having mistakenly blown away rescuers responding to what appears to be a roadside bomb, and their children, that our military would cover the event up.
Perhaps that instead of addressing the charges of inhumanity and low standards the military and civilian leadership would rally around stopping the leak instead of stopping the injustice.
If you really knew all of that about our government and were still paying taxes you're a war criminal too.
Also, the tragedy for their loved ones is fucking hysterical. "Oh god, how could my husband have died!?"
Oh well, let's see - he was overseas killing others for a reason that was found to be a total lie. If your god was real he'd have struck him down as an instrument of the devil.
Put simply, here's your piece of the tragedy you've been helping to inflict on the world. Oh, not so much fun on your side of it? Hearing about Dad's kills was better? Tough. Next time try not supporting unjust wars.
I don't see many Americans crying about innocent Pakistanis killed by drone attacks.
YOU obviously don't give a shit about that, because here you are poking at something that could never match the scale of what the USA is doing in any one small area and way.
Too bad you don't live closer to a war zone. Just saying that I wish you were dead. You know, messily... Don't take it personally, the same goes for anyone who can slag wikileaks for the "damage" it causes without seeing the ongoing damage it's revealing and trying to stop it. You're the jingoistic fuckers who call for war and it'd be such a shame if it was delivered to everyone but you.
Wah wah wah, our fucking soldiers. They're big people. They went to war in Iraq without putting any thought into checking the evidence and even now that it's been admitted that Bush/etc just made the whole WMDs thing up they're still there, killing even more innocent Iraqis. We made it really clear when trying Nazis that this passing of responsibility wouldn't be accepted and now we're encouraging our troops to apply "Don't ask, Don't tell" to atrocities.
Mercenaries and war criminals should catch lead, and that's all (even our) soldiers are unless they're defending people.
It's a shame the "terrorists" don't have your home address. I'm sure they'd love to discuss your disproportionate calls for punishment of whistle-blowing versus war crimes. You know, because you wish death on others without having a fucking clue, and that shit'd be really fucking funny if it came around. You know, because you're so in favor of the killing we do.
They don't exactly publish "This is why the CIA secretly killed your leader" documents. But they kill enough leaders who wouldn't work for them that they're the safe bet. With a mobster in town you don't know he's killed the bullet-riddled person you find but it's a good place to start looking.
Yeah, because when someone casually says "I'll bet the CIA assassinates him" they're referring specifically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and nothing else. They certainly aren't using it as a general name for the USA's secret police/intelligence forces.
Your argument is like saying that "the KGB didn't torture anyone, well, they did but then it was ruled illegal so then they'd only do it if they really thought they needed to, but no, mostly they used this other agency here to do it... "
Actual CIA plots are stranger than most conspiracy theories, and have been carried out with the same amount of forethought that goes into the average junkie holding up a 7-11. Look at their exploding cigars. It turns out that it really was much like Hollywood depicts it, a bunch of cowboys ordering the deaths of innocents by assassination or secret bombings. Very little hard evidence is collected, almost no records are kept, and because of the nature of intelligence operations very little oversight is possible.
As for "operations inside the US border being illegal", so is the NSA operating within the US border. Perhaps they really formed NSA2 and it's doing it, perhaps NSA1 is breaking the law, or perhaps they changed the law and kept it secret. But you're still being monitored after being told such a thing was illegal. Fat lot of good those technical distinctions are doing you.
It seems pretty unfair actually. It's easy to say "only with a condom" early on, the trick is maintaining that when it'd be nicer without. If you open your legs without seeing a condom, whose fault is that?
But yes, slightly different circumstances than expected from the "RAPE" headlines.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just developer resources but conference video, which typically is hundreds of dollars.
Seems if they're putting the video up at all it'd be easier to do it without access controls. No, I can't see how that's some great freebie.
And there's lots of other material, also all provided for free, that takes a ton of effort to maintain - the equivalent to an MSDN subscription which is most certainly NOT free.
Sure it is. Every business and interested professional (anyone with an MS cert at any rate) can get a limited MSDN subscription for almost free, or free. They put a large price-tag on it to make it seem valuable.
And isn't that funny, comparing Apple to Microsoft. Quite appropriate really.
The number of publicised rejections is something like 100 (if that many!) compared to 250k apps...
Yeah, and Apple says not to whine about not being approved. How many people (correctly?) hear that as "if you talk to the media you'll never get approved"?
I and many others have never run into an issue with that. It's pretty easy to tell what's a grey area.
So you say. But other developers, including Google, say otherwise. And they provide proof of the otherwises. You offer a low number of reports as evidence that it probably isn't a big deal.
