That is true. $15K is less than the $20K Michael Moore gave Assange for his rape defense. Manning's case is a lot more serious and more complicated (in the sense that there are a lot more things that can go against him just on errors in legal paperwork).
No. There is an "I refuse to follow illegal orders" exception, but there were avenues for proper redress of the illegal classification of some of the material that he didn't use, and his act wasn't merely a refusal but an active theft and distribution of the information to unauthorized people who couldn't do anything legal with it, and enough of the material was properly classified that they could just charge him on those counts and ignore the rest so he'd have no recourse to that defense.
So while he may have a moral argument about releasing the illegally classified portions of the information, the prosecution probably won't even bring those up in court. They'll focus on the stuff that never should not have been declassified or released, and for that he has no moral argument. He was deliberate in stealing it and negligent in leaving it in.
I can't imagine how his defense team's sights have been set if they look at this case with its thousands of exhibits and world-spanning witness list and think that $115K is going to get him the "aggressive" version of the defense. The term chump-change comes to mind. Just the xeroxing and stuffing things into plastic envelopes could cost that much, here. Pretty much it's enough to argue he thought he was doing the right thing and didn't intend to give aid and comfort to the enemy so much as inform the American public, and throw himself on the mercy of the court. He could get that with a guilty plea and a plea-bargain for a lot less.
You do have a right not to be harrassed, no matter the media. The government can't stop someone from speaking to someone who wants to hear what they're saying, but it can stop them from speaking to someone who doesn't want to hear what they're saying, if that doesn't also interfere with speaking to people who do want to hear. And it can treat commercial and political speech differently.
Spammers know they're breaking the law by harassing random people with random commercial messages they don't want to get.
The fact that it's hard to silence them is not proof they have a right to do what they're doing. It's only proof that the machinery is inadequately designed to apply the law to them consistently. They should be applying the law to themselves, but they don't, because they're criminals. And they like it that way.
Getting about half as much as ever since mid last-year. And I don't know why, but 9/10ths of the spam I get now is in Spanish, much of it from South America.
Playboy's golden age was in the 70s. Those women were usually stunning with or without the paint and airbrushing.
In the 90s something happened and the publishers started using less attractive women with a lot of cosmetic surgery and makeup applied, and manipulating them more.
Now, who reads Playboy any more? There's boobs in half the pages on the web, xkcd does the funny, rotten tomatoes handles the movies, and if you want to hear from Hef you can tweet him.
"Enlightened self-interest" is an buzzword for her concept that people should strive to do good to others on the premise that it will come back to them as others do the same. You're not altruistic or ascetic, you're doing good because it will make your life better. Of course, it takes a presumption that others feel the same way. The enlightened part is knowing that being interested in others is in your self-interest.
"Unenlightened self-interest" is the garden-variety kind of self-interest, in which you do good for yourself and let others do what they will. You take what you want and fend off others taking what they want. You know. Republican worldview. Unenlightened and proud of it.
If he was hiding from the Swedish police he was doing a piss poor job of it.
That he was.
all the vigilante advocates
Seriously? You think a lot of Swedes were gunning for him because of chatter on the internets? He went there because it was, and I agree it was, the safest place for him to be. He ran because he knew the Swedish police were eventually going to have him for rape, and all the evidence says it's a righteous cop.
That his lawyer has convinced him to cooperate with the country he hid in doesn't change the fact that he hid until the country he was hiding in revealed to him that they could see him behind the trellis. Now he's spending gobs of other people's money trying to get out from under the boot he put upon his own neck.
My point is that when saying people are uninformed it is best to be informed yourself.
And attempting to defend yourself legally in court constitutes hiding when it's a court in a totally different country from the one that's charging you with a crime.
The safest place for him to be during all of this was Sweden. He went there to avoid the possibility of extradition to the U.S. And now he said he fought extradition to Sweden because they might extradite him to the U.S.
Horseshit. He was hiding from the rape charges.
