The fame gave him access to unfamiliar women and turned him into a self-justifying douchebag. His protestation that the charges are false is not inconsistent with his pattern of antisocial behavior. The Swedish authorities have followed the letter of the law, protecting his rights while he cooperated then escalating their official interest in him when he skipped out. I doubt the CIA could have made it this seamless. Assange created that mess for himself, and it belies his pretense of being one of the good guys. That you're falling for it just proves why people like him can get away with things like that.
hard to tell where to start. maybe here: pizza hut also has pasta and a red-white-and-green theme. as far as "italian restaurant" goes, that qualifies it.
so it is just like that, because you're wrong about the "anti-US" thing.
it does have meaning. when something is labeled anti-US, it rouses political sentiment in pro-US individuals and organizations. it doesn't have to be true, it just has to ring true.
of course, in this case, it is true. if wikileaks wasn't anti-US, it wouldn't attack the US by damaging its diplomatic efforts around the world.
the OP is correct. Wikileaks has taken down material against other governments and companies and focusses on the US. until it resumes being egalitarian in its illegal behaviors, it will be undeniably anti-US.
under this president, the CIA is not likely to be torturing anyone
terrorists deserve it
your facts are suspect
if this DDoS is the US government's doing, they're not doing very good at it, but then, they likely don't engage in spamming for profit so they wouldn't have that much practice at running a botnet
You're attempting to define swedish law in un-swedish terms. They told him they didn't want to have unprotected sex, and later he did it anyway. Swedish authorities want to arrest him for that. Whether they call it "rape" or "sexual oppression" is merely a semantic issue, though in the media would be quite a bit more significant than the false distinction you're trying to make between calling someone with an arrest warrant open against him "suspected" or "alleged".
He's a confirmed douchebag and a vaulting hypocrite. No equivocation about that.
If the government is this dirty - then the people who voted them into power have a right to know. That's democracy.
That's true. However, the means by which they are being told is worse. The principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" means that the people who improperly classified the information should be convicted along with the people who leaked the information rather than demanding that it be properly declassified.
You're right. He's not a suspected rapist. He's an alleged rapist who is named in an arrest warrant. Oh wait. That makes him a suspected rapist. You're wrong.
I'd be willing to bet that in the past 5 years graphics technology has improved enough to make it worth replacing the whole guts of a console box with something newer.
I'd also be willing to bet that the economy being shite has reduced the disposable income of the planet to the point where profits on such a development program wouldn't be worth the effort.
But unemployed people have less money and more time, so selling them old technology still makes a pretty good incremental margin.
The effect it should have is that it should result in taking more care in classifying documents. It's expressly illegal for information to be classified merely because it's embarassing. And yet here we are with hundreds of thousands of documents, few of which have any direct bearing on anyone's safety, and the most journalistically interesting of which are merely embarassing. Rather than classifying more documents, it ought to lead to a drastic decrease in the number of documents that are classified.
The other effect it should have is that the entire diplomatic and military information security system should implement the security guidelines it already has in place. Manning should never have been allowed to bring his own media into the secure facility, much less download and remove the data. Security officers at the facilities where this occurred were not following existing procedures, and these leaks are evidence of that.
Duration of copyright does not prevent preservation of existing copies that are in public hands. If the copyright holder has the only copy and does not care to preserve it, then offer him money for it.
When you reach the price he likes, you can have your copy of his property. Until then, you have no right to it, even if it's in danger of vanishing.
The right to copy is also the right to erase a copy, even if it's the only copy.
Which "European Scholarly Community"? The Vatican?
My opinion of religion is seated deeply because it's based on fact and persistent experience. The Church's habit of giving a coin to a poor kid to dispense its sin of murder is just one of those facts.
I don't deny that there are religious people who have advanced science. But if their science is at all in contravention of a church's teachings, they will find out about that church's position on knowledge.
The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.
The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.
Okay. You're not necessarily a pirate. You're just semantically misguided. The fact is, if you have something that belongs to me and you didn't pay me for it then either I gave it to you for free or you stole it. Even if you created the copy you possess. The content belongs to me, not you, and you stole it in order to possess it.