I do run a business solely developing iPhone apps and there is no such uncertainty.
If you ran a public company and said that in your disclosure statements you'd be breaking the law. There's a really large threat and an unknown risk you choose to interpret as low.
The average approval cycle is still seven days, which has been accurate as far as I can tell through multiple submissions.
Unless your experiences aren't a superset of all other developers experiences. Hmmm.
The "lingering" problem was more of an issue early on, these days you pretty much don't see that anymore.
You pretty much never saw any, so why would you see it stop?
there's not been much, if any, slowdown of iOS app submissions. [...] Again, 250k apps in the store.
That's Microsoft's game again - look at how many redundant apps we've got.
And you could do that before the provision was added... so a window of a few months where that was not allowed for app store submissions.
So there's at least a few months of a window where your business, were you unconventional enough to use a different development language, would have been disrupted. That's the threat I was referring to that you refuse to see.
I don't think so. I'm working to push the industry to quality applications, I'm working to build something users will love.
Sure. Whatever Apple says is quality at the moment.
If we can't work ultimately to benefit users, then why even program at all? You would rather harm the users for some kind of purity test that you feel Apple cannot pass, which I think is a pretty piss-poor attitude to really advance the field of computing.
Pft. 'A' for effort fanboy, but ultimately weak. How is, for instance, forcing Apple to disclose its business reasons for blocking apps harming users?
I'm just not so blind that I can't see the same arguments that applied to Microsoft apply just as well to Apple. It's not the name, it's the arbitrary treatment of the users and developers, their profit over progress attitude, and that they'll cripple a product and lock you to it.
They'll tell you they're your friends, and there'll be a lot of people like you who've merely yet to be walked on trumpeting their wonderful treatment, but as soon as anything goes wrong the users and developers are the ones getting screwed.
So where is Apple's helpful feedback saying "Simply include the iPhone contacts in your list and we'll approve your app?"
If there was a problem, any real problem, they'd have told Google what it was so that they could fix the software or work around it.
The problem is that they'll walk all over any developer they feel is getting too close to them, or a feature Jobs feels proprietary about. There's no objective user or developer benefit behind any of their decisions. Any time there's innovation that threatens Apple's stranglehold on something they'll do their best to strangle it. If fortune smiles your app sails through, if not it's just lost for no stated reason and nothing but tons of bad PR will ever sway them.
The problem is that Google Voice shows how the specific phone/device doesn't matter any more than the specific PC you do a search from does, the network can route to you. Those fancy iPhone apps won't follow you? Ohhh, burn. And so Apple can't allow it.
Why would they waste time telling you not to snitch if it didn't work?
The one thing Apple fears is bad PR - that people will think developing for android is easier and quicker, and (this is all the non-techies will hear) that the cool apps will be there.
I'd rather deal with someone who didn't act like a jerk right up until the end when they pull a Eurasia/Oceania switch and pretend they were pro-developer all along.
What every free market libertarian fails to recognize is that they don't want a free market. They want a very controlled market where the people being fucked around by those companies can't just pitch a torch through their window and burn them down like you'd remove dangerous wasps. They're very delusional people.
What if the Java or Ruby code spends most of its time in library calls and so runs at the speed of a native app? And what if someone writes bubble-sort in that blazing fast Lua?
Your rules of thumb belong, with your thumb, up your ass.
Internet service provider. If Rackspace wasn't that their customers wouldn't pay them. It's not all cable-modems and end-users.
And as long as they want the right to distance themselves from their customers content - not be charged for conspiracy for letting you publish your illegal plans for instance - it's only reasonable that they stay out of people's content. Otherwise they would, by not erasing something, be tacitly approving it.
Here's where Rackspace needs to decide if it's as its name says, space for racks - regardless of what they host, or a walled content-screened garden like AOL.
As I said they listen to feedback, and have done things like making all WWDC (Apple developer conference) videos free for every registered iPhone developer.
Wow, free access to developer resources. Well, to registered and paid-up developers. Amazing.
There really are no "hoops" at all in application development, and honestly how can you claim there are with 250k approved apps?
Yeah, except for anyone who wanted to code one in LISP or Ruby. Or oh, I don't know, whatever keeps a huge number of apps from being approved or rejected.
It's a great platform to develop for as long as you don't step on a land-mine and for some reason be unable to sell your hard work. If you like running a business with a huge uncertainty like "Will I even be able to show this to customers, let alone sell it" hanging in the air, it's for you.
The only reason Apple is backpedaling now is because they pushed it too far and received some backlash.
