Ah. He didn't pull the trigger, he just told the Kenyan government to do it because they were already holding a gun to the heads of 1300 people. So that makes lying about his involvement in it later, after he admitted wikileaks got those people killed, okay.
He did run, and he did hide. After getting permission to leave the country, he ran and hid from the people who gave him that permission. They had dropped nothing, they simply weren't at a stage in the investigation where they thought they needed to hold him. When they decided they did need to speak to him, they couldn't find him. His wherabouts were not well known. They had to get the English police to hunt him down. It was not terribly difficult, but it wasn't as though he was checking in with Sweden, which you'd think would be a condition of being allowed to leave during an investigation. And then he fought extradition. You'd think another condition of his leaving Sweden during an investigation would be that he not fight extradition. I think it probably was.
My credibility is fine. Your credulity is in a heap on the floor.
Once upon a time, there was a unit known as the Green Berets. They were special. Every woman wanted one, every man wanted to be one.
Then one of the more envious types grew up to be in charge of designing uniforms, and decided that if the Green Berets were so cool, the Army should spread that cool around to the rest of the enlistees.
So now everyone has a beret, and looks like a french schoolgirl. Except this dude, who looks totally badass, and would've made a fine Green Beret.
It's what all economic systems go for, if they don't have explicit regulation of wealth and power in the ruling cadres. It's the natural effect of money on humans and human organizations. And while it's natural, it's not a good thing at the levels of excess practiced by laissez-faire capitalism or single-party-rule (or single-family-rule) socialism.
I was pointing out the fact that "having motive" isn't sufficient.
But as for your illogical comparison: The university overreacted; the police didn't.
In Assange's case, are the police overreacting? They're not backing down based on the things the women are saying. Meanwhile, he ran and hid in another country, and is spending a lot of money (a lot of it other people's money) to stay hidden. And his defense to it all is still that it's a nefarious conspiracy being run by American intelligence agencies.
As for credibility, this is a guy who admitted his organization got 1300 Kenyans killed, then later said his organization's activities never got anyone hurt. His credibility starts out negative, and getting caught treating women like masturbation sleeves doesn't help it.
99% of programmers wouldn't know what to do with a stochastic analysis of parsing algorithm families. And as long as Moore's law holds, it's not worth teaching them how to make things faster or cheaper, because that's coming from the supply chain.
The U.S. Army's guide to dressing up right is 362 pages.
And they have total control of the manufacture and issue of the clothes. They're not suffering all the randomness that the fashion and retail industries insert into civilian clothing choices.
And he has motive to lie (to stay out of jail). And more motive to lie (to keep from proving his worldwide detractors wrong about his judgment and character). And still more motive to lie (because he's a douchebag).
Let the poster correct your misapprehension, then:
There was money in producing a genre. There may not be any more.
As Mr. Tim pointed out, your examples are the past. TFA, and my post, were about how things are getting hard out there for a space-pimp.
There's no need to go all otaku over something as poorly made as the original Star Trek was, now that you can join www.startrekonline.com and be both bathed and involved in your obsession.
Even something as lovingly crafted, badass, brilliant, and gorgeous as Firefly had trouble finding its audience every week.
In order for a show like ST:TOS to stick, you would have to bring back the A-list SF writers who were crafting its episodes, and you would have to make it for pocket change, the way Rodenberry did, so that you could just bill the network for the lunch money, so that it's more profitable for them than running another infomercial. You would also have to expect that your show wouldn't be the only thing on 1/3rd of the TV channels every Wednesday night (I checked my DirecTV last night and it's got 1347 channels I can watch or activate), and that TV isn't the most exciting thing feeding stimulation to the audience (you're typing on the thing that is).
I'm not sure he needed that to get him started, becuase he spalled off like a pion from a hadron-hadron collision, but he's at least got it as an alibi.
We're seeing the availability of new Sci-Fi content on TV decline.
But the people who would produce Sci-Fi are letting it decline not because they're mean jocks who hate geeks. They'd love to make money off Sci-Fi fans. But it's clear they're seeing a decline in ROI for it.