Any questions of how easy it is to copy, whether it deprives me of anything, whether you would or wouldn't have paid for it, etc., are moot. The act of taking something that is not yours is theft.
Which brings us back to piracy. None of these clowns is a pirate. Pirates are sailors who raid ships. These are pimply jagoffs who flood network connections and rip CDs onto torrents. Put them in a room with an actual pirate and they'd crap into their own mouths to get out.
Underwear full of PETN busts open locked cockpit door. Locked cockpit door stalls boxcutter. Boxcutter slices paper. Paper covers rock. Rock smashes scissors. I forget what the scissors do to lizard. Lizard poisons Spock.
You can make copies for your personal use. Who's to stop you? Who's to know?
Personal use could include waiting out the copyright.
But really, it's not your right to steal something just because you think it's historical. It belongs to the person it belongs to and not to you.
If you want to preserve it before it's in the public domain, buy it from the person who owns it. If it's at all valuable to you, you'll pay. And that's the point.
Copyright doesn't care about loss of actual revenue, only loss of potential revenue, but even in cases of zero potential revenue copyright may still apply.
I have a right to keep copies of my work from being printed as well as to print them, whether or not my work is available to the public.
If I choose to release my work for a few months every decade, then that's my choice, and anyone making copies of it without my permission in the interval is in violation of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what would happen if you rounded them up and took them out to a mine and gave them picks.
Do I hear...The Who?
The fame gave him access to unfamiliar women and turned him into a self-justifying douchebag. His protestation that the charges are false is not inconsistent with his pattern of antisocial behavior. The Swedish authorities have followed the letter of the law, protecting his rights while he cooperated then escalating their official interest in him when he skipped out. I doubt the CIA could have made it this seamless. Assange created that mess for himself, and it belies his pretense of being one of the good guys. That you're falling for it just proves why people like him can get away with things like that.
I wouldn't discount the possibility that Assange is a Chinese mole.
hard to tell where to start. maybe here: pizza hut also has pasta and a red-white-and-green theme. as far as "italian restaurant" goes, that qualifies it.
so it is just like that, because you're wrong about the "anti-US" thing.
it does have meaning. when something is labeled anti-US, it rouses political sentiment in pro-US individuals and organizations. it doesn't have to be true, it just has to ring true.
of course, in this case, it is true. if wikileaks wasn't anti-US, it wouldn't attack the US by damaging its diplomatic efforts around the world.
the OP is correct. Wikileaks has taken down material against other governments and companies and focusses on the US. until it resumes being egalitarian in its illegal behaviors, it will be undeniably anti-US.
elected doesn't always mean democratic
American civilians can be foreign spies
under this president, the CIA is not likely to be torturing anyone
terrorists deserve it
your facts are suspect
if this DDoS is the US government's doing, they're not doing very good at it, but then, they likely don't engage in spamming for profit so they wouldn't have that much practice at running a botnet
No doubt the moment he lands he'll be presented with a document to sign promising never to mention Ecuador in any release.
There are also laws in Australia that make it a crime for Australians to do this sort of thing to Australia's allies, of which the US is one.
You're attempting to define swedish law in un-swedish terms. They told him they didn't want to have unprotected sex, and later he did it anyway. Swedish authorities want to arrest him for that. Whether they call it "rape" or "sexual oppression" is merely a semantic issue, though in the media would be quite a bit more significant than the false distinction you're trying to make between calling someone with an arrest warrant open against him "suspected" or "alleged".
He's a confirmed douchebag and a vaulting hypocrite. No equivocation about that.
If the government is this dirty - then the people who voted them into power have a right to know. That's democracy.
That's true. However, the means by which they are being told is worse. The principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" means that the people who improperly classified the information should be convicted along with the people who leaked the information rather than demanding that it be properly declassified.
You're right. He's not a suspected rapist. He's an alleged rapist who is named in an arrest warrant. Oh wait. That makes him a suspected rapist. You're wrong.
a black turtleneck?