Isn't that the reason most people back down from a bad position? People tell them they are wrong, and eventually they see the light...
Do they see the light, or just stop doing the thing that got pressure while someone's watching? One's right, the other is the behavior of a sociopath.
They still don't promise to reject an app quickly with a good reason. They'll still let unpleasant (for them) apps linger forever while their developers' businesses die.
but often not, especially with companies. That's my point, that to me it seems rare that customer complaints change anything about how a company works.
What's really changed? Apple is changing what they're doing here only because with the rise of android they've got less control over app developers. Next time they've got this much lock-in they'll do the same sort of thing - use it to stifle competition right up until they'd lose market share by doing so.
Beyond enabling them by developing for their devices you're also showing you'll work with the Microsoft of the moment. Damn the industry, and open competition, I'm making money attaching myself to their locked-in users!
What's okay on a game box you buy and plug into the TV for your kids to play with isn't okay when it's on a (crippled) smart-phone that holds your data.
Wikileaks showed me a video I'd never seen before. I wouldn't say that was nothing new just because I've also seen a black and white photo of a girl on fire.
Moreover, Wikileaks is committed to showing us videos that are being censored. By definition without the military leak (Manning? Thanks!) and Wikileaks we could not have seen that video.
More important than the horrors of any given gunshot is the nature of those who dispense it. Are they careful and studious - quick to entertain the idea they made a mistake and investigate, or cruel and wanton killers who laugh at their victims? The lack of concern our soldiers show is far more telling than the specific body count or ages.
You obviously agree with my assessment since you are trying to change the subject to Nazis rather than argue with it.
Unjust war? Check. Hidden atrocities? Check. Civilians who let the quasi-hidden nature stop them from looking further? Check.
Nope, they're pretty much on topic.
No sir you are again wrong.
Manning was not given an illegal order an illegal order.
No. You're so wrong you're wrong just sitting there. And you play the retard which doesn't disguise it.
Do you really think that no civilian authority at the White House or the Pentagon knew that the video existed? The US government that was freely elected by the people of the US said to not release that video.
So? Presidents can issue illegal orders and nobody is bound to follow them. In fact it should lead to the impeachment of the president and any other officials who knowingly or without due care gave an illegal order.
Manning disobeyed his orders which just can not be tolerated.
No, Manning is now the only one of them who shouldn't be hung if we were hauled before the Nuremberg courts for trial on our conduct.
What you and so many other people don't get is that the US Military is just the gun. It is the Civilian powers that pull the trigger.
Quite right, the people are ultimately responsible for the war and the conduct of the army. That's why it's so important that we know what's going on.
The problem with the war-crimes trials is that they didn't delve deeply enough into the civilian world that enabled the atrocities. Our own courts have ruled that its the mob boss's responsibility to find out how his orders are being obeyed, not just to "hope" they'd be done legally. If we, you and I, don't investigate what's being done in our names we deserve to be hung alongside those who killed in our names.
Manning is the one who's enabled us to see the problem, the rest are trying to hide it - ordered to or not.
In charge... Well you *could* see it like that....
Yeah, imagine one of the partner banks not paying Visa their fees, or trying to put a Visa and Mastercard logo on the same piece of plastic. Visa would put a stop to that instantly.
In charge. Their trademark, their rules.
VISA make transaction fees but have nothing to do with the debt itself. It's not a crazy legal fiction in any sense, your bank offers you an instrument of debt.
Yeah, money is flowing around between you and the bank and Visa because of the debt, but Visa is only involved in the transaction fees, as if that makes any difference and isn't just an excuse to abandon their responsibility.
That's what I mean, legal fiction. Plain as day, they're involved. They make money from it, but they've got excuses why that money is different than this money and thus doesn't count. It's as if the guy who held you while the loanshark beat you claimed innocence because he only got paid hourly, and never money from your pocket.
If they offered a generic service like a telephone line, or a packet-switched-network, they could claim ignorance of its use. When a bank starts to work with Visa do you think Visa comes, hooks up some machines and just leaves?
VISA is just the comms network and the set of standards that go with it.
And the monopoly holder of access to many stores.
And the loansharking franchise that uses that network.
Yes, I do understand what you're trying to say but I think artificial barriers like that are just used to avoid responsibility.
If you really knew all of that about our government and were still paying taxes you're a war criminal too.
Anybody with half a brain knows this already.
So I guess you weren't paying taxes. Either that or you're willing to catch your bullet for supporting an unjust war. Right?