Possible metrics that are declining: Fewer viewers for that kind of show. Fewer of those viewers being observable by the viewership tracking system on which the ratings, and thereby the revenues, are based. Lower payback to an advertiser for any given viewer.
And why? Probably because Sci-Fi fans are being distracted by all the online stuff that's available, or by their smartphones and gaming systems. I'd mention time-shifting, but most of those boxes report usage, which means the time-shifter demographic are even more deeply tracked than the Neilsen system, which has only one box per N thousand TV sets. But maybe they're time-shifting and sharing. And then there's the fact that in a declining economy there's just less of a profit and Sci-Fi has always been the marginal edge of TV, not its loamy bottomland.
But answer me this question: does Summer Glau count even when she's not doing a geeky show?
The rich are so rich, and the rest of us are so not, that they can pretty much close down democracy and start up the feudalism now. Set a cutoff for net worth. Everyone in a family above the line is an earl, baron, prince, or king. Everyone below...not so much.
Constitution? No.
Got a beef? You're fired from any job involving words and handed a shovel.
Maybe after a while they'll set up a parliament to deal with the world outcry at the irony. They'll put themselves permanently in the upper house and let elected commoners float through the lower house. And don't think "upper" and "lower" are just names. The upper house will get what it wants without the lower house's permission, but not so the other way around.
Took the English nearly a thousand years to put that genie back in the bottle. They're still not quite done. And after this has happened here, they could be next for a reversal of the world's march towards democracy.
It's easy to solve once the shooting starts. It's unlikely we don't actually know where their nukes are. But just in case, we shell everything they own.
As for how we'll be greeted, how were we greeted by Russia after they spent decades being taught to hate us?
The open-arms thing usually works. Just not when Bush43 was in charge. I think it was him, not us.
Kim made a trip to Beijing a couple of months ago. Not something that normally makes the news, if it even happens.
Could be one of three things:
1. Nothing, just business as commie-usual.
2. The fix is in, NK knows China wants it to stop being a shithole and find a way to reunite with SK, and heating things up a little and starting real negotiations won't look like just bringing the same book to the table and capitulating on things you've been holding your ground on for nearly 60 years. Maybe heating things up enough to start a minor war and losing. Losers get pretty good handouts in this modern world. But so do open capitulators, if we're smart (cf. Libya).
3. NK and China, or NK without China's OK, is really trying to start some shit so it can use its nuke and hopefully overrun the south in the aftermath of taking out SK's biggest city and military command center. Good luck with the second move in that chess game, short-round.
A) Are you totally uninformed as to how government works? You send the White House documentation of your evidence. They'll take one look at it and raise holy hell. If they don't, then you have a case for taking matters into your own hands.
B) No, the press is the press. You are not the press. Read up on Constitutional law. Between the courts and Congress, it's been well-defined exactly what "Free Press" and "Free Speech" mean. BTW, in case you missed last time I explained it, the NY Times didn't get away with the Ellsberg case purely because of free press. The Supreme Court decided that the power of the President to declare anything a secret was too broad when the press had access to the information; it struck down the breadth of it without defining anything, so the Times got away with it. That's why the current Executive Order 13526 spells out what is and isn't legally classifiable, and who has the authority to declassify improperly classified info. No, it's not automatically unclassified just because it looks like it shouldn't be classified, nor even if a judge says it shouldn't be. A court would have to hand it to the Pentagon or the White House to be declassified, or if they won't do it, would have to find someone with competence and designate them to do it. Then it would be redacted so that the parts that legally are classifiable stay classified.
C) So rhetorical musings are now requests? Okay, I'll bite: If nobody would notice, Assange wouldn't be doing any of this. And if Assange weren't in it for the thrills, he'd have done it the legal way in the first place, and stepped down by now to relieve Wikileaks of the effects of his mistakes.
