A sports reporter tweeted on Monday (this week or last week, i'm getting this second hand) that a ballplayer's suspension would be 5 games instead of 4.
Numerous outlets picked it up and ran it as news.
Thing is, he made it up. Deliberately. To demonstrate how many news outlets do zero confirmatory investigation before running stories.
So what did his employer do?
Fired him.
I.e., it's going to get worse before it gets better.
It sounds like it rests on evidence that he deliberately deceived at least one of the women in order to have sex with her, and (at least negligently) put one or both of them at risk of contracting an STD.
Say wikileaks is an accessory to Taliban revenge murders? Prove it.
Wikileaks, in contravention of law in effect in its then-present jurisdiction, and against the express wishes and warnings of the U.S. Government, gave the Taliban classified information that led the Taliban to kidnap, torture, or assassinate people named in that information.
Say US government is perpetrating a campaign of libel and intimidation against Assange? Prove it.
There is no evidence whatsoever of such a thing.
The prosecution at this point will rest, and watch the defense run around in circles trying to confuse the jury into believing that the evidence in the first case is false and the lack of evidence in the second is irrelevant.
But there's no justification to throw bodies in front of enemy fire by recklessly trying to make a point in the media. Especially when there were legal and safe means for the information to be used to make that point, and to be released to the public. Most especially when the law includes provisions for not retaliating against people who undertake those means.
I'm no tea-bagger, so I actually deal in truth and the rule of law when I say things. I'm not even a conservative.
So when I tell you that what Assange did broke the law in every jurisdiction he did it in, and has resulted in exactly the sort of grave harm that the information was originally classified to prevent, then you should believe that such things may in fact be true; and that your prejudices towards people who in the past have forcefully disagreed with you are not leading you to the correct assumption about the present case.
When Assange is informed that his actions are helping the Taliban kill people, and he keeps performing his actions anyway, then he is the same as any of the other Taliban who haven't actually sawed someone's head off.
As far as the security apparatus is concerned, the information is already in the hands of the enemy.
And whoever releases that key will be taking over Assange's place as the person most wanted for stealing the information.
The only legal - and right - thing to do is to identify all of the people who have the key. But Assange and his people aren't about doing the right thing, and certainly not about doing the legal thing.
Why didn't the USA invade Saudi Arabia, the UAE and/or Egypt?
Because the governments of those countries were not harboring the terrorist group to which those persons belonged.
The Taliban government of Afghanistan were. They were not willing to end al Quaeda. Quite the opposite. So we invaded Afghanistan to get to al Quaeda, and to end the Taliban as well.
At least that was the plan. The people in charge of the operation were clearly not desirous of actually accomplishing the mission, and were actually frightened of the image of a ground war in Hi-Def. They were far more interested in seeing people gape wide-eyed at distant explosions on the TV. Letting bin Laden get away didn't help their reputation, either. So when the big-boom shooting in Afghanistan stopped, they turned towards ratings-friendly Iraq. Aside from what the invasion of Iraq did for their prospects in the 2004 election, it actually had the strategic goal of, they hoped, causing a Domino Effect of countries acquiescing to Western diplomacy. Libya seems to have been the only taker (though they rightly attributed that to a decade of UFC-grade arm-twisting begun by the previous administration).
The new administration got into office partly by promising to end our involvement in the mess in Iraq, and has just now held up step 2 of that promise (step 1 was returning the focus to Afghanistan, which, for the obvious reason of the distraction of Iraq, was taking years and accomplishing little). It remains to be seen if Iraq is able to stand on its own. We still have a significant force there, but the "surge" that was supposed to nail down the popular turmoil long enough for a government to be formed simply didn't accomplish that. So we're un-surging and hoping that whatever happens it at least won't be by our hand.
If that didn't answer your question, I recommend rereading the Internet -- yes, all of it -- for the past 9-1/2 years.
Satellite controllers use the radar-tracking derived ephemeris data from NORAD. It's a simple matter of changing a search parameter in the data request to get the debris trajectories.
Slashdot Mirror
What Fox News is doing is tragedy, not comedy.
A sports reporter tweeted on Monday (this week or last week, i'm getting this second hand) that a ballplayer's suspension would be 5 games instead of 4.
Numerous outlets picked it up and ran it as news.
Thing is, he made it up. Deliberately. To demonstrate how many news outlets do zero confirmatory investigation before running stories.
So what did his employer do?
Fired him.
I.e., it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Right about here:
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/5226.html
Did you just compare a dude who is likely to have gotten a large number of people killed by decapitators, to Steve Garvey?
Given that Swedish society is matriarchal, they'd look at you like you're speaking Greek, then roll their eyes and go on about their day.
Why not? It's the truth.
As the man said, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
it doesn't sound like it rests on simple regret.
It sounds like it rests on evidence that he deliberately deceived at least one of the women in order to have sex with her, and (at least negligently) put one or both of them at risk of contracting an STD.
Google has search options to search a range of dates, you know.