And then the actual filings in the case got leaked. Ironic, or just appropriate? And the testimony does tell what a douchebag he is, and if that's rape in Sweden, then I'm alright with that, because it should be rape anywhere.
The U.S. can deal with him when he gets out of jail.
if Canada wanted to extradite me for...I'd fight extradition
No you wouldn't. Not once you saw your lawyer's estimate for doing it.
Go back and fight the actual charges.
Like Assange should have. Or better, he should have just admitted he done it before leaving Sweden. Because the stuff I've read (the stuff that was leaked) is plausible and credible, unlike his rants against it.
I don't think the Swedish police are in the employ of the CIA. The only reason anyone does is because Assange is trying to blame someone else for his mistakes.
Cops ANYWHERE demand something of you, you get a lawyer and make them prove their right to do so. Period.
Sounds like a guilty man to me. Absent the 900 strawmen you just invoked, Assange's extradition fight wasn't about making them prove anything. It was about delaying the inevitable. Which I hope pissed off the Swedes so that now they'll throw the book at him.
But I guess my central point is that objectivism (which includes the laissez-faire botch) is at odds with her other big meme, enlightened self-interest, which requires doing good unto others and expecting it to benefit you.
Laissez-faire is a license to defraud. Human lives are finite, and the ability of a laissez-faire system to return one's evils back to oneself in time for them to overwhelm one's ill-gotten wealth is, evidently, minimal. If the system had a shorter feedback loop, or we lived long enough to be brought low by the results from this system, then laissez-faire would result in a competitive balance (albeit a tense one).
Given the subject of this book, and how Rand is the basis for much of it, you'd think she'd have understood that believing in laissez-faire was, if not arbitrary, then certainly not supported by the evidence. It's certainly true that all the evidence today points to the fact that loosening the brakes on wealth-accumulation is resulting in more pain for the human race overall and less for those who already got theirs. She even had a word for the sort of selfishness that dominates laissez-faire: "unenlightened self-interst". Blows my mind that she cocked it up that bad and promoted objectivism instead of pointing flashing neon arrows at it and saying "DON'T DO THIS".
Time to put the "enlightened self-interest" politics to work, and make sure people can distinguish them from the "unenlightened self-interest" practices that politics has been swinging towards for the past 30 years.
Don't know why, but I seem sometimes to have pre-publication access to/. articles. I read the entire article, parts of it twice, and looked up some Rand stuff online before posting. My Karma must be overflowing the buffer or something.
If I had asked for permission to leave the country during an investigation, and it was granted contingent on my returning when requested, all they'd have to do is ask and I'd return.
Assange ran. He hid. It didn't work. The English police located him, easily, and his lawyer told him to give up to them to keep it from getting worse, and they'd fight extradition.
If Rand was so good at evaluating theories for arbitrariness and fitness, then how could she ever have promoted something as unrealistic as leaving the fate of humanity to laissez-faire capitalism? Had she never met humans before?
Slashdot Mirror
That is true. $15K is less than the $20K Michael Moore gave Assange for his rape defense. Manning's case is a lot more serious and more complicated (in the sense that there are a lot more things that can go against him just on errors in legal paperwork).
No. There is an "I refuse to follow illegal orders" exception, but there were avenues for proper redress of the illegal classification of some of the material that he didn't use, and his act wasn't merely a refusal but an active theft and distribution of the information to unauthorized people who couldn't do anything legal with it, and enough of the material was properly classified that they could just charge him on those counts and ignore the rest so he'd have no recourse to that defense.
So while he may have a moral argument about releasing the illegally classified portions of the information, the prosecution probably won't even bring those up in court. They'll focus on the stuff that never should not have been declassified or released, and for that he has no moral argument. He was deliberate in stealing it and negligent in leaving it in.
