This could pretty much allow someone freedom of movement and independence of function. I imagine it could be quite bizarre though, using a robot you can see through to pick up and move around your rift wearing body, for example.
The article states "Wired has been instructed not to disclose its exact whereabouts." However it also gives a fair amount of info about it's location. I'm not familiar with the Swiss Alps, but there's probably at least a couple of people on the Internet who are.
What we know is: It's in or near the "tiny village of Saanen, in the canton of Bern." You have to "pass a Tissot boutique abutting a tractor dealership before the road dives into dense forest and follows a stream." It "appears to be nothing more than a timber operation, with lorries moving wooden payloads around a gravelly clearing."
I agree two wrongs don't make a right and it's certainly a principal I try to live by.
However in the case of Wikileaks, I think they are taking right actions, that unfortunately can also enable others to do wrong.
I can think of many examples in our lives where our well intended actions can result in harm to others.
I know that driving my car, I might get into an accident and kill people, but I still do it. I know I'm contributing to global warming and am emitting gases that damage our health.
People didn't know that certain refrigerants depleted the ozone, so because I live in NZ I'm over 200% more likely of getting skin cancer than any other place in the world.
By asking one girl out, I might disappoint another girl.
My point is that our actions always have known and unknown impact on others, sometimes tiny, sometimes huge. And the impact is typically significant when the actions are on the international stage. Hopefully Wikileaks will consider the community's response to their latest major leak, but I think what they're doing is far too important for them to become paralysed from the fear of risking lives (due to other's actions I'll add) when so many lives are at stake. Certainly they're willing to accept their own lives are at stake.
They certainly need to do their best to mitigate the damage they do (just as they certainly mitigate the risk to themselves), and perhaps they can do better at that, but it is imperative they keep leaking this information. At least for me it is. I don't need to know nuclear launch codes, I don't need to know who's sleeping with whom. But I do need to know how the world's wealth and power is distributed and used. Mine is not a society where governments and organisations can use their power over others without the knowledge and consent of the people.
Sorry for the rant, but I figure this has been off the front page for a day or so now, so hopefully it won't cost me much karma.
It's okay for people to be killed, atrocities to be committed and covered up if it's part of the US military's agenda, but it's not okay for people to be killed as a result of exposing these atrocities?
Is there a list somewhere of what counts as acceptable collateral damage and what doesn't?
How many lives would be saved in the governments of the world knew that any and all deaths at their hands would be exposed for all the world to see?
I wouldn't say I'm dismissive of the artists, I'm dismissive of an overseas business model that is trying to be forced upon us, a business model that I feel is incongruent with NZ culture.
Why are we introducing law that enforces control of a product produced by a predominantly overseas industry? Shouldn't the wishes and rights of Kiwis come before the rights of an overseas entity that wants us to keep sending our cash over to them, even though their business model is slowly but surely becoming defunct?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you're right that this isn't specific to 2013, however it still seems amongst the most pertinent advice to CS graduates in 2013.
“A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.”
The question is, how to effectively communicate this to clients.
These are the correct measures.
And the Belize police are denying it cause they want to disappear him just like he said?
This could pretty much allow someone freedom of movement and independence of function. I imagine it could be quite bizarre though, using a robot you can see through to pick up and move around your rift wearing body, for example.
At 30 things CAN be different.
Unless of course you've got a mortgage... which maybe the point of mortgages.
Couldn't this be possible?
The article states "Wired has been instructed not to disclose its exact whereabouts." However it also gives a fair amount of info about it's location. I'm not familiar with the Swiss Alps, but there's probably at least a couple of people on the Internet who are.
What we know is:
It's in or near the "tiny village of Saanen, in the canton of Bern."
You have to "pass a Tissot boutique abutting a tractor dealership before the road dives into dense forest and follows a stream."
It "appears to be nothing more than a timber operation, with lorries moving wooden payloads around a gravelly clearing."
Is there enough there to find this place?
Oh baby oh baby oh baby oh baby oh baby!
I want one!
Are these guys reliable at all? On the face of it, I don't see any reason to accept DEBKAfile's "intelligence and Iranian sources".
I think we will solve the issues of computer security about the same time we figure out how to deal with conflicts within ourselves and humanity.
So, each USB iteration offers the smallest possible increments in speed?
What's "making" in this context?
I agree two wrongs don't make a right and it's certainly a principal I try to live by.
However in the case of Wikileaks, I think they are taking right actions, that unfortunately can also enable others to do wrong.
I can think of many examples in our lives where our well intended actions can result in harm to others.
I know that driving my car, I might get into an accident and kill people, but I still do it. I know I'm contributing to global warming and am emitting gases that damage our health.
People didn't know that certain refrigerants depleted the ozone, so because I live in NZ I'm over 200% more likely of getting skin cancer than any other place in the world.
By asking one girl out, I might disappoint another girl.
My point is that our actions always have known and unknown impact on others, sometimes tiny, sometimes huge. And the impact is typically significant when the actions are on the international stage. Hopefully Wikileaks will consider the community's response to their latest major leak, but I think what they're doing is far too important for them to become paralysed from the fear of risking lives (due to other's actions I'll add) when so many lives are at stake. Certainly they're willing to accept their own lives are at stake.
They certainly need to do their best to mitigate the damage they do (just as they certainly mitigate the risk to themselves), and perhaps they can do better at that, but it is imperative they keep leaking this information. At least for me it is. I don't need to know nuclear launch codes, I don't need to know who's sleeping with whom. But I do need to know how the world's wealth and power is distributed and used. Mine is not a society where governments and organisations can use their power over others without the knowledge and consent of the people.
Sorry for the rant, but I figure this has been off the front page for a day or so now, so hopefully it won't cost me much karma.
Which thousands of people do you trust to do this without exposing the data themselves?
It's okay for people to be killed, atrocities to be committed and covered up if it's part of the US military's agenda, but it's not okay for people to be killed as a result of exposing these atrocities?
Is there a list somewhere of what counts as acceptable collateral damage and what doesn't?
How many lives would be saved in the governments of the world knew that any and all deaths at their hands would be exposed for all the world to see?
I want to see molten salt.
Noooooooooooooooooeeeeessss!!!!
Mod up parent.
I can't see it passing the second reading. It was probably just included in the draft to make the idea more public.
Some would say simply being rich when many are much poorer in itself is wrong.
IANAP (I am not a psychiatrist), but he sounds like someone who is managing schizophrenia.
Or he might just prefer his own company and not be concerned about appearance.
I'd hardly consider the "stunt" backfired simply because a rarely fatal, readily treatable injury.
I wouldn't say I'm dismissive of the artists, I'm dismissive of an overseas business model that is trying to be forced upon us, a business model that I feel is incongruent with NZ culture.
Why are we introducing law that enforces control of a product produced by a predominantly overseas industry? Shouldn't the wishes and rights of Kiwis come before the rights of an overseas entity that wants us to keep sending our cash over to them, even though their business model is slowly but surely becoming defunct?