But anyways. If it's not secret, and you'd have to be a syphilitic reject from an idiot-farm to not know that these atrocities are going on, why do we censor video of it when there's nothing tactical or strategic to hide?
Our military is trying to hide the reality war from us instead of letting the true horrors influence us to find better means of dealing with things. They're prolonging the conflict and hiding victims - both war crimes that we hung Nazis for, and should keep hanging people for.
That they're doing this by order from their civilian commanders is no excuse. We'd expect all soldiers to refuse an illegal order, and that includes the highest command. However, they should not let these illegal orders merely be passed to their successors - they should be used to impeach the president and other lawmakers for giving them.
We're the bad guys here, because of a few things like hiding information and faking up reasons for war. Were we in Iraq's place, I would wish the world would come to our rescue from the tyrannical bullies who've invaded without a real reason (and thus will never go because they can't find what wasn't here.)
How they are treating Manning?
I dunno, let me ship you to a military prison in another country and have you held without actually charging you or letting you speak to anyone.
Let me know how it goes.
Simply put if the US government is as evil as you think and as powerful as you think then this guy is dead.
They're far more evil than they'd like people to know. Otherwise they wouldn't be censoring images of their soldiers blowing away civilian rescuers.
So yeah, of course they could kill him. But they'd only do so if the benefits outweigh the negative publicity. But they could easily (politically) throw him in prison in Syria forever and achieve much the same effect.
And as too Manning that last thing that anybody really wants is for the people of the military to feel that they can just refuse [...] orders.
Actually, you fucking retard, we do want that. We don't want soldiers committing war crimes, and we especially don't want them doing so because they were just following orders.
They must answer to civilan authorities. Manning violated that trust.
Not at all. Manning is the only one actually living up to that. Civilians can't authorize anything they don't know about and if videos of military conduct are censored all a soldier can reasonably conclude is that the public, those in whose name the war is being fought, don't know about their actions.
Ironic, accusing the country that pioneered precision bombing with carpet bombing.
And yet we've managed to kill over a million people and totally failed to get the guy we were after. That's your precision for you.
society's modern warfare guilt at civilian casualties
Yeah, for the innocents butchered. Imagine that.
It was a flat-out lie by a war criminal.
It happened, it's time to get over it, move on, and clean up the mess.
Fuck you sympathizer. It keeps happening because we don't take proper care of the killers or their enablers.
And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...
Err, yeah. That's what they want. Much like those christians you were just talking about. How can you NOT see this. Loony?
Fuck that pedo The Prophet Muhammad.
Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago [... popes, etc]
Muhammad, the goat-fucker, isn't the target of this. People who adore him like children adore Santa Claus are the target.
Or perhaps like the Nazis worshiped Hitler.
Yeah, because when someone casually says "I'll bet the CIA assassinates him" they're referring specifically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and nothing else.
Hard to keep my palm off of my forehead on slashdot these days. You clearly have NO IDEA how the CIA operates.
You clearly cannot comprehend sarcasm.
The point is that the CIA isn't the totality of the USA's forces and while the CIA themselves might not be involved it's only because another federal agency, likely simply the armed forces, would be involved instead.
These days, if an assassination can be credibly linked back to the CIA, all of the agents involved go to jail. That wasn't always the case. Thusly, it used to be the CIA both assassinated and sponsored assassinations. These days, its all but impossible unless an immediate national security threat is identified.
They say they've changed anyways.
Changed the address they hold the detainees at, more like.
Yea that wins for the stupidest thing I heard today.
You don't read your own posts? That explains a lot.
Given how they're treating Bradley Manning who they suspect of being involved in the CollateralMurder leak I think it's pretty safe to say they want to ruin, by any useful standard, the rest of Julian Assange's life.
You're certainly naive though if you think our government is or has been above flat-out murder of people, foreign or USA citizens. Though indefinite imprisonment hidden in a foreign jail is the norm these days.
This shit is so obvious I don't think I need to actually Link-ify Maher Arar or Guantanamo Bay Abuses here but let me know.
As far as a transparent society goes. Better read his comments about how people need to stay out of his "personal" life.
Saying "Piss Off" is different than threatening those who publish facts. If you have any information about him censoring anything I'd love to see it.
Gutsier?
Yes, he's putting the enjoyment of the rest of his life, if not his life itself, on the line.
Normally when people post videos of mob slayings people recognize them as heroes. But when the mob is big enough, victims of theirs - like you, side with them in a combination of Stockholm-syndrome and wanting to toe the party line. That you can't recognize the atrocities WikiLeaks has leaked and thus the importance of leaking these otherwise secret videos just shows how fucked up you are.