Saying Assange is guilty of rape and/or molestation? Prove it.
Sweden's on that.
Say wikileaks is an accessory to Taliban revenge murders? Prove it.
Wikileaks, in contravention of law in effect in its then-present jurisdiction, and against the express wishes and warnings of the U.S. Government, gave the Taliban classified information that led the Taliban to kidnap, torture, or assassinate people named in that information.
Say US government is perpetrating a campaign of libel and intimidation against Assange? Prove it.
There is no evidence whatsoever of such a thing.
The prosecution at this point will rest, and watch the defense run around in circles trying to confuse the jury into believing that the evidence in the first case is false and the lack of evidence in the second is irrelevant.
That would be hearsay, and your example is why such a thing is not (generally) acceptable as evidence of a crime.
But if you had been one of the puppies, then your statement would be evidence.
Guess who these women are, in relation to the evidence against Assange.
How many members of Al Quaeda have set off a bomb? Quite a few, but proportionally not many.
What did the other members do? Basically, provided moral and intelligence support.
And what did Wikileaks do? Basically, provided moral and intelligence support, and conduction psyops against Al Quaeda's enemies.
Does that make Wikileaks the good guys, or basically the same as members of Al Quaeda who haven't yet set off a bomb?
That does make it difficult.
But there's no justification to throw bodies in front of enemy fire by recklessly trying to make a point in the media. Especially when there were legal and safe means for the information to be used to make that point, and to be released to the public. Most especially when the law includes provisions for not retaliating against people who undertake those means.
Actually, it does matter what the truth is.
I'm no tea-bagger, so I actually deal in truth and the rule of law when I say things. I'm not even a conservative.
So when I tell you that what Assange did broke the law in every jurisdiction he did it in, and has resulted in exactly the sort of grave harm that the information was originally classified to prevent, then you should believe that such things may in fact be true; and that your prejudices towards people who in the past have forcefully disagreed with you are not leading you to the correct assumption about the present case.
When Assange is informed that his actions are helping the Taliban kill people, and he keeps performing his actions anyway, then he is the same as any of the other Taliban who haven't actually sawed someone's head off.
As far as the security apparatus is concerned, the information is already in the hands of the enemy.
And whoever releases that key will be taking over Assange's place as the person most wanted for stealing the information.
The only legal - and right - thing to do is to identify all of the people who have the key. But Assange and his people aren't about doing the right thing, and certainly not about doing the legal thing.
Why didn't the USA invade Saudi Arabia, the UAE and/or Egypt?
Because the governments of those countries were not harboring the terrorist group to which those persons belonged.
The Taliban government of Afghanistan were. They were not willing to end al Quaeda. Quite the opposite. So we invaded Afghanistan to get to al Quaeda, and to end the Taliban as well.
At least that was the plan. The people in charge of the operation were clearly not desirous of actually accomplishing the mission, and were actually frightened of the image of a ground war in Hi-Def. They were far more interested in seeing people gape wide-eyed at distant explosions on the TV. Letting bin Laden get away didn't help their reputation, either. So when the big-boom shooting in Afghanistan stopped, they turned towards ratings-friendly Iraq. Aside from what the invasion of Iraq did for their prospects in the 2004 election, it actually had the strategic goal of, they hoped, causing a Domino Effect of countries acquiescing to Western diplomacy. Libya seems to have been the only taker (though they rightly attributed that to a decade of UFC-grade arm-twisting begun by the previous administration).
The new administration got into office partly by promising to end our involvement in the mess in Iraq, and has just now held up step 2 of that promise (step 1 was returning the focus to Afghanistan, which, for the obvious reason of the distraction of Iraq, was taking years and accomplishing little). It remains to be seen if Iraq is able to stand on its own. We still have a significant force there, but the "surge" that was supposed to nail down the popular turmoil long enough for a government to be formed simply didn't accomplish that. So we're un-surging and hoping that whatever happens it at least won't be by our hand.
If that didn't answer your question, I recommend rereading the Internet -- yes, all of it -- for the past 9-1/2 years.
Everyone at Cisco knows this.
Everyone in their customer list is on their own.
We've been over this many times before, and we already know what the solution will be, when we are ready to commit to it.
One hit can ruin a billion-dollar project, and create a multi-billion dollar investigation and recovery effort.
The shit needs to be cleaned up.
Actually it's the same problem.
Satellite controllers use the radar-tracking derived ephemeris data from NORAD. It's a simple matter of changing a search parameter in the data request to get the debris trajectories.
It's the only way Canadians can get a girl wet.
Second dumbest.
The less anonymous they are, the harder it is to disappear them.
I'm pretty sure stealing secrets or conspiring to steal secrets is against the law no matter who you are or who you do it to.
I'm completely certain (because I've seen the law) that they broke Australian law by stealing America's secrets.
And it's a given that they're not going to live peaceful lives ever again, nor have they done a thing to make anyone else safer.
IIRC, they also deliberately hired both tall and short women, and assigned the appropriate subset of connections to each.