Because that's all it would take for me to infringe on his slightly dimmer sense of style.
every time you shower you're in danger of getting wet, and supporting socialist water works
I'd be willing to bet that in the past 5 years graphics technology has improved enough to make it worth replacing the whole guts of a console box with something newer.
I'd also be willing to bet that the economy being shite has reduced the disposable income of the planet to the point where profits on such a development program wouldn't be worth the effort.
But unemployed people have less money and more time, so selling them old technology still makes a pretty good incremental margin.
The effect it should have is that it should result in taking more care in classifying documents. It's expressly illegal for information to be classified merely because it's embarassing. And yet here we are with hundreds of thousands of documents, few of which have any direct bearing on anyone's safety, and the most journalistically interesting of which are merely embarassing. Rather than classifying more documents, it ought to lead to a drastic decrease in the number of documents that are classified.
The other effect it should have is that the entire diplomatic and military information security system should implement the security guidelines it already has in place. Manning should never have been allowed to bring his own media into the secure facility, much less download and remove the data. Security officers at the facilities where this occurred were not following existing procedures, and these leaks are evidence of that.
Copyright is a right.
Duration of copyright does not prevent preservation of existing copies that are in public hands. If the copyright holder has the only copy and does not care to preserve it, then offer him money for it.
When you reach the price he likes, you can have your copy of his property. Until then, you have no right to it, even if it's in danger of vanishing.
The right to copy is also the right to erase a copy, even if it's the only copy.
Which "European Scholarly Community"? The Vatican?
My opinion of religion is seated deeply because it's based on fact and persistent experience. The Church's habit of giving a coin to a poor kid to dispense its sin of murder is just one of those facts.
I don't deny that there are religious people who have advanced science. But if their science is at all in contravention of a church's teachings, they will find out about that church's position on knowledge.
No it didn't.
The church built its learning institutions on the model of others, and there were secular learning institutions alongside them.
The church is in conflict with the forces of reality. It has a long history of oppressing the free spread of knowledge, and of couching its tyrannies in the language of benevolence. And of coopting institutions and traditions and pretending they were the province of their religion all along. It's only typical that they would pretend to have invented higher education, and would call it open and free exchange of ideas.
Okay. You're not necessarily a pirate. You're just semantically misguided. The fact is, if you have something that belongs to me and you didn't pay me for it then either I gave it to you for free or you stole it. Even if you created the copy you possess. The content belongs to me, not you, and you stole it in order to possess it.
Any questions of how easy it is to copy, whether it deprives me of anything, whether you would or wouldn't have paid for it, etc., are moot. The act of taking something that is not yours is theft.
Which brings us back to piracy. None of these clowns is a pirate. Pirates are sailors who raid ships. These are pimply jagoffs who flood network connections and rip CDs onto torrents. Put them in a room with an actual pirate and they'd crap into their own mouths to get out.
I'm an author. Anonymous and their ilk are oppressing me by stealing my property. They're the ones who should piss off.
Three words:
Library. Of. Congress. If someone wants their work preserved, they'll submit it to the Copyright Office and it will end up there.
The rest of your issues are epistemological problems, not relevant to copyright.
The fact that you can't keep track of a book you once owned will never invalidate the rights of its author.
Really? You use GAAP in real-life situations? Really?
Underwear full of PETN busts open locked cockpit door. Locked cockpit door stalls boxcutter. Boxcutter slices paper. Paper covers rock. Rock smashes scissors. I forget what the scissors do to lizard. Lizard poisons Spock.
It's all very simple.
Bullshit.
You can make copies for your personal use. Who's to stop you? Who's to know?
Personal use could include waiting out the copyright.
But really, it's not your right to steal something just because you think it's historical. It belongs to the person it belongs to and not to you.
If you want to preserve it before it's in the public domain, buy it from the person who owns it. If it's at all valuable to you, you'll pay. And that's the point.
Copyright doesn't care about loss of actual revenue, only loss of potential revenue, but even in cases of zero potential revenue copyright may still apply.
I have a right to keep copies of my work from being printed as well as to print them, whether or not my work is available to the public.
If I choose to release my work for a few months every decade, then that's my choice, and anyone making copies of it without my permission in the interval is in violation of the law.