I can't imagine how his defense team's sights have been set if they look at this case with its thousands of exhibits and world-spanning witness list and think that $115K is going to get him the "aggressive" version of the defense. The term chump-change comes to mind. Just the xeroxing and stuffing things into plastic envelopes could cost that much, here. Pretty much it's enough to argue he thought he was doing the right thing and didn't intend to give aid and comfort to the enemy so much as inform the American public, and throw himself on the mercy of the court. He could get that with a guilty plea and a plea-bargain for a lot less.
1. Create a new browser technology and give away a full browser for free.
2. ???
3. Profit!
In this case, the ??? can only involve goodwill, because any other browser will get you the same ad clicks.
No, I mean the people who convinced him to semi-retire and were actually running it then. His daughter and some suits.
He's back in charge, now. And that's a good thing.
Getting online is an online right.
Drat. I backspaced over that somewhere when editing that sentence.
You do have a right not to be harrassed, no matter the media. The government can't stop someone from speaking to someone who wants to hear what they're saying, but it can stop them from speaking to someone who doesn't want to hear what they're saying, if that doesn't also interfere with speaking to people who do want to hear. And it can treat commercial and political speech differently.
Spammers know they're breaking the law by harassing random people with random commercial messages they don't want to get.
The fact that it's hard to silence them is not proof they have a right to do what they're doing. It's only proof that the machinery is inadequately designed to apply the law to them consistently. They should be applying the law to themselves, but they don't, because they're criminals. And they like it that way.
Getting about half as much as ever since mid last-year. And I don't know why, but 9/10ths of the spam I get now is in Spanish, much of it from South America.
Since /. doesn't take embedded images, /. readers are hard-up for pictures of naked women. You'd think they'd never heard of the internet.
Playboy's golden age was in the 70s. Those women were usually stunning with or without the paint and airbrushing.
In the 90s something happened and the publishers started using less attractive women with a lot of cosmetic surgery and makeup applied, and manipulating them more.
Now, who reads Playboy any more? There's boobs in half the pages on the web, xkcd does the funny, rotten tomatoes handles the movies, and if you want to hear from Hef you can tweet him.
Well, there's more of them to choose from.
And women's standards for acceptable conduct have changed, so more of them consider standing in front of a camera for money an acceptable practice.
And technology for manipulating their looks, in makeup and exercise physiology and software, has improved.
And photographers have learned from decades of research by the pioneers of Playboy how to make someone look better than they generally do.
And women have learned from the same sources what men really like them to look like.
It's unlikely that the median or average have changed much. But the selection, presentation, and manipulation are much more refined.
As an example of presentation and manipulation, but not so much selection, I give you Katy Perry. With and without her cloaking device turned on.
"Enlightened self-interest" is an buzzword for her concept that people should strive to do good to others on the premise that it will come back to them as others do the same. You're not altruistic or ascetic, you're doing good because it will make your life better. Of course, it takes a presumption that others feel the same way. The enlightened part is knowing that being interested in others is in your self-interest.
"Unenlightened self-interest" is the garden-variety kind of self-interest, in which you do good for yourself and let others do what they will. You take what you want and fend off others taking what they want. You know. Republican worldview. Unenlightened and proud of it.
Ordinary dition won't work on douchebags like him. I'm surprised they're not throwing him in a tort and demanding habeas of his corpus.
If he was hiding from the Swedish police he was doing a piss poor job of it.
That he was.
all the vigilante advocates
Seriously? You think a lot of Swedes were gunning for him because of chatter on the internets? He went there because it was, and I agree it was, the safest place for him to be. He ran because he knew the Swedish police were eventually going to have him for rape, and all the evidence says it's a righteous cop.
That his lawyer has convinced him to cooperate with the country he hid in doesn't change the fact that he hid until the country he was hiding in revealed to him that they could see him behind the trellis. Now he's spending gobs of other people's money trying to get out from under the boot he put upon his own neck.
My point is that when saying people are uninformed it is best to be informed yourself.