If someone shot up your family in a mall on as lousy a pretense as was used to kill the rescuers in Collateral Murder, or sent a missile into a building occupied by you on the suspicion an enemy was there, you'd scream. But here you condone it because it was your side.
You act as if I'd be naive to not know this was happening, or what our government could do, but these videos were secret. They desperately want me to not know. They are counting on the vast majority not knowing.
Any whistleblower deserves thanks.
That's because everyone who has official secrets views themselves as his opponent.
If I think Assange and WikiLeaks are only serving half the truth I'm free to get the rest. I'm not worried that he may not be perfect. He/they don't seek to bind my ears. I'd even thank an a revenge-motivated whistle-blower (though I would not forgive them their role).
A whistle blown is a life saved.
How about that our soldiers laugh while delivering death with a standard of proof so low that it's almost a joke.
Or that, having mistakenly blown away rescuers responding to what appears to be a roadside bomb, and their children, that our military would cover the event up.
Perhaps that instead of addressing the charges of inhumanity and low standards the military and civilian leadership would rally around stopping the leak instead of stopping the injustice.
If you really knew all of that about our government and were still paying taxes you're a war criminal too.
War isn't war, war is murder. Lots of murder.
Also, the tragedy for their loved ones is fucking hysterical. "Oh god, how could my husband have died!?"
Oh well, let's see - he was overseas killing others for a reason that was found to be a total lie. If your god was real he'd have struck him down as an instrument of the devil.
Put simply, here's your piece of the tragedy you've been helping to inflict on the world. Oh, not so much fun on your side of it? Hearing about Dad's kills was better? Tough. Next time try not supporting unjust wars.
I don't see many Americans crying about innocent Pakistanis killed by drone attacks.
YOU obviously don't give a shit about that, because here you are poking at something that could never match the scale of what the USA is doing in any one small area and way.
Too bad you don't live closer to a war zone. Just saying that I wish you were dead. You know, messily... Don't take it personally, the same goes for anyone who can slag wikileaks for the "damage" it causes without seeing the ongoing damage it's revealing and trying to stop it. You're the jingoistic fuckers who call for war and it'd be such a shame if it was delivered to everyone but you.
Wah wah wah, our fucking soldiers. They're big people. They went to war in Iraq without putting any thought into checking the evidence and even now that it's been admitted that Bush/etc just made the whole WMDs thing up they're still there, killing even more innocent Iraqis. We made it really clear when trying Nazis that this passing of responsibility wouldn't be accepted and now we're encouraging our troops to apply "Don't ask, Don't tell" to atrocities.
Mercenaries and war criminals should catch lead, and that's all (even our) soldiers are unless they're defending people.
It's a shame the "terrorists" don't have your home address. I'm sure they'd love to discuss your disproportionate calls for punishment of whistle-blowing versus war crimes. You know, because you wish death on others without having a fucking clue, and that shit'd be really fucking funny if it came around. You know, because you're so in favor of the killing we do.
They don't exactly publish "This is why the CIA secretly killed your leader" documents. But they kill enough leaders who wouldn't work for them that they're the safe bet. With a mobster in town you don't know he's killed the bullet-riddled person you find but it's a good place to start looking.
Yeah, because when someone casually says "I'll bet the CIA assassinates him" they're referring specifically to the Central Intelligence Agency, and nothing else. They certainly aren't using it as a general name for the USA's secret police/intelligence forces.
Your argument is like saying that "the KGB didn't torture anyone, well, they did but then it was ruled illegal so then they'd only do it if they really thought they needed to, but no, mostly they used this other agency here to do it... "
Actual CIA plots are stranger than most conspiracy theories, and have been carried out with the same amount of forethought that goes into the average junkie holding up a 7-11. Look at their exploding cigars. It turns out that it really was much like Hollywood depicts it, a bunch of cowboys ordering the deaths of innocents by assassination or secret bombings. Very little hard evidence is collected, almost no records are kept, and because of the nature of intelligence operations very little oversight is possible.
As for "operations inside the US border being illegal", so is the NSA operating within the US border. Perhaps they really formed NSA2 and it's doing it, perhaps NSA1 is breaking the law, or perhaps they changed the law and kept it secret. But you're still being monitored after being told such a thing was illegal. Fat lot of good those technical distinctions are doing you.
ROFL. No responsibility to check?
It seems pretty unfair actually. It's easy to say "only with a condom" early on, the trick is maintaining that when it'd be nicer without. If you open your legs without seeing a condom, whose fault is that?
But yes, slightly different circumstances than expected from the "RAPE" headlines.