D) Good and bad are subjective. Agreed. However, if you believe killing animals is bad, killing the animal would be bad if you had no valid use for its flesh. And if you had a valid use for it, but could get it from the animal without killing the animal, it would be bad without doing good to kill the animal. Releasing the improperly classified information is like getting milk, but releasing the properly classified information is like cutting out your mother's heart. Oops, I made a rhetorical shift, there; but then, we aren't talking about cattle, we're talking about the lives of people who are trying to create a society in which crazy people wearing bomb vests aren't an unchecked world power. People informing on terrorists = good. Terrorists killing informants = bad. People getting improperly classified information declassified = good. People indiscriminately releasing properly and improperly classified information = bad.
A) Showing the President that you have credible evidence of criminal activity in the classification of government information is not asking for a "personal favor."
B) Wikileaks is not the NY Times. Allowing anyone with a server to pretend to be a protected member of the Press (as in "freedom of the Press") is even more dangerous, as it legalizes all forms of espionage provided the information makes its way to one of these Darknets. The NY Times intent is journalism. Wikileaks' intent is destabilization and damage. Even so, the NY Times is much, much more careful when dealing with classified information, and knows how to coordinate declassification with the proper authorities to avoid causing harm. Assange releases data with little redaction (though he's starting to learn to talk like he does it correctly) and threatens to do a full, raw dump of everything he has to guarantee his personal safety and freedom. He's as much as taken our informants hostage so he can continue promoting himself.
C) Reflect on the fact that there is no request relating to this.
D) "Bad that does some good is better than nothing." Wrong. So utterly and totally wrong. When you can do the good without doing the bad, and you do the bad anyway just because it's fun or profitable, the good it does is not a justification. We have laws that protect us from an evil government, and refusing to use those laws means that you're the one that doesn't want the government ever to learn to be good.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. He didn't pull the trigger, he just told the Kenyan government to do it because they were already holding a gun to the heads of 1300 people. So that makes lying about his involvement in it later, after he admitted wikileaks got those people killed, okay.
He did run, and he did hide. After getting permission to leave the country, he ran and hid from the people who gave him that permission. They had dropped nothing, they simply weren't at a stage in the investigation where they thought they needed to hold him. When they decided they did need to speak to him, they couldn't find him. His wherabouts were not well known. They had to get the English police to hunt him down. It was not terribly difficult, but it wasn't as though he was checking in with Sweden, which you'd think would be a condition of being allowed to leave during an investigation. And then he fought extradition. You'd think another condition of his leaving Sweden during an investigation would be that he not fight extradition. I think it probably was.
My credibility is fine. Your credulity is in a heap on the floor.
Once upon a time, there was a unit known as the Green Berets. They were special. Every woman wanted one, every man wanted to be one.
Then one of the more envious types grew up to be in charge of designing uniforms, and decided that if the Green Berets were so cool, the Army should spread that cool around to the rest of the enlistees.
So now everyone has a beret, and looks like a french schoolgirl. Except this dude, who looks totally badass, and would've made a fine Green Beret.
It's what all economic systems go for, if they don't have explicit regulation of wealth and power in the ruling cadres. It's the natural effect of money on humans and human organizations. And while it's natural, it's not a good thing at the levels of excess practiced by laissez-faire capitalism or single-party-rule (or single-family-rule) socialism.
Example 1: Asking for links on /. is slower than asking for them on Google.
Seriously? You don't see bank executives as controlling?
Their entire industry is (or at least was) built on getting strangers to trust them with their money.
Swiss banks doubly so.
Frankly I'm surprised that a Swiss bank even needed to write down the rules.
I was pointing out the fact that "having motive" isn't sufficient.
But as for your illogical comparison: The university overreacted; the police didn't.
In Assange's case, are the police overreacting? They're not backing down based on the things the women are saying. Meanwhile, he ran and hid in another country, and is spending a lot of money (a lot of it other people's money) to stay hidden. And his defense to it all is still that it's a nefarious conspiracy being run by American intelligence agencies.
As for credibility, this is a guy who admitted his organization got 1300 Kenyans killed, then later said his organization's activities never got anyone hurt. His credibility starts out negative, and getting caught treating women like masturbation sleeves doesn't help it.
99% of programmers wouldn't know what to do with a stochastic analysis of parsing algorithm families. And as long as Moore's law holds, it's not worth teaching them how to make things faster or cheaper, because that's coming from the supply chain.