And attempting to defend yourself legally in court constitutes hiding when it's a court in a totally different country from the one that's charging you with a crime.
The safest place for him to be during all of this was Sweden. He went there to avoid the possibility of extradition to the U.S. And now he said he fought extradition to Sweden because they might extradite him to the U.S.
Horseshit. He was hiding from the rape charges.
And then the actual filings in the case got leaked. Ironic, or just appropriate? And the testimony does tell what a douchebag he is, and if that's rape in Sweden, then I'm alright with that, because it should be rape anywhere.
The U.S. can deal with him when he gets out of jail.
I don't recall the Swedish police or the US Government calling for his assassination.
You might want to get a lawyer before talking to /. again. You seem like the type who'd need it.
if Canada wanted to extradite me for...I'd fight extradition
No you wouldn't. Not once you saw your lawyer's estimate for doing it.
Go back and fight the actual charges.
Like Assange should have. Or better, he should have just admitted he done it before leaving Sweden. Because the stuff I've read (the stuff that was leaked) is plausible and credible, unlike his rants against it.
I don't think the Swedish police are in the employ of the CIA. The only reason anyone does is because Assange is trying to blame someone else for his mistakes.
Cops ANYWHERE demand something of you, you get a lawyer and make them prove their right to do so. Period.
Sounds like a guilty man to me. Absent the 900 strawmen you just invoked, Assange's extradition fight wasn't about making them prove anything. It was about delaying the inevitable. Which I hope pissed off the Swedes so that now they'll throw the book at him.
So she fell for the fallacy of the excluded middle.
I'm starting to think she didn't think so much as we think she thinked.
But I guess my central point is that objectivism (which includes the laissez-faire botch) is at odds with her other big meme, enlightened self-interest, which requires doing good unto others and expecting it to benefit you.
Laissez-faire is a license to defraud. Human lives are finite, and the ability of a laissez-faire system to return one's evils back to oneself in time for them to overwhelm one's ill-gotten wealth is, evidently, minimal. If the system had a shorter feedback loop, or we lived long enough to be brought low by the results from this system, then laissez-faire would result in a competitive balance (albeit a tense one).
Given the subject of this book, and how Rand is the basis for much of it, you'd think she'd have understood that believing in laissez-faire was, if not arbitrary, then certainly not supported by the evidence. It's certainly true that all the evidence today points to the fact that loosening the brakes on wealth-accumulation is resulting in more pain for the human race overall and less for those who already got theirs. She even had a word for the sort of selfishness that dominates laissez-faire: "unenlightened self-interst". Blows my mind that she cocked it up that bad and promoted objectivism instead of pointing flashing neon arrows at it and saying "DON'T DO THIS".
Time to put the "enlightened self-interest" politics to work, and make sure people can distinguish them from the "unenlightened self-interest" practices that politics has been swinging towards for the past 30 years.
Don't know why, but I seem sometimes to have pre-publication access to /. articles. I read the entire article, parts of it twice, and looked up some Rand stuff online before posting. My Karma must be overflowing the buffer or something.
Sweden were requesting extradition December 3. Assange's lawyer was releasting statements complaining about the warrant on December 5.
You're so full of shit you should be a dairy farm.
If I had asked for permission to leave the country during an investigation, and it was granted contingent on my returning when requested, all they'd have to do is ask and I'd return.
Assange ran. He hid. It didn't work. The English police located him, easily, and his lawyer told him to give up to them to keep it from getting worse, and they'd fight extradition.
He did not return voluntarily.
If Rand was so good at evaluating theories for arbitrariness and fitness, then how could she ever have promoted something as unrealistic as leaving the fate of humanity to laissez-faire capitalism? Had she never met humans before?
I mean how when he got to the UK he hid so the Swedish police had to file for extradition and he fought it.
How about getting the facts straight before running your mouth about who watches Faux news and who doesn't.
This is the next generation.
DX11 has been out for over a year.
Next year DX12 will be the meme.