The U.S. Army's guide to dressing up right is 362 pages.
And they have total control of the manufacture and issue of the clothes. They're not suffering all the randomness that the fashion and retail industries insert into civilian clothing choices.
In French it's 43 pages. Translated to English it fits on a card you can hang from your badge lanyard.
And he has motive to lie (to stay out of jail). And more motive to lie (to keep from proving his worldwide detractors wrong about his judgment and character). And still more motive to lie (because he's a douchebag).
So, Assange loses and the women remain credible.
Let the poster correct your misapprehension, then:
There was money in producing a genre. There may not be any more.
As Mr. Tim pointed out, your examples are the past. TFA, and my post, were about how things are getting hard out there for a space-pimp.
There's no need to go all otaku over something as poorly made as the original Star Trek was, now that you can join www.startrekonline.com and be both bathed and involved in your obsession.
Even something as lovingly crafted, badass, brilliant, and gorgeous as Firefly had trouble finding its audience every week.
In order for a show like ST:TOS to stick, you would have to bring back the A-list SF writers who were crafting its episodes, and you would have to make it for pocket change, the way Rodenberry did, so that you could just bill the network for the lunch money, so that it's more profitable for them than running another infomercial. You would also have to expect that your show wouldn't be the only thing on 1/3rd of the TV channels every Wednesday night (I checked my DirecTV last night and it's got 1347 channels I can watch or activate), and that TV isn't the most exciting thing feeding stimulation to the audience (you're typing on the thing that is).
I did mention p2p.
"But maybe they're time-shifting and sharing."
I'm not sure he needed that to get him started, becuase he spalled off like a pion from a hadron-hadron collision, but he's at least got it as an alibi.
I just said that.
We're seeing the availability of new Sci-Fi content on TV decline.
But the people who would produce Sci-Fi are letting it decline not because they're mean jocks who hate geeks. They'd love to make money off Sci-Fi fans. But it's clear they're seeing a decline in ROI for it.
Possible metrics that are declining:
Fewer viewers for that kind of show.
Fewer of those viewers being observable by the viewership tracking system on which the ratings, and thereby the revenues, are based.
Lower payback to an advertiser for any given viewer.
And why? Probably because Sci-Fi fans are being distracted by all the online stuff that's available, or by their smartphones and gaming systems. I'd mention time-shifting, but most of those boxes report usage, which means the time-shifter demographic are even more deeply tracked than the Neilsen system, which has only one box per N thousand TV sets. But maybe they're time-shifting and sharing. And then there's the fact that in a declining economy there's just less of a profit and Sci-Fi has always been the marginal edge of TV, not its loamy bottomland.
But answer me this question: does Summer Glau count even when she's not doing a geeky show?
Oops. Sorry. Left out "Duke."
And no, not that dog in the baked beans commercial.
It's probably too late.
The rich are so rich, and the rest of us are so not, that they can pretty much close down democracy and start up the feudalism now. Set a cutoff for net worth. Everyone in a family above the line is an earl, baron, prince, or king. Everyone below...not so much.
Constitution? No.
Got a beef? You're fired from any job involving words and handed a shovel.
Maybe after a while they'll set up a parliament to deal with the world outcry at the irony. They'll put themselves permanently in the upper house and let elected commoners float through the lower house. And don't think "upper" and "lower" are just names. The upper house will get what it wants without the lower house's permission, but not so the other way around.
Took the English nearly a thousand years to put that genie back in the bottle. They're still not quite done. And after this has happened here, they could be next for a reversal of the world's march towards democracy.
If I have IPv6 why do I need this?
It's easy to solve once the shooting starts. It's unlikely we don't actually know where their nukes are. But just in case, we shell everything they own.
As for how we'll be greeted, how were we greeted by Russia after they spent decades being taught to hate us?
The open-arms thing usually works. Just not when Bush43 was in charge. I think it was him, not us.
Kim made a trip to Beijing a couple of months ago. Not something that normally makes the news, if it even happens.
Could be one of three things:
1. Nothing, just business as commie-usual.
2. The fix is in, NK knows China wants it to stop being a shithole and find a way to reunite with SK, and heating things up a little and starting real negotiations won't look like just bringing the same book to the table and capitulating on things you've been holding your ground on for nearly 60 years. Maybe heating things up enough to start a minor war and losing. Losers get pretty good handouts in this modern world. But so do open capitulators, if we're smart (cf. Libya).
3. NK and China, or NK without China's OK, is really trying to start some shit so it can use its nuke and hopefully overrun the south in the aftermath of taking out SK's biggest city and military command center. Good luck with the second move in that chess game, short-round.
Slight difference.
We don't also have a psychotic dictator running our country this time.
Would you put your webserver on a North Korean domain? Apparently neither would they.
Would there be anyone in North Korea who could run a root server anyway?
What are the chances they even know they're entitled to run one?
They've only had nukes for a few years. And they've begun openly shelling civilian populations.
So this is not their usual level of crazy.
A) Are you totally uninformed as to how government works? You send the White House documentation of your evidence. They'll take one look at it and raise holy hell. If they don't, then you have a case for taking matters into your own hands.
B) No, the press is the press. You are not the press. Read up on Constitutional law. Between the courts and Congress, it's been well-defined exactly what "Free Press" and "Free Speech" mean. BTW, in case you missed last time I explained it, the NY Times didn't get away with the Ellsberg case purely because of free press. The Supreme Court decided that the power of the President to declare anything a secret was too broad when the press had access to the information; it struck down the breadth of it without defining anything, so the Times got away with it. That's why the current Executive Order 13526 spells out what is and isn't legally classifiable, and who has the authority to declassify improperly classified info. No, it's not automatically unclassified just because it looks like it shouldn't be classified, nor even if a judge says it shouldn't be. A court would have to hand it to the Pentagon or the White House to be declassified, or if they won't do it, would have to find someone with competence and designate them to do it. Then it would be redacted so that the parts that legally are classifiable stay classified.
C) So rhetorical musings are now requests? Okay, I'll bite: If nobody would notice, Assange wouldn't be doing any of this. And if Assange weren't in it for the thrills, he'd have done it the legal way in the first place, and stepped down by now to relieve Wikileaks of the effects of his mistakes.
D) Good and bad are subjective. Agreed. However, if you believe killing animals is bad, killing the animal would be bad if you had no valid use for its flesh. And if you had a valid use for it, but could get it from the animal without killing the animal, it would be bad without doing good to kill the animal. Releasing the improperly classified information is like getting milk, but releasing the properly classified information is like cutting out your mother's heart. Oops, I made a rhetorical shift, there; but then, we aren't talking about cattle, we're talking about the lives of people who are trying to create a society in which crazy people wearing bomb vests aren't an unchecked world power. People informing on terrorists = good. Terrorists killing informants = bad. People getting improperly classified information declassified = good. People indiscriminately releasing properly and improperly classified information = bad.
A) Showing the President that you have credible evidence of criminal activity in the classification of government information is not asking for a "personal favor."
B) Wikileaks is not the NY Times. Allowing anyone with a server to pretend to be a protected member of the Press (as in "freedom of the Press") is even more dangerous, as it legalizes all forms of espionage provided the information makes its way to one of these Darknets. The NY Times intent is journalism. Wikileaks' intent is destabilization and damage. Even so, the NY Times is much, much more careful when dealing with classified information, and knows how to coordinate declassification with the proper authorities to avoid causing harm. Assange releases data with little redaction (though he's starting to learn to talk like he does it correctly) and threatens to do a full, raw dump of everything he has to guarantee his personal safety and freedom. He's as much as taken our informants hostage so he can continue promoting himself.
C) Reflect on the fact that there is no request relating to this.
D) "Bad that does some good is better than nothing." Wrong. So utterly and totally wrong. When you can do the good without doing the bad, and you do the bad anyway just because it's fun or profitable, the good it does is not a justification. We have laws that protect us from an evil government, and refusing to use those laws means that you're the one that doesn't want the government ever to learn to be good.